Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2.ID.; ID.; EXCEPTION. Circular No. 1-90 clearly provides that it is only when
SYNOPSIS
there are no lawyers or notaries public in the municipality or circuit that an MTC
and MCTC judge may act as a notary public provided that, the notarial fees are
In a letter-complaint dated January 8, 2000 and an affidavit-complaint dated turned over to the government and a certification is made in the notarized
January 10, 2000, Horst Franz Ellert charged Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. with documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality
grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful or circuit.
notarization, perjury and false testimony. The Office of the Court Administrator,
3.SUPREME COURT; OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR; DEALS
after due investigation found respondent judge to have notarized a pleading in a
MAINLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURTS. The
case not pending before his sala and recommended that respondent be fined for
Office of the Court Administrator, as the name suggests, deals mainly with
this act.
administrative functions of the courts. It can act on matters concerning the judicial
Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform discipline of judges of the MTC, among others. Criminal cases are out of its
their functions as Notaries Public Ex-Oficio only in the notarization of documents hands. aCSEcA
connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the
preparation and acknowledgment of documents which bears no relation to the
performance of their functions as judges, such as the Answer filed with the
DECISION
DARAB that was notarized by respondent judge. As to the charge of False
Testimony and Perjury, the complainant is advised to institute a criminal case with
the proper trial court.
BUENA, J p:
Circular No. I-90 specifically delineates the power of Municipal Trial Court Judges Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform
and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges to act as notaries public ex oficio, thus: their functions as notaries public ex-oficio only in the notarization of documents
connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the
"Municipal trial court (MTC) and municipal circuit trial court preparation and acknowledgment of documents which bear no relation to the
(MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the functions of performance of their functions as judges.
notaries public ex oficiounder Section 76 of Republic Act No.
296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of Undoubtedly, the Answer filed with the DARAB that was notarized by respondent
1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. judge is a perfect example of a document which bears no relation to the
But the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on performance of Judge Galapon's functions as a judge. Since respondent's
the scope of this power: actuation of notarizing the aforestated pleading is not in connection with the
exercise of his official duties, consequently, he acted beyond the scope of his
"MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex authority as notary public ex-oficio.
oficio in the notarization of documents connected only with
Circular No. 1-90 clearly provides that it is only when there are no lawyers or xxx xxx xxx
notaries public in the municipality or circuit that an MTC and MCTC judge may act
II.Matters to be attended by the Court En Banc
as a notary public provided that, the notarial fees are turned over to the
government and a certification is made in the notarized documents attesting to the A.Disciplinary Matters
lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.
1.Justices and Judges Judicial discipline matters involving
In the case at bar, there is no showing that there was no lawyer or notary public in the justices and judges of all lower courts (Court of Appeals,
Dulag, Leyte. Therefore, respondent judge's action as a notary public cannot Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts,
qualify as an exception to Circular No. 1-90. Metropolitan Trial Courts, MTCC, MTC, Shari'a Courts) filed
with the Office of the Court Administrator or the lower courts
The defense interposed by the respondent that he sees nothing wrong with what
shall be immediately referred to the Court En Banc for
he has done, nor that he abused his authority when he notarized the subject
appropriate action.
pleading, is unmeritorious. Judge Galapon should know what the duties of a judge
acting as an ex-oficio notary public are, and, if he was uncertain of what they are, The Office of the Court Administrator, as the name suggests, deals mainly with
he should have first verified from the Office of the Court Administrator the extent of administrative functions of the courts. It can act on matters concerning the judicial
his authority to notarize documents. discipline of judges of the MTC, among others. Criminal cases are out of its
hands. EcDSTI
As to the charge of False Testimony and Perjury, the complainant is advised to
institute a criminal case with the proper trial court. WHEREFORE, for unauthorized notarization which constitutes an unlawful
practice of law, respondent Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial
In Circular No. 30-91 which outlined the Guidelines on the Functions of the Office
Court at Dulag, Leyte is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos
of the Court Administrator, we read:
(P5,000.00). He is further warned that a repetition of the same or similar
I.General Considerations infractions will be dealt with more severely.
"Rule 5.06 A judge should not serve as the executor, Bishop Ariola Drive
administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for
the estate, trust, or person of a member of the immediate Karanghan Blvd., Tabaco, Albay
family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the "Dear July:
proper performance of judicial duties. "Members of immediate
family" shall be limited to the spouse and relatives within the "This is in connection with your letter dated June 9, 1995 to
second degree of consanguinity. As a family fiduciary, a judge Mr. Andres Bo of Fatima, Tabaco, Albay with respect to his
shall not: occupancy of lot no. 7 Tabaco Cadastre.
