Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
JUDICIAL ETHICS
A.
B.
judgment (TEN MONTHS), that resp had acquitted the accused, and that ntiehr judge
nor his clerk of court were present during the promulgation (in contravention of Sec. 6,
Rule 130 of RoC). Impropriety: resp was also often seen with Atty Vic Agravante,
counsel for the accused.
Resp attributed delay to voluminous work load (handled two salas) and was suffering
hypertension, denied any irregularity in the promulgation which was duly conducted by
the clerk of court in the presence of accused and his counsel.
The Office of the Court Administrator conducted an investigation and found that resp
failed to decide the case in the 90-day period required but found no irregularit y in the
promulgation nor gross ignorance of the law. Also found resp guilty for impropriety for
his close association with Agravante.
SC: judge should have asked for an extension of time to decide the case and explain
why.
SC: Canon 2, rule 2.01, 2.09 (judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
the same)
Complaint of ignorance of the law: DISMISSED (no basis). Delay in decision: TWO
THOUSAND PESOS. ADMONISHED for dealings with lawyers who have pending
cases before him.
1. DEFINITIONS
In this Code, unless the context otherwise permits or requires, the following meanings shall be attributed to
the words used:
Court staff includes the personal staff of the judge including law clerks.
Judge means any person exercising judicial power, however designated.
Judges family includes a judges spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-inlaw, and any other relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the sixth civil degree, or person who is a companion or employee of the
judge and who lives in the judges household.
2. Canons
a. Canon 1 Independence
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
resp is guilty of falsification because certification of having decided all cases is requried
before a judge can draw her salaries.
(5) Jesus Alba charges resp with gross incompetence, partiality, and knowingly
rendering an unjust decision. Accused was acquitted in this case with Alba contending that
resp erred in her appreciation of the credibility of the witnesses. The decision was also
promulgated in the absence of complainant and his counsel
(6)
- Respondent clearly failed to manage her court with a view of prompt and convenient
disposition of cases, failed to act with reasonable dispatch reuired of judicial officers.
PATENT BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST.
-Respondent has shown herself to be mentally and morally unfit to remain in her office.
- DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay,
with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government.
123. Libarios v. Dabalos, AM RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991
- Charged with grave ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discredtion, gross misconduct,
partiality
- March 1988: former Myor Mariano Corvero Sr. was shot by Pablo Macapas inside the
courtroom of resp for a frustrated murder case against Macapas. Mayor Tranquilino Calo
Jr. was the counsel for Cacapas. A charge or murder was filed against Macapas, Calo Jr.
and others.
- Information was signed by the fiscal, Calo jr. filed for an MR. A TRO was issue to enjoin
the Fiscal from acting on the MR and proceeding the preliminary investigation. The TRO
expired, with no preliminary injunciton issued
- Before the MR could be resolved, the investigating fiscal was gunned down. Another
murder charge was filed against Calo Jr. and 4 others.
- A rally was held demanding the immediate arrest of the accused, with the sympathizers
personally seeing the judge in his chambers. Without any prior hearing, resp issued a
warrant of arrest against the accused and fixed the bail time for the accused at P50,000
each. Resp judge fixed bail for the other accused despite a NO BAIL recommendation and
resp stated that the evidence of guilt was merely circumstantial. The accused were
released on bail
-The CA issued a resolution restraining the execution of resps order, stating that it was
issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The
warrants of arrest and bail bonds were declared void and the court of origin was ordered
to immediately serve new warrants of arrest
- The impartiality of the judge is questioned on the groun of his close association with
Calo J (had appeared as associate of accused in a case, resp denied being a law
partner). Complainant alleges that resp disregarded Sec 5, Rule 114 of the Rule of Crim
Pro, which require hearing before an accused charged with a capital offense can be
granted bail.
- In his defense, respondent judge argues that the stated rule is applicable only to cases
where accused were already in custody, but none of the accused were being detained at
the time their application for bail was acted upon
- SC: in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge done in his
judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even if errrnoeous. However, in
every case, a judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain facts and applicable law
unswayed by personal interests. Respondent should not have allowed himself to be
swayed in issuing an order fixing bail without a hearing, which is contrary to established
principle of law. A judge owes it to the public and to justice to know the law and apply it.
There will be faith in the administration of justice only when the bench cannot be accused
of deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.
- As a rule when a person is accused of a capital offense, a hearing must be conducted to
allow the prosecution tp prove that evidence is strong, before resolving the issue of bail.
