San Beda College of Manila

College of Law

Case Digests
JUDICIAL ETHICS

March 3, 2015
Basic Legal Ethics
Judge Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega
1st year Block O

Canon 1:
INDEPENDENCE

RE: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vazquez Jr. on CA-GR SP No. 103692
A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA
October 15, 2008
Facts:
When Justice Reyes, then Chairperson of the Ninth Division of the CA, filed an application
for leave, Justice Mendoza was designated by the Raffle Committee as Acting Chairman during
his absence. However, when a case involving Meralco against the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) came up, Justice Mendoza
said that he was inhibiting from the case on the ground that he used to be a lawyer of Meralco.
Hence, an Emergency Request for Raffle was made and Justice Sabio was assigned as Acting
Chairman of the Ninth Division in lieu of Justice Mendoza.
Later that day, Justice Sabio received a telephone call in his chambers from his older brother,
Chairman Sabio of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Chairman Sabio
tried to convince him of the rightness of the stand of the GSIS and the SEC, and asked him to
help the GSIS, which represents the interest of the poor people. Justice Sabio told his brother that
he would vote according to his conscience and that the most that he could do was to have the
issuance of the TRO and the injunctive relief scheduled for oral arguments, at which the
respondents must be able to convince him that the TRO indeed had no legal basis.
Justice Roxas brought to the office of Justice Sabio, for the latters signature, the TRO which
he had prepared, already signed by himself and Justice Dimaranan-Vidal. Convinced of the
urgency of the TRO, Justice Sabio signed it on condition that the case will be set for oral
arguments. They later issued the Resolution granting the TRO prayed for by the petitioners and
directed the respondents to file their respective comments to the petition within ten days from
notice.
The next day, Justice Sabio received a cellular phone call from Mr. De Borja, a person he had
lost contact with for almost a year already. Mr. De Borja greeted him with: Mabuhay ka,
Justice and told him that the Makati Business Club was happy with his having signed the TRO,
to which Justice Sabio retorted, I voted according to my conscience.
When Justice Reyes reported back to work, the Division Clerk of Court, Atty. Custodio,
delivered to him the cartilla of the Meralco case, and informed him on the schedule of the
hearing on the prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. However, on the same day,
Atty. Custodio came back to retrieve the cartilla upon demand of Justice Sabio. Justice Reyes
instructed his staff to return the cartilla. Personally affronted by the domineering and superior
stance of Justice Sabio, Justice Reyes read and re-read the provisions of the Process of
Adjudication until he was satisfied that he should be the one to sit as Division Chairman in the
Meralco case.
When Justice Sabio requested the rollo of the case from Justice Roxas, the latter asked him
whether Justice Reyes would preside over the hearing. Justice Sabio explained the reason why
he, not Justice Reyes, should preside. The next day, Atty. Custodio told Justice Sabio that the
rollo was with Justice Reyes. When the rollo was eventually transmitted to Justice Sabio, Atty.
Custodio asked him whether the rollo should be with Justice Reyes. Justice Sabio explained why
the rollo should be with him. When Justice Reyes asked Atty. Custodio to report on what
transpired between her and Justice Sabio when she returned the cartilla, she was teary-eyed and
begged off from making a report.
3

Despite Justice Reyes efforts to prove that he, and not Justice Sabio, should preside over the
case, as affirmed by Justice Cruz, the Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, Justice Sabio still
insisted that he would preside over the hearing of the case and said that the opinion of Justice
Cruz, who was junior to Justice Sabio, was no better than his own opinion. The Presiding
Justice did not do anything anymore to prevent an unpalatable situation at the scheduled hearing,
and said that it would be better if Justices Reyes and Sabio could settle it between themselves.
On the day of the hearing, Justice Reyes informed the Office of the Division Clerk of Court
that he could not preside as Justice Sabio had apparently hardened his position and he wanted to
avoid an ugly spectacle. Hence, Justice Sabio presided with Justices Roxas and DimarananVidal.
Soon after, Mr. De Borja again called up Justice Sabio, seeking to meet with him for an
important matter. De Borja asked him to give way to Justice Reyes in consideration of P10
Million. Justice Sabio declined the offer and left. The next day, to stop Mr. De Borja from
pestering him with phone calls and text messages, Justice Sabio called him and rejected the offer
with finality.
Later on, Justice Reyes went to see Justice Sabio and told him of his concern for being
charged with nonfeasance for not doing his job. Justice Sabio told him that he had been teaching
the subject for years and their case is not one of nonfeasance.
Meralco filed an urgent motion praying that Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship of the
Division. Justice Roxas personally filed with the Presiding Justice an Interpleader Petition
praying that Presiding Justice Vasquez decide which division Chairman should sign the
Preliminary Injunction or Decision. Justice Roxas averred that the impasse between two
Chairmen from two Divisions has to be resolved much earlier than July 30, 2008 because July
30, 2008 is the expiration date of the TRO issued by the Special 9th Division. The Presiding
Justice told Justice Roxas that he would study the matter. Justice Roxas endorsed his
Interpleader Petition to Justice Reyes for his signature or dissent to the finalized
MERALCO Decision, which had been in Justice Reyes possession since July 14, 2008. He also
gave the rollo of the case to Justice Reyes.
On July 23, 2008, Presiding Justice Vasquez asked for the rollo of the case so he could
properly submit the requested opinion. However, when Justice Reyes Justice Reyes had not yet
received any reaction from the Presiding Justice at noon of that day, he signed the decision as
well as the Certification. It was promulgated on the same day. The decision was promulgated
without waiting for the Presiding Justices opinion on whether it was the Eighth or Special Ninth
Division that should decide the case. Justice Roxas alleged that he did not expect the Presiding
Justice to answer or resolve the matter anyway. When the Presiding Justice issued his reply to
Justice Roxass petition, he was surprised when Justice Sabio informed him that a decision had
already been promulgated in the Meralco case the previous day. Hence, Presiding Justice
Vasquez wrote to the court for appropriate action on the much publicized dispute and charges of
impropriety among the justices involved in the Meralco case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Justice Sabio has committed a violation of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct.

HELD:
Yes. Justice Sabios improper conversation with his brother, PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio,
was a flagrant transgression of several judicial ethical principles. By allowing his brother to
influence his conduct in the Meralco case, Justice Sabio violated Sections 1, 4, and 5, Canon 1
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, impressing upon magistrates the duty to uphold judicial
independence. It raised serious questions on his integrity and independence. A judge should not
allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The
prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. By continuing his
participation in the case, he unduly gave the impression that he could be influenced by external
factors or forces.
By meeting with De Borja, entertaining his calls on several instances, and discussing the
Meralco case, Justice Sabio broke the shield of confidentiality that covers the disposition of
cases in court in violation of Section 9, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which
prohibits judges from using or disclosing any confidential information acquired by them for any
other purpose related to their judicial duties. It was highly improper for him to fraternize with De
Borja, whom he knew from the past as a broker, who had actually given him monetary
consideration while he was a sitting judge in Cagayan de Oro City, and who was now interested
in the Meralco-GSIS case.
He also ignored Section 3, Canon 3 of the same Code, mandating that judges shall, so far as
is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary
for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
Being aware of the persuasions around him, Justice Sabio ought to have recused himself
from the case to preclude all doubts on his ability to dispense justice impartially. In not doing so,
Justice Sabio ignored the rule that a judge should not take part in a proceeding where his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. By failing to distance himself from a case where his
impartiality and integrity could be tainted, Justice Sabio ran afoul of Section 5, Canon 3 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct which states that judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter
impartially.
Hence, the Motion for Reconsideration of the September 9, 2008 court decision, where
Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. is found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct
unbecoming of a justice of the Court of Appeals and is suspended for two (2) months without
pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe
penalty, is DENIED WITH FINALITY.

DIETA, Ma. Carmela L.

5

Marces v. Judge Arcanghel

A.M. No. RTJ-91-712
July 9, 1996
Facts:
The families of Marces, Sr., and Caas had strained relations after the latters domestic
helper sought the formers help for alleged maltreatment she had received from her employers.
Ben, as the incumbent Purok leader, referred the matter to the barangay authorities. Years after,
Ben was arrested on the basis of the alias warrants of arrest handed to the policeman by Mrs.
Flordeliza Caas. The warrants had been issued by MTCC Judge Edipolo Sarabia, upon Judge
Arcanghels request, for violations of BP Blg. 22. This was evidenced by (1) a handwritten note
of Judge Arcanghel addressed to Judge Sarabia requesting the issuance of the warrants and (2) a
certification by the Clerk of Court of the MTCC-Davao City. Ben claims that Judge Arcanghel
attended the mediation conference between the two families held at the barangay and even
introduced himself as the Executive Judge of the RTC of Davao City. One night, armed men in
uniform arrived in two military vehicles and arrested members of Bens family as ordered by
Col. Nelson Estares. Ben filed a complaint against Judge Arcanghel charging him with serious
misconduct, grave abuse of authority, harassment, and immorality.
Judge Arcanghel, in his Comment, admitted that he requested Judge Sarabia to issue the
warrants albeit he claimed that the warrants were valid, having been issued in connection with
pending cases. He claimed, however, that he attended the mediation proceedings because he filed
his own complaint against Ruth and Lydia.
Issue:
Whether or not the complaint is meritorious
Held:
Judge Arcanghel is guilty of improper conduct. His claim that he filed a complaint at the
same day the mediation conference was held is belied by the fact that his complaint was only
filed at a later date. The allegation of Ben that the arrest of the members of his family would not
have been made without the intervention of Judge Arcanghel was proven by substantial and
convincing evidence. He also acted improperly in accompanying Wilfredo Caas to Col. Nelson
Estares who ordered the arrest of complainant and members of the latters family. It would have
been impossible for the Caas family to procure the arrest of Ben and of members of his family
were it not for his intervention. Anent the issuance of the warrant, his justification is untenable
since even if Ben has been able to evade service of the warrants because of connections, it would
not be an excuse for him to use his own influence.
The actuations of Judge Arcanghel are improper and censurable. He is the visible
representation of the law, the intermediary between conflicting interests, and the embodiment of
the peoples sense of justice. Unless it was a case filed with his court, it was improper for him to
intervene in a dispute or controversy. Interference by members of the bench in pending suits
with the end in view of influencing the course or the result of litigation does not only subvert the
independence of the judiciary but also undermines the peoples faith in its integrity and
impartiality (Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Villamor).
ADINA, Angelo Ray A.
6