(1) serve in proceedings that might come before the court of "Please be informed that Lot No. 7 was among those sold by
said judge; or Pantaleon Bueno and all his children to Victor Bocaya before
the Japanese war which was in turn sold by the heirs of Victor
(2) act as such contrary to Rules 5.02 to 5.05." Bocaya to the spouses Crispin Bo and Ursula Bo, landlord of
As a general rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as executor, administrator, Andres Bo and who instituted Andres Bo as the riceland
trustee, guardian or other fiduciary. The only exception is when the estate or trust tenant of their nearby lot 1656 and his house on lot no. 7 had
belongs to, or the ward is a member of his immediate family, and only if his service been there since 1950. A copy of the document of sale is in
as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not interfere with the my possession as the administrator of all the properties of the
proper performance of his judicial duties. The Code has defined who may be heirs of Victor Bocaya at San Roque, Tabaco, Albay. A copy
considered as members of his immediate family and they are the spouse and of the sale was shown to VictorianoCarual during their
relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. It does not appear in this case confrontation at the office of the barangay captain of Fatima,
that Victor Bocaya or his heirs are members of respondent judge's immediate Tabaco, Albay last Wednesday June 7, 1995.
family. "I do hope this will clarify the matters. Mr.
We disagree with respondent's argument that the proscription refers only to judges Victoriano Carual has no right whatsoever to lot no. 7 and his
acting as judicial administrator. The Code does not qualify the prohibition. The documents if any could not have been secured if not by fraud.
intent of the rule is to limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of The truth is that Mr. Victoriano Carual has never set foot on
private individuals to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties and to any portion of lot no. 7 yet even up to now. His documents are
allow him to devote his undivided attention to the performance of his official reminiscent of the late 'Flores documents and titles.'
"My best regards.
Very truly yours, Nonetheless, it has not been proved that respondent judge has regularly engaged
in private practice. Although complainant suspects that it was respondent who
(sgd.)VLADIMIR
prepared the pleadings filed by Andres Bo and Ursula Bo in connection with the
B. BRUSOLA"
civil case for quieting of title pending before the RTC of Tabaco, Albay, such
The tenor of the letter shows that respondent, as representative of Andres Bo, was suspicion has remained a suspicion and was not proven to be a fact. There is no
defending the latter's rights over the disputed property. Respondent's act of direct evidence, testimonial or documentary, to show that respondent judge
representing and defending the interest of a private individual in the disputed prepared said pleadings. Complainant admitted during the hearing that he did not
property constitutes private practice of law. It has been ruled that "the practice of see who prepared the pleadings and he merely presumed based on their content
law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in court and appearance that they were prepared by an intelligent person. 14 Neither did
proceedings but also includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of he present any witness to testify that respondent judge authored these pleadings.
a litigation, giving advice to clients or persons needing the same, etc." 11 Complainant's documentary evidence consists of respondent's letter to Atty.
Cargullo dated June 11, 1995, 15 respondent's letter to Mr. Leoncio Buenconsejo
Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, judges are prohibited dated November 27, 1995, 16 Answer signed by Andres Bo and filed in relation to
from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. the civil case, 17 and Comment on Plaintiff's Motion for Production and Inspection
This is reiterated in Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As in Rule 5.06, of Documents 18 also signed by Andres Bo and filed in relation to the civil case.
this rule is also based on public policy because the rights, duties, privileges and Although it appears that these documents were written by one who has knowledge
functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the and training in the law, they do not conclusively show that it was respondent judge
high official functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge. It also who prepared them. These documents do not show any distinctive style of writing
aims to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, peculiar to respondent judge. Even the similarity in the type of print used in these
prevent them from extending special favors to their own private interests and documents do not prove complainant's allegation for it is of judicial notice that
assure the public of their impartiality in the performance of their functions. These computers do produce the same types of print. LexLib
objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the
public interest. 12 As regards the charge of violation of RA 3019, the records show that complainant
did not adduce any evidence to show that respondent judge has been partial to a
Respondent's pretext that he wrote the letter as administrator of the property is party or has given any unwarranted benefit or favor to a party in the exercise of his
belied by the records. It appears that the property in question was originally owned judicial functions.