Failure to do so in this case amounted to a violation of due process. Irrespective of the
judges opinion on the evidence of guilt, hearing is still required by law. His association
with Calo Jr. also demanded that he should have refrained from his acts to avoid doubt to
his impartiality.
- FINE OF P20,000, WARNING
124. Sabitsana Jr. v. Villamor, AM 90-474, October 4, 1991
judicial conduct required to be observed by members of the Bench. They constitute gross misconduct which is
punishable under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court
127. Salud v. Alumbres, AM RTJ-00-159, June 23, 2003
- Undue delay of resolution in a civil case on the double sale of a parcel of land. Owners
spouses Forneza managed to sell the same property twice in four days (Deed of Sale,
Contract to Sell as respective evidence). The Salud spouses were the first buyers (in good
faith).
- Resp judge issued an Alias Write of Execution stating that judgment is now final and
executory, notwithstanding pendency of appeal. Salud spouses filed petition for ceritorari
before CA with a prayer to temporarily rstrain RTC from enforcing orders. Laurito spouses
(other buyers) filed a motion to declare a TRO vacated and the early resolution of the
case.
- Salud then filed with the OCA praying that the resp be found adm. Liable for delay in
rendering judgment (period from May to August 1997 but without resolution, another case
before resp also had the litigants waiting 6 months for judgment). Judgment was issued
fifteen months later.
- Resp blames delay oncomplainant, who allegedly filed numerous pleadings. Since more
than 1 year has lapsed, he nol longer has jusirsdiction over the case and should not be
ordered to explain.
SC: Delay ultimately affects the image of the judiciary. Failure to comply with the
Constitution and the Code of Judicial Condicy constitutes serious misconduct dterimental
to the honr and integrity of the judicial office. The harassment techniques against the
judge may be considered mitigating circumjstances. Even after the judge has retired, he
may still be held administratively liable.
FINED P5,000. Deducted from retirement benefits of resp
b.
Canon 2 Integrity
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal
demeanor of judges.
i.
ii.
iii.
authority (ordered the release of 25,000 sacks to claimants notwithstanding the pendency
of seizure and forfeiture proceedings before Bureau of Customs). Second: respondents
orders falsely stated that complainants ina Special Proceeding Case (Intestate Estate of
Simeon Rallos) were present during the hearing on March 15, 1999
- First case (Dec 1998), PNP, Coast Guard, BOC had withheld 25,000 sacks of rice on
board a vessel allegedly from Palawan to be unloaded in Cebu. Complainants filed a
complaint for injunctionw tih prayer for TRO. Resp judge ruled that BOC had no
jurisdiction since goods were not imported, smugggled, or apprehended outside the
customs zone.
- Second case: complainants and counsel went to Branch 5 to attend a hearing, only to be
informed the case was not calendared. They learned the hearing was held 2 days earlier.
A copy of the Order, judge stated that oppositors and counsel are also around.
- SC: Disposition of first case should be held in abeyrance (prejudicial question). Second
case: it was improper for the judge. The Court is not convinced that ut was a harmless
error caused by mental fatigue since the presence of complainants and counsel refers to a
sdubstantial matterl.
- GUILTY OF GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, PARTIALITY, aggravated by
dishonesty. FINE P10,000. STERNLY WARNED.
130. Manzon v. Judge Perello, AM RTJ-02-1686, May 7, 2004
- Letter-complaint: dereliction of duty relative a civil cases (damages), unacted upon for
three years despite several follow-ups
- Reso explauined she directed parties to file position purpose on the courts jurisdiction
(MeTC should have covered), also claimed Clerk of Courts purposely withheld records,
that Manzon failed to prosecute. Attributed delay to complainants negligence abetted by
her own court personnel.
- SC reprimanded Perello for incompetence. Resp filed for MR. It was discovered that the
case was no reported in the monthly, qurterly, annual reports despite her adoption of a
system of case flow and management. Admission that acse was not in reports an
aggravating circumstance, penalty increased to a fine.
- Duity of the judge to see that court personnal faithfully perform their functions. Proper
Court management under Rule 3.09.
- FINE of P 5,000. WARNING
c.
Canon 3 Impartiality
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Canon 4 Propriety
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a
judge.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
with the directive, the OCA charged resp with gross misconduct and grave abuse of
authority.
The SC required rsp to comment on the complaint. Respondent failed to comply. Resp
stated he and his counsel were never furnished a copy of the complaint.
- Respondent claims his patience were stretched by the discourtesy of Atty. Oclarit to the
court.