Hurtado v. Judalena
G. R. NO. L-40603
July 13, 1978
Facts:
The private respondent Isabel G. Judalena filed a complaint against the petitioner
Palmarin Q. Hurtado before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte which was docketed
therein as Civil Case No. 485IV. The substance of the complaint is that Isabel G. Judalena had
sold a portion, containing an area of 75 square meters of her parcel of land to Palmarin Q.
Hurtado, with the condition that the latter shall cause a subdivision survey of the portion sold in
order to segregate said portion from the bigger portion, after which the said Palmarin Hurtado
shall construct a concrete fence between the two lots, but that the said Palmarin Hurtado contrary
to their agreement, built a concrete fence much beyond the 75 square meters portion and started
construction of a house on the encroached portion. Isabel Judalena prayed for a writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain Hurtado from construction the house mentioned on the
controverted parcel of land. Palmarin Q. Hurtado filed his answer thereto, denying the claim of
Judalena. On April 2, 1975, the respondent Judge Arsenio Gonong, his close relationship with
Isabel G. Judalena notwithstanding, and despite the prohibition imposed by Section 1, Rule 137
of the Revised Rules of Court, 3 issued an order, exparte. Directing the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P1,000.00. April 5, 1975, the
respondent judge issued an order voluntarily disqualifying himself from hearing the case in view
of his close relationship with the plaintiff. On April 10, 1975, Palmarin Q. Hurtado filed a
motion for the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction in order to preserve the status quo
until the designation of another judge to try the case. Respondent judge, however, denied the
motion on April 21, 1975. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether

or

not

respondent

judge

violated

the

Code

of

Judicial

Ethics.

Held:
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates without ambiguity the
cases in which any judge or judicial officer is disqualified from acting as such. The said section,
in no uncertain terms, expressly prohibits a judge or judicial officer from sitting in a case where
he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguity or affinity. This is mandatory.
In the case at bar, it is not denied that the respondent judge is the brother of the respondent Isabel
G. Judalena and their close relationship notwithstanding, and despite the prohibition mentioned
above, the respondent judge took cognizance of the case and issued the controversial order
directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, after which he inhibited himself from
sitting on the case for the same reasons. Such action, to our mind, is reprehensible as it erodes
the all-important confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

CANTOS, Leula Dianne

7

Re: Suspension of Clerk of Court Rogelio R. Jocobo

A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC
August 12, 1998
Facts:
Judge Bonifacio Maceda, then Acting Executive Judge of the RTC Branch 16, Naval,
Biliran, filed a series of complaints against Atty. Rogelio Jocobo, then Branch Clerk of Court of
the same RTC. In return, Atty. Jocobo filed a series of counter-complaints against Judge Maceda.
Judge Maceda charges Atty. Bocobo on the following grounds: (1) Infidelity in the Custody of
the Case Records, (2) Dishonesty, (3) Sabotaging Judicial Reforms, (4) Grave Misconduct,
Usurpation of Judicial Authority, Tampering of Subpoena, (5) Insubordination, (6) Falsification
of Accomplishment of Certificate Service and (7) Agitating Workers to go on Mass Leave and
Notorious Undesirability.
Atty. Bocobos charges against Judge Maceda are: (1) Oppression, (2) Continuing
Oppression, (3) Gross Ignorance of Law, (4) Gross Abuse of Discretion Using his Position, and
(6) Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge.
The controversy began when Atty. Bocobo was suspended by Judge Maceda after losing
certain records in certain civil cases which he could not be accounted for. On his answer Atty.
Bocobo said that Judge Maceda and Mr. Amante, a court personnel, had similar access on the
missing records, hence, he cannot be solely blamed on the incident. Atty. Bocobo challenged the
suspension order by the judge contending that only the Supreme Court can suspend him thus,
filed a charge againts him for Gross Abuse of Discretion Using his Position. A second complaint
againts Atty. Bocobo was filed for failure to disclose the information relative to the absence of
an accused and his counsel on a certain Criminal Case and further alleged that he usurped the
judges judicial position by adding words to adjust the hearing of a certain case; however, he
denied such allegation. Atty. Bocobo filed a complaint of oppression, and continuous oppression,
after Judge Maceda, allegedly, scolded him in front of the accused on a certain criminal case.
The judge denied the allegations and filed further complaints against Atty. Bocobo for
sabotaging judicial reforms introduced by the judge himself and that by agitating wokers to do
mass protest, by falsifying certificates of service and being absent even without the consent of
the judge thus, showing insubordination. Atty. Bocobo, on his counter-complaints, further
charges the judge with conduct of unbecoming a judge for a series of acts shown by the latter
while enforcing his disciplinary measures against the former and for the judges refusal to sign
certificates of service of his Clerk of Court which resulted to the withholding of the latters
salary.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Atty. Bocobo is guilty of the charged complaints.
2. Whether or not Judge Maceda is guilty of the charged complaints.
Held:
1. Atty. Bocobo is guilty of: Infidelity in the Custody of Court Records, Usurpation of
Judicial Authority, Grave Misconduct and Tampering Subpoena in Crim. Case No. 1536,
Falsification of Certificates of Service, Misconduct for attempting to utilize court employees for
the ends of the local IBP and Absence Without Official Leave. Atty. Bocobo has the
8

responsibility on the court records and cannot be blamed to other people. Further, he should not
have added phrase on the subpoena for it is beyond his duty as Clerk of Court. Also, he should
have been mindful on his absences knowing that his leave was still not signed and still pending.
He should have shown respect and proper subordination to the judge and should not have utilized
his position as clerk of court to carry out his job as an IBP officer. His job as a clerk of court
must be separated on his job as an IBP officer. Therefore, Atty. Bocobo is hereby fined P20,000
while all other against him are dismissed.
2. No. The charges against him are lack of merit. Judge Macedas acts are justifiable for
he has the authority to discipline his subordinates. He has the authority to sanction and suspend
the acts of his subordinates as measures to have efficient performance on the acts of his
subordinates. However, he is admonished for abusing his authority by unjustly refusing to sign
the certificates of service of his clerk of court which resulted to the withholding of the latters
salary.

ROMANO, Jerwin Richard N.

9

Tan v. Rosete
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563
September 8, 2004
Facts:
This is an instant complaint filed by Lucila Tan, complainant, against Judge Maxwel S.
Rosete, respondent, for violation of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). Complainant has two criminal complaints pending before
MTC Branch 58, San Juan, Metro Manila, presided by respondent judge. It was alleged that
respondent judge sent his staff to talk to complainant and asked for P150,000.00 in exchange for
non-dismissal of complainants cases. Complainant was given unsigned draft copies of judges
decision dismissing her case. Complainant did not accede to respondents demand. Thereafter,
the criminal cases were eventually dismissed.
Respondent, in his comment, denied the allegations and stated instead that it was the
complainant who attempted to bribe him by offering to pay for the downpayment of the car he
was planning to buy, and she even sought the intervention of then San Juan Mayor Jinggoy
Estrada to persuade him to rule for the complainants criminal complaints.
Administrative hearings were conducted. Complainant presented the unsigned draft
copies of judges decision dismissing her case as evidence and respondent, on the other hand,
presented four witnesses.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Maxwel should be administratively dealt with.
Held:
YES. After a thorough evaluation of the witnesses presented by respondent and evidence
given by complainant, the Court find the complainants evidence more trustworthy. Not only did
she testify with clarity and in full detail, but she also presented during the investigation the
unsigned copy of the draft decision of respondent judge, which is considered as highly
confidential. The respondents witnesses were tainted with inconsistencies and contradictory
statements. Hence, we are more inclined to believe the complainants version.
We have repeatedly admonished our judges to adhere to the highest tenets of judicial
conduct. They must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. It is
therefore paramount that a judges personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and
his daily life, be free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.
Respondents act of sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and show copies of
his draft decisions violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by members
of the Bench.
Respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete is suspended from office without salary and other
benefits for four months.

BLASURCA, Jeric R.
10

Canon 2:
INTEGRITY

11

Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Estacion Jr.

A.M. No. RTJ-87-104
January 11, 1990
Facts:
On February 7, 1987, Mrs. Ruth L. Vda. De Sison, in a letter to the President,
protested the appointment of the respondent, saying he committed misrepresentation of facts as
he had two pending criminal charges against him, which would have made his appointment
impossible. Justice Puno of the CA was initially appointed to investigate the matter, however he
requested to be relieved as he knew the respondent personally, wishing to avoid the suspicion of
bias, in accordance with Canon 2, Sec. 1 of the Code on Judicial Conduct. In the investigation
the respondent claims that, he enjoys presumption of innocence in regards to the homicide and
attempted homicide cases filed against him and that either way, if convicted they do not
constitute moral turpitude, also he states that before the cases against him may be used as basis,
there must be a conviction by final judgment. Upon questioning, respondent tried to say that he
mentioned his pending cases to the NBI who checked his background, however this failed to be
supported by evidence, thus destroying the presumption of innocence and his statement averring
to homicide and attempted homicide not crimes involving moral turpitude.

Issue:
Whether or not the accusation that respondent committed misrepresentation in failing to
inform the appointing authorities may be appreciated.

Held:
YES. Respondent had a duty to inform the appointing authority and the Court of the
pending criminal charges against him to enable them to determine on the basis of his record,
eligibility for the position he was seeking, failing to do so the Courts found the respondent guilty
of gross misrepresentation. Every prospective appointee to the judiciary should apprise the
appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial office, including such
circumstances as may reflect on his integrity and probity. Thus respondent is Dismissed, with
forfeiture of all salary, benefits and leave credits.

RAMOS, Julian Justice M.