by a certain Pantaleon Bueno. Before the Japanese War, Bueno sold the land to
Victor Bocaya who was later succeeded by his heirs Cecilia Centeno, Victoria IN VIEW WHEREOF, a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) is hereby
Jocson and Antonio Bocaya. The property was later transferred to Crispin and imposed upon respondent judge for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, with
Ursula Bo who instituted Andres Bo as their tenant. On March 20, 1976, Cecilia warning that the commission of similar or other offenses shall be dealt with more
Centeno appointed respondent judge who was then a practicing lawyer as severely. Respondent judge is further ordered to cease from serving as
administrator of their properties.13 It is therefore clear that at the time respondent administrator of the properties of private individuals except those allowed by the
judge wrote to Atty. Cargullo, the land in dispute was no longer under his Code.
administration as ownership thereof had already been transferred by the heirs to
SO ORDERED.
the Bo spouses. The terms of the General Power of Attorney provide that
respondent's office as administrator shall extend only over authority to interfere in Davide, Jr., C.J. and Pardo, J., concur.
the dispute between complainant and Andres Bo unless he did act as counsel and
Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., are on official business abroad.
representative of Andres Bo.
Footnotes Million Pesos, the two of us will receive a commission of
||| (Carual v. Brusola, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500, [October 20, 1999], 375 PHIL 464- P100,000.00 each while the remaining amount or net gain be
479) retained by Judge Barte as his commission based on his
agreement with the vendors. 3
RESOLUTION Meanwhile, lot 5555 located in Hamtic, Antique owned by Eleanor M. Checa-
Santos was sold on February 12, 2001 for P2,300,000. 7
For the first two sales, complainant claimed she was entitled to a P300,000
CORONA, J p: commission. cISDHE
In a verified letter-complaint 1 dated September 17, 2001 addressed to the Since the Church transacted with respondent only, it paid the price of the
Honorable Chief Justice, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), properties to him. Respondent then delivered the amount due to the vendors.
complainant Editha O. Catbagan charged respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte of
When complainant heard that the vendors had been paid, she demanded her
the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Tobias Fornier, Antique with "grave
commission from respondent. However, respondent offered her only P25,000 for
and serious misconduct." 2
the two transactions, excluding the one in Hamtic.
In the first week of May 1999, complainant received information that the Church of
Complainant later learned that respondent received a P435,226.55 commission
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. (Church) was interested in buying land in
from the Aurea Clarin transaction alone. 8
the Province of Antique. She immediately approached respondent judge and
requested him to assist her in the prospective transaction. Together with a certain Complainant reminded respondent of their agreement but respondent challenged
Abraham Pedria, the three agreed that in case they succeeded in brokering the complainant "to go to court." Instead of pursuing her claim in a civil suit, however,
sale of the properties to the Church, their commission would be divided in this complainant opted to file the present administrative case against respondent on
manner: September 17, 2001.
Respondent submits that the jurisdiction of the 1st MCTC covers the Municipalities As already mentioned, respondent was previously sanctioned for an identical
of Tobias Fornier, Hamtic and Aniniy. The 2nd MCTC, on the other hand, covers infraction involving the sale of land to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day
Sibalom, San Remigio and Belison. Hence, since the parties and subject matter Saints, Inc. We ordered him to pay a fine of P2,000, admonished him to be more
involved in the controversy were not within the jurisdiction of the 1st MCTC, his discreet and prudent in his private dealings and warned him that a similar
judicial authority could have never been invoked had a case arisen from the infraction would be sanctioned more severely. 26 This second administrative case
transaction. therefore reveals a certain kind of avarice on the part of respondent. Hence, we
are constrained to impose upon him a heavier penalty than the OCA-
recommended fine.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte is hereby found guilty of baseless and that the only motive of complainant was to harass, smear and
violating Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Considering that this is his malign his name.
second offense, he is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months. He is hereby
In a resolution dated March 13, 2000, 1 the Court referred the case to Associate
warned that another complaint of this kind will merit a penalty beyond mere
Justice Elvi John Asuncion of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and
suspension from public office.
recommendation.
SO ORDERED.
Culled from the records, the facts of the case, as summed up by Investigating
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur. Justice Asuncion, are as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 613-V-91 2. State prosecutor Razon denied both in his affidavit
and testimony the fact that respondent sent him to
Accused Benito Go and Robert Go [g]uilty beyond complainant and offered favorable judgment in the
reasonable doubt, they are hereby sentenced each said criminal cases for money consideration.
to an indeterminate imprisonment from FOURTEEN
(14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY 3. Complainants claim that he accommodated the
of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, with the solicitation of respondents son, Christian Osorio, in
accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay the the amount of P1,000.00 for a certain project after
offended party the amount of P150,000.00 and the State Prosecutor Razon called him by telephone and
costs of suit. asked him to help the son of Judge Osorio is belied
by the fact that complainant did not bother to ask the
SO ORDERED. name of the person and what the solicitation is all
about.