- Rule 3.04 should be apatient, attentive, and courteous to all lawyers. A judge should
be the last person to be perceived as a petty tyrant holding imperious sway over the court.
Unceremoniously citing Atty. Oclarit In contempt while declaring to himself as having
absolute power is clear evidence of his unjustified use of authority vested upon him.
- GUILTY OF GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY AND SIMPLE MISCONDUCT.
REPRIMANDED, STERNLY WARNED.
137. J. King and Sons v. Hontanosas, 438 SCRA 264
Complainant alleges that it is the plaintiff in a case pending before the RTC presided over by respondent.
Respondent issued an Order granting the application for writ of preliminary attachment. An urgent motion to
discharge and lift writ of preliminary attachment was filed by defendants before the respondent and on the same day,
respondent issued an Order lifting the writ of preliminary attachment. Said Order was issued sans proper notice and
hearing as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent approved defendants counter-bond despite
knowledge that the bonding companys Supreme Court Clearance was not valid and the maximum net retention of
the bonding company had a deficiency. At a meeting in his house, respondent asked Rafael King to match
defendants offer to pay P250,000.00 so that the Order of July 5, 2002 will be reconsidered formally if a motion for
reconsideration is filed by complainant. Respondents favorite hang-out is the karaoke music lounge of Metropolis
Hotel owned by herein complainant, and he uses said facilities "gratis et amore."
Held:
We agree with the Investigating Justices finding that respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for
not holding a full-blown hearing on the motion to lift attachment and for violating the three-day notice rule.
Respondent acted with indecent haste in immediately holding a hearing on the motion to lift attachment filed
only a few minutes before said hearing, in considering the same submitted for resolution, and in issuing the order
lifting the writ of preliminary attachment and approving the counter-bond, all on the same day without giving
complainant the opportunity to be heard on the matter.
It is has been oft repeated that judges cannot be held to account or answer criminally, civilly or
administratively for an erroneous judgment of decision rendered by him in good faith, or in the absence of fraud,
dishonesty or corruption. However, it has also been held that when the law violated is elementary, a judge is subject
to disciplinary action. The principles of due notice and hearing are so basic that respondents inability to accord a
litigant their right thereto cannot be excused. In this case, we believe that respondents actuations reek of malice and
bad faith. Thus, we find respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law for violating the three-day notice rule and
failing to give herein complainant due notice and the opportunity to be heard on the matter
As to the matter of the approval of the counter-bond, respondent utterly failed to exercise due care in
examining the supporting papers. The respondent should know the basic requirements before approving a surety
bond or a judicial bond such as counter-bond.
It is indeed grossly improper for respondent to meet with a litigant at his home and to frequent the karaoke
bar owned by such litigant, enjoying the use thereof for free. Respondent thereby received benefits from a litigant
appearing in his court. Respondents defense that his wife offered to pay but the management of the karaoke bar did
not allow her to do so, is feeble. The testimonies of the waiters at said bar are quite clear that respondents wife
would sign the order slips, but no payment was ever given by respondent or his wife. Respondent should have
insisted on paying, especially considering that complainant has a total of three cases pending before his court. By
entertaining a litigant in his home and receiving benefits given by said litigant, respondent miserably failed to live up
to the standards of judicial conduct.
Insistence on personal integrity and honesty as indispensable qualifications for judicial office reflect an
awareness in the legal profession of the immensity of the damage that can be done to the legal order by judicial
corruption.
138. Re: Judge Edmundo Acuna, 464 SCRA 250
-Nov. 21, 2003, OCA received a letter from Concerned citizens of the lower court
reporting the alleged practices of Acuna (RTC, Caloocan City). (a) conducted trals,
signed orders, and sentenced accused while on official leave, (b) use of favorite
expressions such as putris anak ng pating putang ina tulungan nyo naman ako,
hirap na hirap na ko (c) love to berate and embarrass people, not caring whether he
speaks in open court, (d) decisions take about seven to ten drafts because he frequently
changed his mind (e) weird behavior
-Respondent claimed the letter was an attempt to harass him and that the allegations
were fabricated.
- He was actually not on leave in some of the trials he conducted. He claimed the other
cases were conducted because he decided to defer his leave for another leave since his
other siblings had not yet secured visas to Canada to attend his brothers funeral.
- His weird behavior was attributed to the death of his eldest son (also a lawyer). Resp
admitted to making some of the humiliating statements.