12

Gacayan v. Hon. Pamintuan

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1483
September 17, 1999
Facts:
Respondent Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan took over as the presiding judge of a prior
case wherein complainant Noel Sarol was accused for homicide. He then inquired from the trial
prosecutor about his announced opposition to the demurrer to evidence. However, the prosecutor
manifested off the record that he is not anymore submitting the said opposition. Respondent
allegedly directed complainant Atty. Gacayan to see him in his chambers where he said that he
could not just dismiss the said case due to insufficiency of evidence.
Later on, the witnesses, who were already presented by the prosecution, were called again
upon the order of respondent and to the surprise of the complainants. Atty. Gacayan observed
that such was unprocedural and claimed that it was obvious that respondent wanted the said
witnesses to admit that they saw the killing. Thus, complainants said that they were left with no
choice but to bring the matter before the court wherein they contend that the act of respondent
judge is highly unusual and a blatant violation of the rules on how a judge should conduct
himself.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of respondent constitute a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics
Held:
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of the judge must be free of whiff
of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of official duties, but also to his behavior
outside his sala as a private individual.
In the present case, the Court finds that respondent judge was wanting in the desired level
of mastery of a fundamental rule on criminal procedure. It has been found that respondent
resolved the case before him in a high-handed manner and manifested his partiality in the favor
of the prosecution in the said case.
Therefore, in view of all the foregoing, respondent judge was found to be guilty of
violating Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics and was thereby fined and reprimanded
with stern warning.

SIERRA, Kaitlin Keith G.

13

Re: Complaint of Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos and her children against Judge Marcos
A.M No. 97-253-RTC
July 6, 2001
Facts:
Mrs. Rotilla wife of Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos and their children complained against the Judge
that they have been receiving a minimal amount which was insufficient for their education and for their
sustenance and that they were made to believe that he was only receiving a small remuneration as an RTC
Judge. Mrs. Rotilla also alleged that most of his salary goes to the support of his mistress and that he
already left their family house and was living with her mistress for 3 years already. Judge Marcos strongly
denied having any relationship with any woman. The alleged statement of his wife sprung from gossips
and unconfirmed reports from the media.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Marcos violated Canon 2 of The Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held:
Yes the personal behavior of a Judge should be free from the appearance of impropriety and his
personal behavior not only in the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday
life, should be beyond reproach. The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a Judge must
be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to
his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality a public
official is also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge in order to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary must behave with propriety at all times. As we
have very recently explained a judge's official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his
personal existence. Thus being the subject of constant public scrutiny a judge should freely and willingly
accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. A judge
should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal behavior of a judge
both in the performance of official duties an in private life should be above suspicion.

TANCHULING, Ray
14

City Government of Tagbilaran vs. Judge Hontanosas

A.M. No. MTJ-98-1169
January 29, 2002
Facts:
Agapito Hontanosas, Jr., the Presiding Judge of Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court in
Tagbilaran City, was charged with (1) open defiance of a lawful order of a superior court
directing respondents inhibition from a case; and (2) open, notorious, and habitual gambling in
the casinos of Cebu and in the cockpits of Bohol. On the first charge, there were two criminal
cases filed by the City Government against Barbara Ong, the City asked for the inhibition of
Judge Hontanosas. Respondent refused to inhibit himself. Thereafter, Judge Hontanosas rendered
a judgment of acquittal in favor of Barbara Ong and all her other co-accused. On the second
charge, it was alleged that Judge Hontanosas goes to Cebu on the afternoon and comes back on
the early trips from Cebu to Tagbilaran 3 to 4 times a week. He goes to the Casinos in Cebu and
spends the whole night in the casinos. Every Sunday, and in every so-called Derby cockfights,
Judge Hontanosas is seen in the cockpits of Tagbilaran and the nearby towns.
Respondent denies that he gambles in the casinos of Cebu, but admits that he would
sometimes go to Casino in Cebu to accompany his wife who wanted to have some excitement
and recreation in said casino playing only the slot machines. He also admits that he goes to the
cockpits during Sundays and holidays and even gamble a little on these occasions.
The Court thereafter referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation
and report. On the merits of the case, the Court Administrator recommended that the first charge
be dismissed because of patent lack of merit. The Court Administrator, however, finds that for
being present in casinos and for gambling in cockpits respondent Judge violated (1) Supreme
Court Circular No. 4 (2) and Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent has violated the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Held:
Yes. The Court agrees on findings and recommendation on the first ground of the
complaint. However, it partly agrees on the second ground. Judges are enjoined to keep in mind
the Canons of Judicial Ethics, paragraph 3 of which provides: A judges official conduct should
be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench
and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
reproach.
The Court cannot lend credence to respondents claim that he would sometimes go
to Nivel Hills Casino in Cebu to accompany his wife who wanted to have some excitement and
recreation... playing only the slot machines. Slot machines are not placed in casinos for
recreational purposes, but for gambling. A slot machine does not work unless a coin, which is
the bet, is inserted into it. The Court finds it incredible for respondent to travel all the way
from Tagbilaran City to Cebu City and spend his precious time just to watch his wife play the
slot machines. It is fair and reasonable to conclude that respondent also gambled in the casino.
Thus, the Court finds him to have violated Paragraph 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which
15

provides: The judge should be studiously careful himself to avoid the slightest infraction of the
law, lest it be a demoralizing example to others.
Respondent is also administratively liable for going to cockpits and placing bets in
cockfights. While such gambling was not illegal, he openly and deliberately disregarded and
violated Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, it is plainly despicable to see a judge
inside a cockpit and more so, to see him bet therein. Mixing with the crowd of cockfighting
enthusiasts and bettors is unbecoming a judge and undoubtedly impairs the respect due
him. Ultimately, the Judiciary itself suffers therefrom because a judge is a visible representation
of the Judiciary. Most often, the public mind does not separate the judge from the Judiciary. In
short, any demeaning act of a judge or court personnel demeans the institution he represents.
Hence, respondent deserves more than a directive to refrain from frequenting casinos,
cockpits and other gambling places, as recommended by the Court Administrator.

CLEMENCIA, Dana Mae C.

16

Judge Alumbres v. Judge Caoibes Jr.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1431
January 23, 2002
Facts:
Herein respondent Judge Jose Caoibes Jr. is the Presiding Judge of Branch 253 Regional
Trial Court of Las Pinas City. While the complainant, Judge Florentino Alumbres was the former
executive judge of the court. Branch 253 was a newly-created branch and as such, Judge Caoibes
Jr., the appointed presiding judge of the said branch, had the privilege of recommending to the
Supreme Court the appointment of employees of his choice. Seeing that as an opportunity for
employment of his son, Judge Alumbres offered to lend an executive table to Judge Caoibes Jr.
for the latter's temporary use while the office furnitures for his chamber has not yet been
delivered.
Judge Caoibes Jr., upon assuming office, was invited to lunch by the complainant and
there the complainant asked him to recommend the complainant's son for appointment as utility
man for Branch 253. Judge Caoibes Jr. agreed to such proposal. The next day, the complainant
retracted his request and instead proposed that his son be recommended as a process server.
Again, Judge Caoibes Jr. acceded. As agreed, Judge Caoibes Jr. recommended complainant's son
as process server. The complainant, as executive judge, favorably endorsed the said appointment.
However, such appointment did not materialize because the Court Administrator found it
inappropriate for the Judge Alumbres to endorse the appointment of his own son.
When the complainant was replaced by Judge Bonifacio Maceda as the executive judge,
the former asked the latter to favorably endorse his son's appointment for the same position as
process server. Judge Maceda did as requested. But then Judge Caoibes Jr. recommended another
person, David Carino, for process server.
Thus, when the executive table had already been delivered to the chambers of the Judge
Caoibes Jr., the complainant sent his deputy sheriff to to take back the said table. Respondent
Judge Caoibes Jr. refused to return the same as he would be using it while the furnitures for his
office have not yet been delivered. In view of the refusal to return the table, the complainant
accompanied by his process server and the deputy sheriff went to the office of Judge Caoibes Jr.
reclaim the table.
When they arrived, several lawyers and litigants were along the hallway. Upon seeing the
complainant, Judge Caoibes greeted the former but to which the latter replied, in an angry tone,
his intention to recover the table. Judge Caoibes Jr. cordially extended his arm to shake the
complainant's hand while asking that they talk about the matter peacefully. But the complainant
jerked the same. In response to such fierce reaction, Caoibes swung his left arm towards the
complainant hitting him on the right temple and delivered a right hook, grazing the complainant's
lower jaw. Before the incident could worsen, Judge Maceda and one of the deputy sheriff
pacified the two. The incident, involving as it did members of the judiciary, was given extensive
coverage by the media.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Caoibes has violated the provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
17

Held:
Yes. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that A judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Furthermore, Rule 2.01 provides
that A judge should behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.
While the Court agrees with Justice Callejo, the Justice to whom this case was assigned
that Justice Caoibes indeed deliberately inflicted fistic blows against Judge Alumbres but the
same were not as severe as claimed by Judge Alumbres the Court said that the slightness of the
injuries suffered by Judge Alumbres do not detract form the gravity of the offense committed.
Judge Caoibes has failed to live up to the standards of morality and uprightness demanded of a
judge.
The Courts said that Caoibes use of physical violence against a colleague reveals a
marked lack of judicial temperament and self-restraint, traits not only desirable, but
indispensable, for every judge to possess besides the basic equipment of learning in the law.
Such behavior puts the judiciary into disrepute.
While Alumbres himself may have provoked the incident in question by his forceful
reaction to Caoibes attempt to settle their differences, the unruly behavior and/or violent
reaction of Alumbres may not be used to justify the felonious act of respondent. As incisively
observed by the Investigating Justice, no judge, from the lowest to the highest, should be
allowed to take the law into his own hands. That is the law of the jungle, not the law of a
civilized society to which [Alumbres] and [Caoibes] belong.
By fighting within court premises, the parties have failed, not only to observe the proper
decorum expected of members of the judiciary, they have failed to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. More contemptible, the altercation arose out of a
squabble involving a mere table.
The Court finds that the infliction by Judge Caoibes of fistic blows on Judge Alumbres to
be acts of serious impropriety unbecoming a judge, in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. For violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Caoibes was ordered to pay
a fine of twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

AQUINO, Clarine Joyce U.