4. Respondent denied having called up complainant Malabon, Metro Manila on March 5, 1996 since a
to inform the latter of his wifes death and requested birthday party was tendered by her and her husband
for financial assistance from him and averred that Teddy Zaragosa at their residence in Ayala Alabang
complainant and his wife came to know of the death Village, Muntinlupa City on that date after
of his wife when the hearing for Criminal Cases Nos. respondent conducted a hearing in a criminal case
10029-V-90 to 10035-V-90 was postponed due to the (Criminal Case No. 5215-V-95, People vs. Boyet
death of respondents wife and the clerk of court Gonzales, et al.) in the courtroom located inside the
issued a Constancia on such date to that effect. compound of the Bureau of Corrections at
Muntinlupa City from 2:00 to 4:00 in the afternoon of
5. Respondent insists that he does not know who
March 5, 1996. 3
received the UCPB Check No. 46193 in the amount
of P5,000.00 with the notation condolence at its In his report, Investigating Justice Asuncion found that there was evidence that the
dorsal side and has no knowledge how said check alleged initial payment of P40,000 was handed over to State Prosecutor Razon for
was given. Respondent was so depressed and delivery to respondent. The only evidence presented was the notation in the diary
confused that he did not pay attention to the abuloy of complainants wife, Mrs. Alice Kaw, concerning a certain UCPB check no.
given by his friends and legitimate sympathizers who KAR007616 dated May 1993 in the amount of P40,000. Such notation could easily
paid respect to his departed wife, a deeply[-]rooted be fabricated, however, as the diary was solely in the control of complainant and
Filipino customs (sic) and traditions (sic). his wife. Nevertheless, the protestations of innocence of respondent judge cannot
be given credence entirely either, considering that certain actuations of his arouse
6. Respondent stoutly denies that he requested
suspicions of judicial impropriety. Investigating Justice Asuncion, after weighing
State Prosecutor Razon for a meeting with
the evidence presented before him, made the following findings and
complainant at the Steaktown Restaurant at West
recommendations:
Avenue, Quezon City on December 13, 1994.
Complainant and wife do not have positive proof that [1. Respondents denial that he requested State Prosecutor
respondent was in the said restaurant on that date. Razon to arrange meeting between him and complainant at
the Steaktown Restaurant and that he received P10,000 from
7. Respondent never criticizes the performance of
the latter on said occasion.]
any lawyer nor advises any complainant to change
his private prosecutor. To insist therefore that In one instance, Fiscal Razon admitted having accompanied
respondents brother-in-law Marcelo Bunag Judge Osorio at the Steaktown for a meeting but immediately
recommended or suggested to complainant to left the restaurant without eating any lunch. Such statement
engage the legal services of the law firm of Quijano, contradicts the testimony of Judge Osorio who testified that
Padilla and Natividad with whom Bunag is sharing he never went to Steaktown to meet the complainant and was
an office space and guaranteed that complainant never accompanied by Prosecutor Razon. However, in order
would win all his cases before Judge Osorio, is a to mend the favorable allegation by the prosecutor, when
blatant lie. respondent judge was cross-examined after the testimony of
prosecutor Razon, he declared that they went to Kowloon
8. Respondents daughter Marian Rose Zaragosa
House because he likes to eat fish and not to Steaktown.
could not have invited complainant and wife to attend
the birthday party of his (sic) father in the latters [2. Respondents silence on complainants allegation that he,
residence at No. 44 M. H. del Pilar St., Tugatog, together with his counsel, Atty. Gregorio Narvasa and
Prosecutor Razon visited the former in his house, a day On account of the facts involved as well as his impression on
before the original schedule date for the promulgation of the what transpired under the circumstances, Atty. Gregorio
decision.] Narvasa, II testified for the complainant and narrated the
following, viz:
In that way, Fiscal Razon should not have exposed himself to Q Were you able to overhear . . .?
the suspicion that he was partial. Suffice it to state that such
A No, but Mr. Kaw told me what was told to him, sir.
practice should be discouraged or should not be tolerated
because it generates the impression that fiscals would be Q And what did he tell you?
able to fix the cases assigned to them and can manipulate or
maneuver them. A He told me that the judge was not yet home at that time, sir.
