TRIAL COURTS BOOK ADVERTISEMENT?

Seven court employees accused Judge A of ordering them to advertise and to offer for
sale books that she authored in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct. Likewise, several
book posters of Judge A are found in Z City Hall in violation of Administrative Circular
No. 66-666. Seventy court employees accuse Judge A of similar violations in another
complaint.
Is Judge A liable for violation of Code of Judicial Conduct and Administrative Circular
No. 66-666 for ordering them to advertise and to offer for sale books? The answer is in
the negative.

There is no evidence presented by all the complainants to support their accusation

against Judge A in ordering them to advertise and to offer for sale books that she
authored. They failed to give the time, date and place of order to advertise and offer for
sale the books given by judge A to them. No formal letter or memorandum was given
to each of them by Judge A about the alleged order advertise and sell the books. They
did not inform the Office of the Executive Judge of the alleged unethical and illegal order
for them to do against their will so Judge A will receive a memorandum to explain it to
Executive Judge X that did not happen because their accusation is false.

Conspicuously missing in the allegations are the particular time, date and place of their
general allegations that vary with each other to prove falsehood. During the course of
investigation, complainants failed to submit proofs of their complaints. They did not state
the specific words of the order to advertise and to offer for sell the books made by
Judge A to them. They also failed to state the time and date of the order to advertise
and offer for sale books. They did not show an evidence in alternate of not remembering
the time and date of the order made by Judge A to them. "He who alleges a fact has
the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence" (Luxuria Homes Inc. vs.
CA, 302 SCRA 315). In Boyboy vs. Atty. Yabut Jr., A.C. No. 5225, April 29, 2003:
Lamentably, the evidence against respondent does not meet the mandated standard. At
best, complainants would indulge in presumptions which, unfortunately, cannot be a
valid basis to slap respondent with administrative sanctions.

Also, there are no specific words stated on how the order to advertise the books was
made by Judge A to them contrary to their other complaints stating the kilometric
words allegedly said by Judge A against Court Administrator D and SC auditor E to
them, to prove their charges to be suspicious and to show their selective bad memory of
foisting falsehood in numerous complaints against Judge A who they have an ax to
grind for reporting their graft and corruption to the Supreme Court. In People v. Quidato,
G.R. No. 117401, October 1, 1998, It is all too obvious from the foregoing that there is
a dearth of evidence which would in any way prove the commission of blackmail and
extortion, much less incriminate respondent for those offenses. Even the baseless
postulations in the affidavits would certainly not carry the day for complainants in view of
their lack of evidentiary value. It is not difficult to manufacture charges in the affidavits,
hence it is imperative that their truthfulness and veracity be tested in the crucible of

1
thorough examination. The hornbook doctrine is that unless the affiants themselves take
the witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, those affidavits must be
excluded from the proceedings for being inadmissible and hearsay.

With respect to posting of the book posters within the premises of Z City Hall, there are
permissions to obtain from the RTC Executive Judge and the IBP President that were
given by them as proven by evidence. Also, there are book posters promoting Judge A
books that are found within in the premises of many Halls of Justice in Metropolitan
Manila, none of the passers-by who saw them filed administrative complaint against
Judge A for violating Code of Judicial Conduct and Administrative Circular No. 66-666.

The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Judge Bibiano Colasito, Vice
Executive Judge Bonifacio Pascua, Judge Restituto Mangalindan Jr. , Judge Catherine
Manodon, Miguel Infante, Emma Annie Arafiles, Racquel Diano, Pedro Doctolero Jr.,
Lydia Casas, Auxencio Clemente, Ma. Cecilia Gertrudes R. Salvador, Zenaida N.
Geronimo, Virginia D. Galang, Elsa Garnet, Amor Abad, Emelina J. San Miguel,
Maxima C. Sayo, Romer H. Aviles, Froilan Robert L. Tomas, Dennis M. Echegoyen,
Norman Garcia, Noel Labid, Eleanor N. Bayog, Leilani A. Tejero Lopez, Ana Maria V.
Francisco, Soledad J. Bassig, Marissa Mashhoor Rastgooy, Marie Luz M. Obida,
Evelyn P. Depalobos, Joseph B. Pamatmat, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Benjie V. Ore,
Fortunato E. Diezmo, Nomer B. Villanueva, Edwina A. Jurok, Fatima V. Rojas, Eduardo
E. Ebreo, Ronalyn T. Almarvez, Ma. Victoria C. Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Mary Ann J.
Cayanan, Manolo Manuel E. Garcia, Petronilo C. Primacio Jr., Edward Eric Santos,
Armina B. Almonte, Elizabeth G. Villanueva, Erwin Russ B. Ragasa, Bien T. Camba,
Marlon M. Suligan, Chanda B. Tolentino, Ferdinand R. Molina, Lanie F. Aguinaldo,
Jasmine L. Lindain, Emilio P. Domine, Arnold P. Obial, Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Jerome H.
Aviles, Ana Lea M. Estacio, Cristina E. Lampitoc, Melanie DC Begasa, Evangeline M.
Ching, Karla Mae Pacunayen, Ronaldo S. Quijano, Domingo H. Hocosol, Edwin P.
Ubana, Marvin O. Balicuatro, Ma. Luz D. Dionisio, Maribel A. Molina, Sevilla B. Del
Castillo, Aida Josefina Ignacio, Benigno A. Marzan, Ignacio Gonzales, Lawrence D.
Perez, and Edmundo Vergara vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu
The Philippine Supreme Court sustained the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B. Yu.