18

Buenaventura v. Benedicto
A.C. No. 137-J
March 27, 1971
Facts:
Marciana Buenaventura, the complainant, filed this complaint against the Honorable
Mariano V. Benedicto, the respondent Judge, seeking his removal from office due to several
charges including serious misconduct, immorality in handling a case, gross inefficiency and
incompetence, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.
This complaint arose from the filing of a criminal case of forcible abduction with rape by
the complainants sister against Raymundo Mariano and four others, and the filing of an action
for annulment against Mariano by the complainant herself. The respondent judge acquitted the
accused in the criminal case which led to the complainant filing a petition to seek the respondent
judges inhibition from hearing the civil case still pending in his sala. This petition was denied,
but, after the complainants motion for reconsideration, the Court expressed the view of the
propriety of the respondent judge in desisting, he thus issued an order inhibiting himself from
hearing the civil case.
In the case at Bar, the respondent judge denied the charges against him.
After proceedings and investigation, Hon. Justice Alvendia submitted his report stating
therein that the complainant failed to prove the charges except for four which included the
respondent judge allowing his clerk-messenger, Isauro Tuazon, to promulgate decisions in
criminal cases; forming a committee to solicit contributions and/or donations; receiving the
complainant in his sala despite the pending civil case in his sala involving said party; and failing
to resolve a motion filed by the prosecution for the suspension of the hearing of the criminal
case.
In connection to the charge of serious misconduct, the Honorable Justice Alvendia found
only the act of allowing Tuazon to promulgate decisions as constituting the charge and thus
demanding attention of the Court. In the report, Tuazon himself testified that he was entrusted by
the deputy clerk the task of promulgating the decision in the criminal case involved herein. It
was also found that Tuazon even assumed the prerogative of postponing the promulgation of the
decision which was not even delegated to the deputy clerk of court. In answer, the respondent
judge asserts that the documentary and testimonial evidence show that what he did was merely
entrust to Tuazon only the delivery of said decision to the clerk of court and not its promulgation.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge, Hon. Mariano V. Benedicto, violated the Canons of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct?
Held:
Yes. Even though the act imputed against him, that of allowing his clerk-messenger
Tuazon to promulgate decisions in a case, was not sufficiently proven since there is no proof that
he has indeed allowed Tuazon to open and read the promulgation, and that such act might have
been upon the instruction of only the clerk of court, thus not amounting to serious misconduct;
Respondent judge Benedicto should have called the attention of the clerk of court and should
have taken appropriate action to discipline those who have committed such irregularities. He
should have instilled in them the sense of propriety and probity required of those who assist in
the performance of judicial functions. Canon 2 Section 3 provides that Judges should take or
19

initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become aware. In being lenient, and in not taking the
appropriate measures, the respondent judge has violated said section of the Canon of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
Thus, in not finding serious misconduct, but in seeing other irregularities and leniency,
the Court admonishes the respondent Judge Mariano V. Benedicto to exercise close and
unremitting supervision over his subordinates, and at all times to adhere to the full inbtendment
of each and all of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

GUINTU, Alexa Marie A.

20

Canon 3:
IMPARTIALITY

21

Spouses Nazareno v. Judge Almario

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1195
February 26, 1997
Facts:
The instant case arises from a complaint filed by complainants against respondent judge
for gross misconduct or acts unbecoming a judge.
Complainants aver that the respondent had taken advantage of their situation for them to
accede to the latters demands. The respondent was said to have asked for plenty of money, on
multiple occasions, for his retirement and meddled with the administration of an estate in the
pending case he is handling wherein he is transacting with both parties, one of which is the
complainants. Further, respondent urged complainants to change their lawyer who had no
pakikisama with him. Upon failure to do so, respondent always denied complainants motions,
pleadings and dismissed their appeal in the criminal case. Respondent denied all the charges
against him.
The Court approved the recommendation of The Office of the Court Administrator that
the present complaint be brought to the Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for
investigation. Eight persons testified before Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales. The situations
revealed in these testimonies supported the undented accounts of herein complainants.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge is liable for gross misconduct and conduct
unbecoming a judge in violation of Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary.
Held:
YES. His excessive, unnecessary and unethical interactions and transactions with
complainants, as well as the adverse party in the pending case, reflect miserably on his lack of
impartiality which a proper judge should possess. The time honored rule is that a public official
whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice, be he a judge of a lower court or tribunal or
a justice of the appellate courts, should not only be impartial, independent and honest but should
be believed and perceived to be impartial, independent and honest.
The Court finds the foregoing charges as having been sufficiently substantiated. A
penalty of dismissal from service is in order. However, due to respondent compulsorily retiring,
the proper penalty would be forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, with prejudice to
reemployment in government service.

SUYOSA, Philemon Romualdo III S.

22

OCA v. Judge Floro Jr.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460
March 31, 2006
Facts:
Respondent applied for judgeship in 1995 and 1998. Pre-requisite psychological
evaluations by the Supreme Court Clinic Services concluded that respondent was unfit to be a
judge. However, because of his impressive academic background, respondent was allowed to
seek a second opinion from private practitioners, which appeared to be favorable to him, paving
the way to his appointment as RTC Judge of Malabon City. In 1999, upon respondents personal
request, an audit on his sala was conducted, which led to the Court Administrators
report/memorandum recommending that said report be considered an administrative complaint
against respondent, that respondent be subjected to an appropriate psychological or mental
examination, and that respondent be placed under preventive suspension. It was contended,
among others, that respondent violated Circular No. 13 (Guidelines in the Administration of
Justice), when he claimed in the course of proceedings, that he is endowed with psychic powers,
that he can inflict pain and sickness to people, that he is the angel of death and that he has unseen
little friends. The Court resolved to place respondent under preventive suspension for the
duration of the investigation of the administrative charges against him.
Issue:
1. Whether respondent is in violation of Rule 3.03 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2. Whether respondent is unfit to perform the functions of his office notwithstanding the fact
that, in disposing of the charges, there had been no finding of dismissal from the service.
3. Whether respondent is entitled to backwages and other economic benefits in light of his
preventive suspension for almost seven years.
Held:
1. Yes. Trial of cases should be conducted efficiently and expeditiously. Respondent deviated
from the regular course of trial when he discussed matters involving his personal life and
beliefs. Canon 3, Rule 3.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that: A judge shall
maintain order and proper decorum in the court. A disorderly judge generates disorderly
work. An indecorous judge invites indecorous reactions. Proceedings in court must be
conducted formally and solemnly. The atmosphere must be characterized with honor and
dignity befitting the seriousness and importance of a judicial trial called to ascertain the truth.
Moreover, a judge should avoid being queer in his behavior, appearance and movements. He
must always keep in mind that he is the visible representative of the law. Respondents
claims are manifestations of his psychological instability and therefore casts doubt on his
capacity to carry out the functions and responsibilities of a judge.
2. Yes. The Court is in agreement with the OCA that respondent cannot remain as RTC Judge
because of the findings of mental impairment that renders him unfit to perform the functions
of his office. The findings of psychosis by the mental health professionals assigned to
respondents case indicate gross deficiency in competence and independence. Psychic
phenomena, even assuming such exist, have no place in a judiciary duty bound to apply only
positive law and, in its absence, equitable rules and principles in resolving controversies.
23

Respondents belief system, as well as his actuations in the eight months that he served as
RTC judge, indubitably shows his inability to function with the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge. In fine, respondent lacks the judicial temperament and the fundamental
requirements of competence and objectivity expected of all judges; he cannot thus be allowed
to continue as judge for to do so might result in a serious challenge to the existence of a
critical and impartial judiciary.
3. Yes. Notwithstanding the fact that respondent is much to blame for the delay in the resolution
of his case, equitable considerations constrain the Court to award him back salaries,
allowances and other economic benefits for a period corresponding to three years. This is
because respondents separation from the service is not a penalty as we ordinarily understand
the word to mean. It is imposed instead upon respondent out of necessity due to a medically
disabling condition of the mind which renders him unfit, at least at present, to continue
discharging the functions of his office. Consequently, while respondent may be dysfunctional
as a judge because of the sensitive nature of said position, he may still be successful in other
areas of endeavor. As respondents separation from the service cannot be considered a
penalty, such separation does not carry with it the disqualification from appointment to any
other public office including government-owned or controlled corporations or to positions
that do not require him to dispense justice.

SANTOS, Robert Jr. Corpuz

24

Cacatian v. Judge Liwanag

A.M. No. MTJ-02-1418
December 10, 2003
Facts:
On 31 July 1999 at around 8:30 p.m., complainant was informed that respondent wanted
to see her inside the VIP room of Daeyun Bar and Videoke Club which is located beside her
residence. Upon entering the aforementioned room, the visibly drunken respondent started
berating her, allegedly because of her failure to facilitate the immediate approval of the license
covering his new firearm as well as the poor job done on his old gun. She then saw him point the
gun at her after which a shot rang out hitting her on the left hand.
While she was still at the hospital, respondent Judge promised to shoulder her hospital
expenses and pleaded with her not to report the matter to the police or file criminal charges
against him. Because of the said incident, she lost the use of her left hand.
Sometime in August 1999, complainant sought reimbursement of the cost of her
hospitalization from respondent. However, the latter became furious and refused to reimburse
her for the said expenses and even threatened to make things very difficult for her. The
respondent judge denied all the charges against him in his Answer dated June 23, 2000.
Respondent filed a criminal complaint against complainant for Estafa before the MTC of
San Jose Del Monte. On the same day, a warrant for her arrest was issued. In his complaint,
respondent alleged that herein complainant misappropriated the sum of P45,000.00 which was
intended for the purchase of a new gun.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of unbecoming a judge?
Held:
Yes. The respondents behavior in this case fell short of the exacting standards required
of him as a magistrate. He transacted business with a party litigant who had a pending case in
his sala. Notwithstanding the fact that this was done after office hours as he claimed, the
respondent should not have put himself in such a position as to arouse suspicion of improper
conduct. He should have known that his dealings with a party litigant outside of the courtroom
would give rise to doubts as to the propriety of the same.
The respondent also used his official position and authority as a judge to deliver a
demand letter to the complainant. He cannot hide behind his court personnel and claim that the
letter was mistakenly commingled with official correspondence. Prudence dictates that a
judge should be aware of the goings-on in his court room, particularly in this case where what is
involved is the use of his franking privilege. Furthermore, the tenor of the respondents letter
seeking the return of his 9mm gun and the amount ofP10,000 was clearly meant to intimidate the
complainant into compliance, as he signed the same as Ricardo P. Liwanag, Judge.
The respondent also filed a case for estafa against the complainant in his own sala, the
MTC of San Jose, and assisted in the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the same. Although
the said warrant was issued by another magistrate, Judge Aznar D. Lindayag, the filing of the
case before the respondents sala may be construed as the judges attempt to influence the
outcome of a case where he himself is an interested party. This placed the court in a bad
light. The respondent should have known that under the circumstances, the more prudent thing
to do was to file the case with the provincial prosecutors office. The respondent should have
25

remembered the ironclad principle that a judge must not only be impartial, but must also appear
to be impartial.
These instances are clear manifestations that the respondent judge is not fit to remain as a
member of the Judiciary

SARMIENTO, Maria Michaela O.