When pressed to discuss the topic further, Fiscal Razon was Q So, what did you do while waiting or if you waited?
evasive. Upon being asked if there was any other reason for A We were asked inside which I found also very odd.
their going to the house of Judge Osorio, Fiscal Razon
answered that he did not inquire any further as he deemed it Q By the way, what was your impression about
a private matter between the parties. Mr. Kaw asking the helper about the arrival of
Judge Osorio?
A From the time of asking and the time that we were asked to Q And did Judge Osorio reply to the reminder of Fiscal
enter, as I said, I found it very odd sir, because we Razon, if you recall?
were allowed to get inside as if . . . my impression
A Well, Judge Osorio said that, I would think, because Fiscal
was that the person knew already Mr. Kaw.
Razon was talking of promulgation of judgment the
Q And having entered, where did you wait inside the house of following day, Judge Osorioreplied that, of course,
Judge Osorio? he could not tell us before hand what his decision
would be.
A In the sala. We passed through the area. I remember there
were some construction going on at that time. We Q What else happened after that, if you recall?
passed through the kitchen and were led towards the
A Judge Osorio also said that his decision always is based on
area where there was a sofa. It looks like a sala of
the evidence and merits of the case, sir.
the house, sir.
Q At that time, do you remember if you ever said anything
Q Now, Mr. Witness, at the time you were waiting did you
during the conversation?
have any discussion among yourselves while you
were waiting for Judge Osorio? A Well, they kept to their word. I was courteous. I said, Good
afternoon Judge. What I told the judge was, good
A We will object to that, Your Honor. Leading. No basis.
afternoon. Probably some small talks regarding, I
Q Now, Mr. Witness, do you recall if Judge Osorio did indeed barely said a word then, sir.
return, he indeed arrive at this house that day?
Q After Judge Osorios statement that he will decide the case
A Yes, sir. After about twenty or thirty minutes of waiting, sir. on the merits, what happened after that?
Q What transpired when Judge Osorio arrived? A He said he decides cases on the merits.
A When Judge Osorio arrived I had noticed that when Q What did he say after that?
Judge Osorio arrived, my impression is, when he
A Well, some small talks for a very brief moment. I remember,
saw us as if he saw a ghost. That is my impression,
since I felt at that time that the purpose for being
and he stopped walking towards us and then he
there was already made. I signaled Mr. Kaw that it is
continued walking as if collecting his thoughts, if he
time for us to leave, sir.
could have run away, he could have done it.
Q And did you in fact leave?
Q And did after he approached you, what happened after
that? A Yes, sir.
A Well, we introduced ourselves. Judge Osorio, he was very Q How long did you stay in the house of Judge Osorio?
formal but also very cold. I could feel, he did not
want us there. What happened next was that Fiscal A It was very brief. About fifteen minutes or about that long,
Razon, he said reminding him we were there sir.
because of the scheduled promulgation of judgment Q When you said fifteen minutes, you are referring to the fact
in the case of Mr.Kaw. that, of the discussion with Judge Osorio?
A Yes, sir. From the time that he arrived up to the time that we inhibition having been filed by Fiscal Razon at the
you see it did not happen very long. I would think, instance of JudgeOsorio, sir.
about fifteen minutes, sir.
Q Did you discuss any other matter aside from that?
Q And after you left, where did you go, Mr. Witness?
A I was telling Mr. Kaw then at that time, it was quite odd also
A We had (sic) brought back Fiscal Razon to the Municipal at that time, because I remember then that he had a
Hall, sir. private prosecutor at that time. So, that is quite odd
also. The private prosecutor had no participation
Q While returning to the Municipal Hall do you recall having
whatsoever in that motion for inhibition.
discussed any matter involving your visit to
Judge Osorio? Q How did you know that the private prosecutor had no
participation in that motion for inhibition?
A Yes. We were talking about the fact that what we all
noticed and what was very prominent at that time, A Because it was Fiscal Razon who filed the motion for
which was the discussion when we were on our way inhibition, sir.
back was the way Judge reacted.
Q No further questions, Your Honor. (TSN, August 23, 2000,
Q And after having were you able to return Fiscal Razon to pp. 22-46).
the Valenzuela Municipal Hall?
[3. Respondents denial of having called complainant to
A Yes, sir. inform him of the death of his wife.]