- The Court agrees that his expressions were unfit for men of the robe. Findings show that
he conducted hearings on the honest belief he could defer his leave but the resp should
bear in mind that approved leave are filed through official documents and should exercise
utmost caution regarding these matters.
- A judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety. Judges are
demanded to be always temperate, and courteous in both conduct and language. A judge
should behave to promote public confidence in the judiciary.
GUILTY OF IMPROPRIETY, REPRIMANDED, STERNLY WARNED
139. Manansala III v. Asdala, AM RTJ-05-1916, May 10, 2005
- Winfried Herbst, German national, was detained at a police station, QC for breaking a
glass wall in the office of the complainant. Resp of the RTC requested for the release of
Herbst into her custody. She sent Sheriff (personnel ofresps court, still in unicorm)
Cabigao to retrieve the car of Mr. Herbst.
- Appearing on DIRECT CONNECT a TV show of Atty Batas Mauricio, complainant aired
respondents alleged meddling in the case against Hebrst. The respondents side was also
aired through telephone.
- Resp filed a complaint for libel.
- Complaint alleged that resp was using the influence of her office in an irregular and
improper manner and must be held liable for palpable abuse of authority or
plainmisconduct.
- Sending her court personnel to retrieve Herbsts car was improper. A judge must instill in
court personnel a sense of propriety in the performance of judicial functions. The
respondent should be aware that the slightest irregulalirty in the conduct of court officers
can detract from the dignity of the court and erode the faith of the people in the judiciary.
- Rule 2.01 (behave to rpomote public confidence), Rule 2.04 (refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation)
- GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT, FINED WITH P40,000, STERN WARNING
140. In re: Designation of Judge Rodolfo Manzano, AM 88-7-1861-RTC, October 5,
1988
Facts:
Judge Manzano filed a petition allowing him to accept the appointment by Ilocos Sur Governor Rodolfo Farinas as the
member of Ilocos Norte provincial Committee on Justice created pursuant to a Presidential Order. He petitioned that
his membership in the Committee will not in any way amount to an abandonment to his present position as Executive
Judge of Branch XIX, RTC, 1st Judicial region and as a member of judiciary.
Issue:
What is an administrative agency? Where does it draw the line insofar as administrative functions are concerned?
Ruling:
The petition is denied. The Constitution prohibits the designation of members of the Judiciary to any agency
performing Quasi-Judicial or Administrative functions (Sec.12,Art.VIII, 1987 Constitution).
Quasi-Judicial has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from participating in the work of any
Administrative Agency which adjudicates disputes & controversies involving the rights of parties within its jurisdiction.
10
Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct & affairs of individuals
for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the Legislature or
such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.
Administrative functions as used in Sec. 12 refers to the Governments executive machinery and its performance of
governmental acts. It refers to the management actions, determinations, and orders of executive officials as they
administer the laws and try to make government effective. There is an element of positive action, of supervision or
control.
In the dissenting opinion of Justice Gutierrez:
Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals
for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or
such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence we can readily see that
membership in the Provincial or City Committee on Justice would not involve any regulation or control over the
conduct and affairs of individuals. Neither will the Committee on Justice promulgate rules and regulations nor
exercise any quasi-legislative functions. Its work is purely advisory. A member of the judiciary joining any study group
which concentrates on the administration of justice as long as the group merely deliberates on problems involving the
speedy disposition of cases particularly those involving the poor and needy litigants-or detainees, pools the expertise
and experiences of the members, and limits itself to recommendations which may be adopted or rejected by those
who have the power to legislate or administer the particular function involved in their implementation
11
e.
Canon 5 Equality
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.
i. Sec 1 Understand the diversity in society
ii. Sec 2 Not to manifest bias or prejudice
iii. Sec 3 Not to differentiate
iv. Sec 4 Not to influence staff
v. Sec 5 Attitude to parties appearing in court
Cases:
143. Judge Dojillo, Jr. v. Ching, AM P-06-2245, July 31, 2009
COMPLAINT DISMISSED. ADMONISHED.
144. Panes, Jr. v. Judge Dinopol, RTC, Br 24, Koronadal City, AM OCA-IPI 07-2618-RTJ,
February 12, 2013
145. Atty. Gloria Lastimosa-Dalawampu v. Judge Yrastorza, AM RTJ-03-1793, 5 February
2004
146. Navarro v. Tormis, AM MTJ-00-1937, April 27, 2004
147. Mataga v. Rosete, AM MTJ-03-1488, October 13, 2004
f.
12