26

Fecundo v. Berjamen
G.R. No. 88105
December 18, 1989
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for a restraining order seeking to inhibit
respondent judge, Hon. Ramon Berjamen from continuing with the trial of an election protest
filed by private respondent Julius Salcedo against petitioner. The grounds invoked for the
inhibition of respondent judge are his alleged partiality and bias against petitioner. Said acts are
as follows: Use of unbecoming language in the order; Severely reprimanding and scolding in
open court petitioner's secretary when the latter filed on behalf of the petitioner a motion to
dismiss the election protest; Personal interest of respondent judge shown by inquiring about the
procedural maneuvers of petitioner's counsel; Beholden to Congressman Villareal whose life size
(half body) pi is displayed in the former's office; Statement of respondent judge in open court
that a motion for reconsideration to be filed by petitioner will be denied.
Petitioner, mayoralty candidate in the Municipality of Dumalag, Capiz won over private
respondent with of 100 votes. The case was assigned to Branch 20, RTC presided over by
respondent-judge, Hon. Ramon Benjamin. After the filing of the answer with counter protest,
respondent judge issued an order directing the Municipal Treasurer to deliver to the court the
ballot boxes subject of the protest.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge shall be inhibited on grounds of bias and partiality,
invoking an alleged gross disregard of the Rules of Court.
Held:
The Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court have to heed the sound admonition in
Santos v. Gutierrez: Moreover, second only to the duty of rendering a just decision, is the duty of
doing it in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and the integrity of the
Judge. Consequently, we take it to be the true intention of the law stated in general terms that no
judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested impartial and
independent. However upright the judge, and however free from the slightest inclination but to
do justice, there is peril of his unconscious bias or prejudice, or lest any former opinion formed
ex parte may still linger to affect unconsciously his present judgment, or lest he may be moved or
swayed unconsciously by his knowledge of the facts which may not be revealed or stated at the
trial, or cannot under the rules of evidence. No effort of the will can shut out memory; there is no
art of forgetting. We cannot be certain that the human mind will deliberate and determine
unaffected by that which it knows, but which it should forget in that process.
To erase any doubt whatsoever as to the judge's bias and/or prejudice against petitioner in
Election Case No. M-944, the Court believes it prudent and better to serve the ends of justice to
transfer the said case to Branch 21, Mambusao, Capiz, presided over by the newly appointed
Judge thereof, Hon. Julius L. Abella.

BACHO, Christine V.
27

Villaluz vs. Judge Mijares

A.M. No. RTJ-98-1402
April 3, 1998
Facts:
On 12 September 1995 retired Justice of the Court of Appeals Onofre A. Villaluz file a
verified letter-complaint against Judge Priscilla C. Mijares, incumbent Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 108, for dishonesty, corrupt practices, grave misconduct and
immorality.
In one of the complainants charges against the accused Judge Mijares is that: Judge Mijares
took cognizance of and decided Special Proceedings No. 3946, a petition for correction of entry
in the birth record of her grandson, Joshua Anthony M. Gurango, the child of her daughter Ma.
Pilita M. Gurango, notwithstanding such close relationship; and this notwithstanding the fact that
even if said petition had regularly been raffled off to her sala, a sense of propriety, if not the
letter and spirit of the Code of Judicial Ethics, should have made her refuse the assignment and
procure the transfer of the case to any of the five other branches of the Court equally qualified to
take over and decide the case; and to compound and aggravate the corrupt practice of taking on
and deciding the case of a very close relative, she also dispensed with the required publication of
the petition which sought to correct the entry of the subjects citizenship from the stated
Filipino to American.
Relative to Special Proceedings No. 3946 involving a petition for correction of entry in the
birth record of her grandson, respondent claims that she was not disqualified under Section 1,
Rule 137 of the Rules of Court from taking cognizance of and deciding said case ratiocinating
that: (a) she, her daughter, son-in-law and grandson do not have pecuniary interest in the case;
(b) the case was not controversial in nature and; (c) with respect to respondents dispensing with
the requirement of publication of the petition which have costP4,000.00 to P6,000.00, the
amount was unnecessary expense on the part of the petitioner that will not inure to the benefit
of the government, anyway.
The Court held the respondents conduct is inexcusable.
Issue:
Whether the respondent, Judge Mijares is guilty of violation of Rule 3.12 (d) of Canon 3 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct by taking cognizance of the case despite her relationship to a party
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the respondents conduct is inexcusable but penalty of
dismissal from service to be too severe. Respondent Judge Mijares is fined P10,000.00 for
violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court under the second charge.
The Court ruled that Respondent is clearly disqualified from trying the case under the
aforequoted section and also under Rule 3.12 (d), Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. Being related within the sixth degree of consanguinity to one of the parties (petitioner)
in Special Proceedings No. 9346, it was mandatory for respondent to have inhibited herself from
hearing the case. While respondent or her daughter may not have pecuniary interest in the case
as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, which is her contention for her exculpation, what is
28

violated in Section 1 of Rule 137 was her taking cognizance of the case despite her relationship
to a party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity.
A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity. The law conclusively
presumes that a judge cannot objectively or impartially sit in such a case and, for that reason,
prohibits him and strikes at his authority to hear and decide it, in the absence of written consent
of all parties concerned. The purpose is to preserve the peoples faith and confidence in the
courts of justice.
Judges should be extra prudent and circumspect in the performance of their duties for (a)
judge owes it to the public and to the legal profession to know the factual basis of the complaint
and the very law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy. He is called upon to exhibit
more than cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules.
The courts role in hearing the petition to correct certain entries in the Civil Registry is to
ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein. Under our system of administering justice,
truth is best ascertained or approximated by trial conducted under the adversary system.

Mediodia, Ilssa Ma. Tara T.

29

Santos vs. Lacurom

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823
August 28, 2006
Facts:
Arcely Santos (herein complainant; Arcely) filed an administrative complaint against
Judge Ubalindo Lacurom (respondent judge) for gross misconduct, grave abuse of judicial
authority, gross bias and partiality and gross violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Arcely alleged that Judge Lacurom was bias and partial in favor of Rogelio Santos, Sr.
(complainants brother; Rogelio) who had three pending cases before respondent judges sala
and a close friend of said judge.
Complainant stated that respondent judge allowed Rogelio, a non-lawyer, to appear in
court and litigate personally the three cases despite already having counsels while complainant
and the other oppositors were not allowed to address the court directly and was even compelled,
under the pain of contempt, to secure the services of a lawyer to represent them; and that
respondent judge always granted, with dispatch, all the pleadings of Rogelio. Furthermore,
Arcely alleged that Judge Lacurom used his office to advance and protect the interests of
Rogelio, respondent judges close friend, to the prejudice of complainant.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Ubalindo Lacurom violated Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Ethics?
Held:
No. Judge Ubalindo Lacurom did not violate Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Instead, respondent Judge is found guilty of simple misconduct. Thus ordered the forfeiture of
the P10,000 withheld from his retirement benefits.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial
evidence the allegations in the complaint. In this case, Arcely Santos failed to present any
convincing proof that respondent judge Lacurom gave any undue privileges in his court to
Rogelio Santos, Sr. or that Rogelio benefited from his personal relations with respondent judge,
or that respondent judge used his influence, if any, to favor Rogelio.
The mere fact that Judge Lacurom is a close friend of Rogelio Santos, Sr. does not render
the former guilty of violating any canon of the Code of Judicial Ethics as long as his friendly
relations with Rogelio did not influence his official conduct as a judge in the cases where the
latter was a party. However, it would have been more prudent if respondent judge avoided
hearing the cases where Rogelio was a party because their close friendship could reasonably tend
to raise suspicion that respondent judges social relationship with Rogelio would be an element
in his determination of the cases of Rogelio. This may erode the trust of the litigants in
respondent judges impartiality and eventually, undermine the peoples faith in the
administration of justice. Judges must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but
should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and
integrity.

IBRAHIM, Ayana Deri V.

30

Canon 4:
PROPRIETY

31

OCA v. Judge Floro, Jr.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460
March 31, 2006
Facts:
In 1995, Atty. Florentino V. Floro, Jr. first applied for judgeship. A pre-requisite
psychological evaluation on him then by the Supreme Court Clinic Services (SC Clinic) revealed
"evidence of ego disintegration" and "developing psychotic process." Judge Floro later
voluntarily withdrew his application. In June 1998, when he applied anew, the required
psychological evaluation exposed problems with self-esteem, mood swings, confusion,
social/interpersonal deficits, paranoid ideations, suspiciousness, and perceptual distortions. Both
1995 and 1998 reports concluded that Atty. Floro was unfit to be a judge. Because of his
impressive academic background, however, the JBC allowed Atty. Floro to seek a second
opinion from private practitioners. The second opinion appeared favorable thus paving the way
to Atty. Floros appointment as RTC Judge of Branch 73, Malabon City, on November 4, 1998.
Upon Judge Floros personal request, an audit on his sala was conducted by the OCA from 2 to 3
March 1999. After conducting the audit, the audit team recommended among other things, that
his report be considered as an administrative complaint against Judge Floro and that Judge Floro
be subjected to an appropriate psychological or mental examination. Court Administrator
Benipayo recommended as well that Judge Floro be placed under preventive suspension for the
duration of the investigation against him.
In the meantime, throughout the investigation of the 13 charges against him and even
after Justice Ramirez came out with his report and recommendation on 7 March 2001, Judge
Floro had been indiscriminately filing cases against those he perceived to have connived to boot
him out of office. On February 1, 2006, Judge Floro moved that the cases he filed, now totaling
seven, be dismissed. And on February 14, 2006, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. In the
interest of orderly administration of justice, considering that these are consolidated cases, the
Court resolves to render as well a consolidated decision. The Court will have to determine
whether Judge Floro acted with an evil mind or because of a psychological or mental incapacity.
Upon the resolution of this question hinges the applicability of equity.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Judge Florentino Floro, Jr. should be dismissed from office
because of his psychological or mental incapacity to perform his duties as RTC Judge of
Malabon
Held:
Yes, it is respectfully recommended that by reason of insanity which renders him
incapable and unfit to perform the duties and functions of Judge of the RTC of Malabon,
respondent judge be removed from such office. Courts exist to promote justice; thus aiding to
secure the contentment and happiness of the people. An honorable, competent and independent
judiciary exists to administer justice in order to promote the stability of government, and the
well-being of the people. Carrying much of the weight in this daunting task of administering
justice are our front liners, the judges who preside over courts of law and in whose hands are
entrusted the destinies of individuals and institutions. As it has been said, courts will only
succeed in their tasks if the judges presiding over them are truly honorable men, competent and
independent. There is no indication that Judge Floro is anything but an honorable man. And, in
fact, in our disposition of the 13 charges against him, we have not found him guilty of gross
32

misconduct or acts or corruption. However, the findings of psychosis by the mental health
professionals assigned to his case indicate gross deficiency in competence and independence.
What is required on the part of judges is objectivity. An independent judiciary does not mean
that judges can resolve specific disputes entirely as they please. There are both implicit and
explicit limits on the way judges perform their role. Implicit limits include accepted legal values
and the explicit limits are substantive and procedural rules of law. Despite his impressive
academic background and achievements, he has lapses in judgment and may have problems with
decision-making. His character traits such as suspiciousness and seclusiveness and preoccupation
with paranormal and psychic phenomena though not detrimental to his role as a lawyer, may
cloud his judgment, and hamper his primary role as a judge in dispensing justice. Judge Floros
belief system, as well as his actuations in the eight months that he served as RTC judge,
indubitably shows his inability to function with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. In fine,
Judge Floro lacks the judicial temperament and the fundamental requirements of competence and
objectivity expected of all judges. He cannot thus be allowed to continue as judge for to do so
might result in a serious challenge to the existence of a critical and impartial judiciary.

MANDA, Loren Marie, B.

33

Alday v. Cruz
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530
March 14, 2001
Facts:
On May 6, 1999, the van that the complainants were riding was about to exit the Cityland
Condominium at Pioneer St., Mandaluyong City. When they reached the entrance/exit ramp,
respondent arrived in his car and blocked the ramp. As a result, neither vehicle could move.
Respondent alighted from his car and went over to the van. He shouted Putang ina ninyo, anong
gusto ninyo mangyari?, while brandishing a gun and pointing it at the occupants of the van.
Investigations were made after the complainants have reported the same to the Eastern Police
District Headquarters.
Respondent contend that he merely berated the guard on duty for not doing his job, and
never alighted the car and pointed a gun to the complainants. There were inconsistencies as to
the testimony of the witnesses of the respondent and the complainant, especially with Segundino
Ellazo, the guard on duty during the incident. He first testified against the respondent and later
on testified for him.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Cruz is guilty of grave threats and should be administratively
liable.
Held:
YES. The court ruled that the version of complainants more credible, considering that
they had no possible motive to make a false accusation against respondent. He gave credence to
the positive testimonies of complainants over the negative testimonies of respondents witnesses,
particularly on whether respondent judge brandished a gun pointed at complainants. Well-settled
is the rule that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. This is particularly true
where complainants have no ill-motive in testifying against respondent. Complainants had never
met respondent prior to the incident. They had no pending cases before him. Yet they pursued
this case with tenacity. They strongly believed they had been unjustly wronged and sought
redress therefore.
The fact that this was done by a judge outside the courtroom and during a traffic
altercation does not justify respondents gross misconduct. Judicial office circumscribes the
personal conduct of a judge. It imposes a number of restrictions thereon. The Canons of Judicial
Ethics provides that the assumption of office of judges casts upon the incumbent duties in
respect to his personal conduct which concerns his relations to the State and its inhabitants, the
litigants before him, the principles of law, the practitioners of law in his court, and the witnesses
and attendants who aid him in the administration of its functions. Irresponsible or improper
conduct of a judge, needless to say, erodes public confidence in the judiciary. A judges personal
behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be
beyond reproach, for he is, as he so aptly is perceived to be, the visible personification of law
and of justice.

BERNARDES, Marianne Gail L.

34

Francisco v. Cosico
A.M. No. CA-04-37
March 16, 2004
Facts:
An administrative complaint for grave misconduct was filed by Judge Pablo Francisco,
against Court of Appeals Associate Justice Rodrigo Cosico, in the latters capacity as then
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna.
In the early part of 1994, trial courts in San Pedro, Laguna were without a sheriff to serve
and execute court processes. Judge Stella Cabuco Andres, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court Branch 31, then brought the matter to the attention of Executive Judge Cosico. Acting
upon the same, Executive Judge Cosico informed Ireneo Paz of his detail as Special Deputy
Sheriff. Thus, Paz commenced performing the functions of Special Deputy Sheriff in the said
Regional Trial Court.
However, per certification issued by the Human Resource Management Office of
Municipality of Binan, at the time of the said detail, Paz was employed as Laborer II at said
municipality. This fact is confirmed by Paz.
Complainant Judge contends that respondent usurped the power of the Supreme Court to
appoint court employees, a brazen defiance of the courts appointing power granted under
Article VIII, Section 5(6) of the Constitution which states that the Supreme Court has the power
to appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
For his part, respondent avers that he did not appoint but merely detailed Paz at the
Regional Trial Court. Such judicial act, may not be assailed considering the authority given to
the trial court judge under the Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12(7) as well as under
the powers and prerogatives delegated by the Supreme Court to the Executive Judge.
Issue:
Did respondent commit grave misconduct and usurped the power of the Supreme Court
to appoint court employees?
Held:
The court found credence in respondents averment that the detail in question was meant
to be temporary and that he was in fact willing to revoke the detail if the same was found to be
improper.
We reiterate that for serious misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be
corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known legal
rules. The record is bereft of any evidence to this effect.
Ireneo Paz was merely designated by Executive Judge Cosico, now Associate Justice of
the Court of Appeals, as acting deputy sheriff upon the recommendation of Judge Stella CabucoAndres because according to her, the San Pedro courts were left without any sheriff to serve and
execute court processes. The administration of justice would have been seriously hampered
without any court personnel to discharge the functions and duties of sheriff. Thus, respondent in
making the questioned detail of Paz did so as a matter of extreme necessity and within the
purview of Administrative Circular No. 12. Respondent is exonerated of the charge herein.

35

AFIDCHAO, Paul S.
Liwanag vs. Judge Lustre
A.M. No. MTJ 98-1168
April 21, 1999
Facts:
Jose B. Zafra, husband of petioner Lualhati Liwanag, filed before the Municipal Trial
Court of Calamba Laguna 12 counts of violation of B.P. 22 against Chua et.al. Respondent Judge
Paterno Lustre presided over the case. The hearing for the said case was delayed for more than
several times. On several occasions, petitioner tried to talk to respondent judge to inquire why
there has been so many delays regarding their case. In those instances, as alleged in the affidavit
by petitioner, Judge Lustre made sexual advances over Liwanag. Petitioner avers that Judge
Lustre asked her to perform oral sex and other malicious conduct on to him and that the latter
will ensure the speedy disposition of their case. Thereafter, petitioner filed an administrative case
against Respondent Judge Lustre, praying that he be dismiss from service for gross immorality
and grave misconduct unbecoming of his profession for sexually molesting her.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Lustre violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held:
YES. The court held that respondent has failed to live up to the high standard of conduct
required of members of the bench. He grossly violated his duty to uphold the intergrity of the
judiciary and to avoid impropriety not only in his public but in his private life as well, as
embraced in Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. All to the grave prejudice of the
administration of justice. As he has already retired from service and thus could no longer be
dismissed nor suspended, the court thereby imposed upon him a fine of P40,000.00, to be
deducted from his retirement benefits. Further, he is thereby barred from any employment in all
branches of the government including government-owned and -controlled corporations.

ESLAVA, Timothy Joseph J.

36

Fidel v. Judge Caraos

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1224
December 12, 2002
Facts:
Complainant avers that at 10:45 in the evening of February 29, 1996, respondent judge,
who was heavily drunk, went to the Municipal Police Station of Candelaria and attempted to
forcibly release one Natividad Braza from detention without any preliminary investigation or
written order for the latters release. While at the police station, respondent judge shouted
invectives at the policemen on duty, PUTANG INA NINYONG MGA PULIS KAYO,
NASAAN SI HEPE? HOY, ILABAS NINYO ITO NGAYON DIN, PUTANG INA NINYONG
MGA PULIS. SINONG MASUSUNOD DITO, MAYOR, PULIS, O JUDGE? To support the
allegation, complainant submitted the joint-affidavit of the policemen on duty and the affidavits
of two detention prisoners who witnessed the incident.
This case was referred to Executive Judge Ricardo O. Rosales, Jr., RTC, Lucena City, for
investigation, report and recommendation. After due investigation, Judge Rosales found no
evidence to support complainants claim that respondent judge was intoxicated when he arrived
at the Candelaria Police Station. The mere appearance of respondent judges hair in disarray and
reddish eyes is inadequate to prove the claim since, admittedly, respondent judge was roused
from sleep and immediately went straight to the police station. Judge Rosales opined that the
admission of respondent judge about being irritated that evening and his utterance of putang
ina, putang ina connotes that he did not intend to curse any particular policemen at the
scene. Judge Rosales thus recommends that respondent judge should only be reprimanded with
the stern warning that a repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of unbecoming a judge?
Held:
Yes. A judge, as an advocate of justice and visible representation of the law, must not
only apply the law but must imbibe it in his everyday living. Having accepted the exalted
position of a judge, both his personal and public life have been set apart from the average
citizen. A judges assumption of office is viewed with utmost respect and reverence compatible
with his position as dispenser of justice. From him the people draw their will and awareness to
obey the law. He must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for others to
follow. The peoples confidence in the judicial system, however, is founded not only on the
competence and diligence of the members of the bench, but also on their integrity and moral
uprightness. The public will have faith in the administration of justice only if they believe that
the occupants of the bench cannot be accused of arbitrariness in the exercise of their powers both
in and out of the court. Accordingly, he must at all times avoid even the slightest infraction of
the law.
By losing his cool and uttering intemperate language at the policemen on duty regarding
the release of detention prisoner Braza, respondent judge has overstepped the norm demanded of
a member of the bench. The Canons of Judicial Ethics mandates that a judge should so behave at
all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When
he took personal action in ensuring the temporary release of detention prisoner Braza even in the
unholy hours, he has cast his integrity in a serious doubt.
37

While it may be true, as complainant claims, that he meant no malice nor was he moved
by evil intent, the absence of malice or purity of motive is not a license for him to resort to
inflammatory words to articulate his grievances. Complainant should bear in mind that he and,
for that matter, all judges, should always observe courtesy and civility. He should be temperate,
patient and courteous both in conduct and in language.
Thus, respondent Judge Felix A. Caraos of the Municipal Trial Court of Candelaria,
Quezon, is found GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming a Judge, and is ordered to pay a FINE of
Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

TIBAY, Arthur H.
38

Omaa v. Yulde
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1345
August 26, 2002
Facts:
On October 4, 1998, Atty. Omaa filed a complaint against Judge Yulde of the Municipal
Trial Court in Quezon. She filed a complaint stating that Judge Yulde is ignorant of the law, is
abusing his authority, is incompetent, and is an unbecoming member of the judiciary. This was
even pushed further by the unprofessional act of the Judge of having lawyers with pending cases
drink with him on his sala. On April 15, 1999, Judge Yulde filed his comment.
Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo submitted his court findings and recommendation
dated January 2, 2001, he decided on the specific accusations fired on the Judge. He further
stated that Judge Yulde cannot escape his responsibility for admitting that he did drink in his sala
with a group of lawyers who has pending cases during office hours. As a judge he should be
conscious with his actions as it would be put into doubt or suspicion. To summarize the findings
of Court Administrator Benipayo, he further stated that Judge Yulde is liable for his failure to
resolve motions within 90 days and for having drinking sessions with counsels with pending
cases on his sala during office hours.
Judge Yulde was required to pay a fine of P 10,000 with a warning that if such act was
repeated, it shall be dealt with more severely.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Yulde violated Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held:
Yes, Judge Yulde clearly violated Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
specifically Sec. 2 which states that As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept
personal restriction that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so
freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent
with the dignity of judicial office. This section covers the part wherein judges are discouraged
from actively getting involved in the association of private lawyers. Clearly, Judge Yulde
violated this section by having a drinking spree with counsels on his sala. Worse is that these
counsels have pending cases under him. By doing such, Judge Yulde did not just violated Sec. 2
of Canon 4 but also Sec. 3 which states that Judges shall, in their professional relations with
individual members of the legal profession who practice regularly in their court, avoid situation
which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality.

PONCE, Julia Anne B.

39

Seludo v. Judge Fineza

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1864
December 16, 2004
Facts:
Atty. Antonio D. Seludo alleged inter alia that on June 28, 2003, respondent judge filed a
complaint for revocation of notarial commission against complainant, docketed as Revocation of
Commission No. C-001-(2003). During the hearing on July 8, 2003, respondent judge uttered
"vulgar and insulting words" against complainant saying the words: a) Putang ina mo! b) If
respondent knows how to read English.c) Let it be put on record, that he has a moronic
attitude.d) If Your Honor plese, I dont know if this guy is really stupid and his attention was
was called several times by the Investigating Executive Judge to stay calm and be civil. In
respondents reply dated September 8, 2003, he admitted that he uttered derogatory words during
the proceeding held on July 8, 2003. He, however, explained that he has been suffering from a
heart ailment and diabetes since November, 2002, causing him considerable anxiety and pain.
This must be the reason why he could not control his outburst. Besides, the incident was
precipitated by the conduct of the complainant and the Executive Judge. Complainant was
unkind and impolite to him. He kept on interrupting him. In fact, after his oral manifestation,
complainant began to laugh and ridicule him. Moreover, when he (respondent) asked the
Executive Judge to cite complainant in contempt of court, the latter stood up with clenched fists
and acted in a menacing manner. On January 9, 2004, complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw
Complaint on the ground that he is no longer interested in pursuing the case since respondent has
retired from the judiciary however the complainants withdrawal of his complaint does not
necessarily warrant the dismissal of the administrative case.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Fineza violated Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Held:
Yes, Judge Fineza violated Canon 4 Section 1 of the Code stating Judges shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Respondent displayed a
conduct so unbecoming of a magistrate. The remarks uttered are patently defamatory and
outrageous. That respondent was suffering from heart ailment and diabetes is not an excuse. He
could have asked the assistance of a lawyer to represent him in prosecuting the case. As correctly
observed by the Court Administrator, his disgraceful behavior tainted the good image of the
judiciary he is expected to uphold at all times. Thus he is ordered to pay a fine of twenty
thousand pesos to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

HINGAN, John Renan

40

NBI v. Judge Reyes

A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120
February 21, 2000
Facts:
Mothers of the accused in a criminal complaint approached the respondent to plead for
the release of their sons. Respondent then allegedly promised to dismiss the case against all the
accused for a sum of money. Meanwhile, NBI together with same women pleading for the
release of their son planned an entrapment for the alleged extortion. On the appointed date, the
private meeting between the parties happened in the respondents chamber and later on the NBI
found the marked money in Judge Reyes drawer.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge violated the mandate prescribed in Rule 2.01
and Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Held:
Yes. The fact alone that he conferred privately with them in his chambers merits reproof.
Judges have been admonished to refrain from conducting in-chambers sessions in the absence of
the opposing party and his counsel.
It bears repeating that integrity in a judicial office is more than a virtue; it is a necessity.
As the visible representation of law and justice, judges are expected to conduct themselves in a
manner that would enhance the respect and confidence of our people in the judicial system. They
are particularly mandated not only to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary but
also to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their action, both the reality and
the appearance must concur. For judges sit as the embodiment of the peoples sense of justice,
their last recourse where all other institutions have failed.

PARAGAS, Ma. Jennifer R.

41

Canon 5:
EQUALITY

42

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vazquez Jr. on CA-GR SP No. 103692
A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA
October 15, 2008
Facts:
Justice Vicente Roxas showed haste in promulgating his decision in the Meralco-GSIS
case. He submitted a Transcript of Deliberation to make it appear that there have been
deliberations before rendering the decision, which was also made pending conflict between
Justices Jose Sabio and Bienvenido Reyes.
Justice Jose Sabio entertained phone calls from his brother and Francis De Borja, who
were involved in the Meralco case. He even called De Borja to stop pestering him regarding the
Meralco case.
Justice Vasquez, the head of the Court of Appeals, failed to guide Justices Reyes and
Sabio on their conflict. He wanted them to resolve it on their own. He also did not act on the
bribery alleged by Borja against Justice Sabio.
Justice Myrna Vidal, ponente, signed the Meralco decision without having read the
memoranda and without deliberation.
Issue:
Did the Justices violate the Code of Professional Responsibility? Should their motions for
reconsideration be granted?
Held:
1. Justice Roxas was dismissed. The speedy administration of justice should not involve
procedural shortcuts.
2. Justice Sabio was deemed guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a
Court of Appeals Justice. He violated Canon 13 for the phone calls were indiscreet and
imprudent. He gave them the impression that he is accessible to lobbyists who are
manipulative of court proceedings.
3. Justice Vasquez was disciplined with severe reprimand. He should be able to lead his
people and should have been decisive in such cases in a timely manner. He should have
prevented the dispute between the other justices.
4. Justice Vidal punished with admonition for having rushed her decisions without due
process.

DELA CRUZ, Ma. Alessandra B.

43

Canon 6:
COMPETENCE & DILIGENCE

44

Torcende v. Judge Sardido

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238
January 24, 2003
Facts:
Herein, in one of the hearings, the accused-complainant accompanied by a representative of
his counsel arrived late thus the respondent ordered the arrest of the accused and the cancellation
of his bail bond, and ordered his counsel to explain in writing within five days why he should not
be cited for indirect contempt of court, for failure to personally appear at the hearing without
taking into consideration that at the three consecutive hearings scheduled by respondent, accused
Torcende and counsel appeared but the private complainant, as well as the private and public
prosecutors did not.
At the scheduled hearing, the accused again appeared without his counsel. He filed an
Omnibus Motion but the respondent denied the same outright for lack of notice of hearing and
imposed a fine on counsel for accused for failure to appear and for violating the rule on motions.
Accused Torcende was also ordered to reimburse the expenses incurred by private complainants
in attending the hearings.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge violated the mandate prescribed in the Code
of Judicial Conduct
Held:
Yes. In the case at bar, the fine imposed on counsel for complainant as well as the order for
him to reimburse the expenses of private complainant are unjust because both he and his counsel
were not given an opportunity to explain their side. Such conduct of respondent is highly
improper and only too deserving of reproof for the reason that the Code of Judicial Conduct
enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence and also the
respondent judge displayed a deplorable deficiency in his grasp of the basic principles governing
contempt.
The role of a judge in relation to those who appear before his court must be one of
temperance, patience and courtesy. A judge who is commanded at all times to be mindful of his
high calling and his mission as a dispassionate and impartial arbiter of justice is expected to be
a cerebral man who deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of purely personal preferences
which he shares with his fellow mortals. Describing complainant and counsel as
unscrupulous, senile men whose perturbed, phantasmagoric minds are prone to
hallucinations and who, as brazen liars who devastatingly pervert truth, resort to fiendish
ploys to delay the speedy disposition of the cases filed against them is hardly the kind of
circumspect words expected of a magistrate.

PARAGAS, Ma. Jennifer R.

45

Almeron v. Judge Sardido

A.M. No. MTJ-97-1142
November 6, 1997
Facts:
This administrive case originaly arose from two criminal complaints filed by Joel
Almeron and his wife Evangeline alleging that their 12 year old daughter Jojielyn was raped
twice by one Wilfredo Pino. These complaints was presided by Judge Agustin T. Sardido.
However, without conducting a hearing and without forwarding the records to the Office of the
Prosecutor, Judge Sardido granted bail to the accused in the amount of P200,000 for each count
of rape.
In his defense respondent Judge alleged that he initially wrote the words NO BAIL on
the face of the criminal complaints; however before he could issue a warrant of arrest, Atty.
Bonifacio Pagunsan, counsel of the accused, engaged him in a legal argument inside his
chambers about the feasibility of granting bail to the accused.
This case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and
recommendation and the Court Administration recommended that respondent Judge be fined
P10,000 for granting bail to the accused without a hearing.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Agustin T. Sardido violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held:
Yes. Any self-respecting member of the bench or bar knows, or should know with little
effort, that simple rape is punishable with reclusion perpetua as provided in Art. 335 of the
Revised Penal Code. Likewise, as lucidly provided in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure, no person charged with such an offense, when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. When a judge grants
bail to a person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable be reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment without conducting the required hearing, he is considered guilty of ignorance
or incompetence the gravity of which cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or excusable
negligence. This is because members of the judiciary are supposed to exhibit more than just a
cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules, more so with legal principles and
rules so elementary and basic that not to know them, or to act as if one does not know them,
constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
In his ignorance respondent Judge not only deprived the prosecution due process of law
by denying it the opportunity to contest the application for bail but likewise acted in a manner
contrary to Rule 2.01, Canon 2, of the Code of Judicial Conduct in allowing counsel for the
accused to engage him in a legal discussion inside his chambers, without the presence of any
representative of the prosecution, about the possibility of granting bail to the accused.

SARMIENTO, Maria Michaela O.

46

Sabatin v. Mallare
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1537
March 25, 2004
Facts:
Pursuant to a search warrant issued by Judge Mallare, elements of the PNP entered Sabatins
home and conducted a search thereon without his consent. Sabatin averred that the search
warrant in question was actually issued against his brother, Pedrito Sabatin. When he pointed this
out to the police, P/Sr. Insp. Simon merely instructed his men to erase the name Pedrito and
replace it with Artemio, making it appear that the warrant was, indeed, issued in his name.
Sabatin was arrested and brought by the policemen to their station for investigation, but was later
released. He then received a subpoena after a few days, and it was only then that he learned that
a criminal complaint had been filed against him for illegal possession of firearms. Sabatin, in
turn, filed a complaint for illegal search, unlawful arrest, arbitrary detention and falsification of
public document against P/Sr. Insp. Simon and his men before the office of the city prosecutor
and the DILG. Sabatin also filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant. Upon investigation, it was
found that the questioned search warrant shows that although it was issued by Branch 30 of the
RTC of Cabanatuan City, the signatory therein was Judge Mallare. Judge Fajardo, then presiding
judge of Branch 30, Cabanatuan City denied that the questioned warrant was issued by him.
Judge Mallare then made a volte-face and denied that he ever issued any search warrant against
the complainant and granted the complainants motion to quash. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Mallare has committed a violation of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct.
HELD:
Yes. In resolving the complainants motion to quash almost four months after it was filed, the
respondent violated Rule 3.05 of The Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to dispose
of the courts business promptly and to act, one way or the other, on pending cases within the
prescribed period therefor. Also, pursuant to Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
Judges are duty-bound to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence at all
times. Respondent Judge failed to do this. The pursuit of excellence must be their guiding
principle. This is the least that judges can do to sustain the trust and confidence which the public
reposed on them and the institution they represent. Considering that they are the visible
representation of the law and of justice, the citizenry expects their official conduct as well as
their personal behavior to always be beyond reproach.

DIETA, Ma. Carmela L.

47

Gonzales-Decano v. Siapno
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279
March 1, 2001
Facts:
Judge Gonzales-Decano, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta, Pangasinan,
via two letters addressed to the Court Administrator, reported that Judge Siapno of the Urdaneta
Municipal Trial Court has not decided within the required periods seven cases already submitted
for decision. In his Comment, Judge Siapno did not dispute outright the allegations of delay but
provided an explanation. He maintained that (1) the delay was beyond his control since there was
delay in the transcription of the stenographic notes because (2) only one stenographer is assigned
in his sala, (3) albeit he takes notes during the trial, the same is not considered official and he
risks administrative sanctions should he decide on matters that later turn out to be not supported
by the records, (4) his suspension rendered him unable to render a decision, and (5) his
designation as the Presiding Judge of Manaoag, Pangasinan and Presiding Judge in the MTCs of
Asingan and Pozorrubio where the presiding judges inhibited themselves making it impossible
for him to check all cases pending resolution.
Issue:
Whether or not the complaint is meritorious
Held:
The Court has consistently emphasized the need for judges to decide cases within the
mandated periods. A judge should dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods.
That the transcript of stenographic notes in cases already deemed submitted for decision
has not yet been completed does not excuse such failure. The Court has directed judges to take
down notes of salient portions of the hearing and proceed in the preparation of decisions without
waiting for the transcribed stenographic notes. The argument that such notes are not official
would not relieve judges of their duty to render a decision within the required periods. The
solution is not to await the transcription of the stenographic notes but for the judge to pay careful
attention to the proceedings and take accurate notes.
Neither does respondent Judges claim that his draft decision was not typed right away
and submitted to him for signature serve as a valid excuse. The reasons for such failure are
entirely within his control. Judges are charged with the administrative responsibility of
organizing and supervising the court personnel to secure the prompt and efficient dispatch of
business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.
Judges have the duty to initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against court personnel for
unprofessional conduct of which he may have become aware.
His argument that his suspension attributed to the delay has no merit. Lastly, the
additional assignments or designations imposed upon him do not make him less liable for the
delay, as previously held by the Court in various cases. Judge Siapno should have known that if
his caseload prevented the disposition of cases within the reglementary period, all he had to do
was to ask from this Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the cases involved.
The Court, cognizant of the caseload of judges and mindful of the difficulty encountered by them
in the seasonable disposition of cases, would almost always grant the request.
ADINA, Angelo Ray A.
48

Mane v. Judge Belen

A. M. NO. RTJ-08-2119
June 30, 2008
Facts:
Atty. Melvin D. C. Mane charged Judge Medel Amaldo Belen. Presiding Judge of
Branch 36, Regional Trial Court, Calamba City of demanding, humiliating and berating him
during the hearing on February 27, 2006.
To prove him claim, complainant cited the remarks made by the respondent in the course
of the proceeding on the matter pertaining to his alma mater which, he alleged, respondent has
insulted him. Complainant further claimed that the entire proceeding were recorded by
stenographer De Guzman, and despite his motion for respondent to furnish him with a copy of
the tape recording, the motion remained unacted as of the date he filed the present administrative
complaint on May 26, 2006. He, however, attached a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes
taken o the said hearing.
On the unacted motion to direct the stenographer to furnish complaint with a copy of the
unedited tape recording of the proceedings, respondent quoted Paragraphs 4 and 3 of the
Motion, which to him, implied that the trial court was illegally, unethically and unlawfully
engaged in editing the transcript of records to favor a party litigant against the interest of
client.
Respondent thus claimed that it was on account of the two motions that he ordered
complainant, by separate orders why he shouldnt be cited for contempt of court. Complainant
then withdrew his complaint. Despite the withdrawal, the OCA evaluated that despite the
desistance f thee complainant from pursuing an administrative complaint does not divest the
Court of its disciplinary authority over court officials and personnel.
Issue:
Whether or not the statements and actions made by respondent Judge during the hearing
on February 27, 2006 constitute conduct of unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of
Judicial Ethics.
Held:
YES. Respondent Judges insulting statements tend to question complainants capability
and credibility stemming from the fact that the latter did not graduate from UP Law School is
clearly unwarranted and inexcusable. When Judge indulges in intemperate language, the lawyer
can return the attack on his person and character, though an administrative case against the
judge, as in the instant case. Respondent should bear in mind that all judges should always
observe courtesy and civility. Respect is not a one-way ticket where the Judge should be
respected but free to insult lawyers and others who appear in his Court. It is also noticeable that
respondent Judge make insulting and demeaning remarks but he also engaged in unnecessary
lecturing and debating.
Thus, it is the Courts view that Respondent Judge should shun from lecturing the
counsels or debating with them during court hearings to prevent suspicious as to his fairness and
integrity. While Judge should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently
construe and enforce the law, it is more important that they should act and behave in such
manner that the parties before them should have confidence in their impartiality.
CANTOS, Leula Dianne
49

Guanzon v. Judge Rufon

A.M. No RTJ-07-2038
October 19, 2007
Facts:
The instant case stemmed from allegation of the herein complainants that respondent
judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and rule on Gender-Fair Language, use of foul,
obscene or discriminatory language, discrimination against women lawyers and unethical
conduct. A client of Atty. Guanzon gave this in her affidavit: In one of the first hearings of my
case, when Atty. Rowena Guanzon was not assisting me but another counsel, I was shocked
when Judge Anastacio Rufon, inside the court with so many people present, said to me next
time you see your husband, open your arms and legs. I felt humiliated and insulted, and was
glad that the hearing did not proceed because the respondent was not present. In denying the
charges leveled against him, in a comment in trial, he admitted his use of "frank language" in
court when exhorting litigants to settle their differences and his resorting to "strong and colorful"
words whenever he has had a drink.
Issue:
Whether or not sufficient cause exists to hold respondent administratively liable for
violation of the code of conduct for judges and the rule on gender-fair language, use of foul or
obscene and discriminatory language, discrimination against women lawyers and litigants as well
as unethical conduct.
Held:
YES. The court sought to remind the respondent that as a judge he holds a special and
honored position in the community, thus demanding upon him in regards to moral righteousness
and uprightness. It is thus essential that they live up to the high standards of Sec. 6 of Canon 6 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct, to maintain order and propriety, dignity and courtesy to any in his
sala and out. Although as all mortals are wont to do judges too are subject to human limitations
and lapses in judgment, his statements in court were derogatory to the women, injurious to their
feelings and sensitivities. Thus in accordance with law, respondent is found guilty of vulgar and
unbecoming conduct and is fined 5000 Php, and warned that repetition shall warrant more
serious punishment.

RAMOS, Julian Justice M.

50

CLASS LIST
ADINA
AFIDCHAO
AQUINO
BACHO
BERNARDES
BLASURCA
CANTOS
CLEMENCIA
DELA CRUZ
DIETA
ESLAVA
GUINTU
HINGAN
IBRAHIM
MANDA
MEDIODIA
PARAGAS
PONCE
RAMOS
ROMANO
SANTOS
SARMIENTO
SIERRA
SUYOSA
TANCHULING
TIBAY

51