Q From there where did you proceed? Judge Osorio admitted having received P5,000.00 during the
wake of his wife but he allegedly did not give serious thought
A Mr. Kaw and I had lunch, sir.
as to who gave the said amount which he termed as "abuloy,"
Q And did you discover anything about the case after this a Filipino tradition. The testimonies of respondent judge and
incident? his children, Christian and Marian Rose, were one in
declaring that nobody pays attention to the "abuloys" to the
Atty. Meris: Objection. effect that nobody recollects receiving the check of the
The question is vague, Your Honor. Sps. Kaw.
. . . A Judge may not be legally prohibited from IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby recommended
sitting in a litigation. But when suggestion is made of that respondent Judge Adriano Osorio be suspended for a
record that he might be induced to act in favor of one period of six (6) months without pay due to the impropriety of
party or with bias or prejudice against a litigant his acts which surely results in damage and corrodes the
arising out of circumstance reasonably capable of respect for law and the courts.
inciting such a state of mind, he should conduct a
careful self-examination. He should exercise his After a thorough review of the records, we hold that the findings of Investigating
discretion in a way that the peoples faith in the Justice Asuncion are adequately substantiated by the evidence and we therefore
courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is adopt them in toto except the recommended penalty of six-month suspension
that he reflect on the probability that a losing party without pay.
might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that While respondent judge may not necessarily be held liable for extortion and graft
the judge had unmeritoriously tilted the scales of and corruption as it was not substantially proven, he should be made accountable
justice against him. That passion on the part of a for violating Canons 2 and 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
judge may be generated because of serious charges
of misconduct against him by a suitor or his counsel, CANON 2. A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY
if not altogether remote. . . . AND APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.
At the very sign of lack of faith and trust in his actions, Rule 2.01 A judge should so behave at all times as to
whether well-grounded or not, the judge has no alternative but promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
to inhibit himself from the case. When circumstances appear the judiciary.
that will induce doubt as to his honest actuations and probity
CANON 5 A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE EXTRA-
in favor of either party, or incite such state of mind, he should
JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF
conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his
CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES.
discretion in a way that the peoples faith in the Courts (sic) of
justice is not impaired. (Gutang vs. Court of Appeals, 292 FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
SCRA 76, 85)
Rule 5.04 A judge or any immediate member of the family
In view thereof, the undersigned finds that the less than shall not accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone
scrupulous acts of the respondent is damaging to the except as may be allowed by law.
reputation of a magistrates most honorable professions (sic),
The Canons of Judicial Ethics further provide that "a judge's official conduct
where both public and private conduct should be beyond
should be free from the appearance of impropriety and his personal behavior, not
reproach. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge
only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties but also in his
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
everyday life, should be beyond reproach." 4
The spirit and philosophy underlying these Canons were explained Kaws on the occasion of his wifes death. Evidence shows
in Castillo vs. Calanog: 5 that Judge Osorio signed the back of the check beside the
signature of George and Alice Kaw and the same was in fact
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a
encashed at the bank by Judge Osorio. Furthermore,
judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with
respondents effort to conceal the truth and denials turned
respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to
futile when, during the hearing of this case on September 18,
his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.
2000, counsel for the complainant manifested that respondent
There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also
judge returned the amount of P5,000.00 but was refused by
judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge,
complainant.
in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all No position exacts a greater demand on the moral righteousness and uprightness
times. As we have very recently explained, a judges official of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. A magistrate of the law must comport
life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can
existence. Thus: bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as an epitome
of integrity and justice. 7
Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge
should freely and willingly accept restrictions on Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct are serious offenses punishable by any
conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the of the following sanctions under Rule 140, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, as
ordinary citizen. amended:
A judge should personify judicial integrity and Sec. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is guilty of a
exemplify honest public service. The personal serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be
behavior of a judge, both in the performance of imposed:
official duties and in private life should be above
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
suspicion.
benefits as the Court may determine, and
Respondent judge's conduct fell short of the standard expected of a magistrate of disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to
the law. His act of inviting complainant and his wife to his birthday party corroded any public office, including government-owned or
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, considering that controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
complainant had a pending case in his sala. A judge is not only required to be forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued
impartial; he must also appear to be impartial. 6 Fraternizing with litigants leave credits;
tarnishes this image.
Respondent judge likewise openly transgressed Rule 5.04, Canon 5 of the Code
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
of Judicial Conduct: a judge or any immediate member of the family shall not
more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6)
accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.
months; or
Likewise, the Canons of Judicial Ethics expressly provides that a judge should not
accept any present or favors from litigants or from lawyers practicing before him. 3. A fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
As pointed out by Justice Asuncion: