Case:

Administrative complaints
against members of the judiciary are
viewed by the Court with utmost
care, for proceedings of this nature
affect not only the reputation of the
respondents concerned, but the
integrity of the entire judiciary as
well. Thus, when two court
employees accused a Judge of
sexual harassment, yet they failed to
properly report the incident-with one
waiting for 2 years before filing a
complaint-and their complaint was
unsubstantiated while the Judge
presented documentary and
testimonial evidence leading to a
reasonable conclusion that he could
not have committed the sexual
advances, then the complaint must
be dismissed. SAMAHAN NG
MGA BABAE SA
HUDIKATURA (SAMABAHU)
vs. JUDGE CESAR O.
UNTALAN, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 149, Makati City, A.M.
No. RTJ-13-2363, February 25,
2015, J. Villarama, Jr.
Case: is dispensed with evenly and fairly,
and they but they must also appear
In this case, Judge Jacinto, Jr.
to be honest and impartial in the
was directly confronted with an
dispensation of justice. GASPAR
allegation that he arraigned De
BANDOY vs. JUDGE JOSE S.
Jesus, Jr. inside his chambers. He
JACINTO, JR., PRESIDING
was given the opportunity to answer,
JUDGE, BRANCH 45, and
but he chose not to delve into it.
ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE,
Ultimately, Judge Jacinto, Jr. did not
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2399, November
squarely face the issues being
19, 2014, J. Mendoza
imputed against him, which was
quite irregular since it was his name
and his capacity as a member of the
bench that was being challenged.
His silence introduces doubt in the
minds of the public, which is not
acceptable. Given the exacting
standards required of magistrates in
the application of the law and
procedure, the Court finds Judge
Jacinto, Jr. administratively guilty of
gross ignorance. Here, the Court
cannot fathom why the arraignment
of De Jesus, Jr. was postponed from
2007 to 2011 without appropriate
action coming from the court. The
Code of Judicial Conduct emphasize
that judges, as officers of the court,
have the duty to see to it that justice
 Cases: Branch 2, Batangas City, A.M. No.
RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014, J.
An administrative case was
Brion
filed against Judge Austria for
allegedly committing acts of
In the absence of showing
impropriety by disclosing in her
direct and convincing evidence to
Friendster account her status as an
prove the alleged bribery, Judge
RTC Judge and by posting pictures
Usman cannot be held guilty of said
of her wearing an indecent attire
charge. In the instant case, no
(off-shoulder) which can be viewed
evidence was presented showing that
by the public. The Supreme Court,
Judge Usman in fact accepted or
in ruling that Judge Austria is guilty
received money or anything from
of Impropriety, held that as the
Cui in relation to the subject cases. It
visible personification of law and
is settled that in administrative
justice, judges are held to higher
proceedings, the burden of proof that
standards of conduct and thus must
respondent committed the acts
accordingly comport themselves.
complained of rests on the
This exacting standard applies both
complainant. . Bare allegation would
to acts involving the judicial office
not suffice to hold respondent liable.
and personal matters. The very
JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN vs.
nature of their functions requires
JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN,
behavior under exacting standards of
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2390, August 13,
morality, decency and propriety;
2014, J. Peralta
both in the performance of their
duties and their daily personal lives,
As a general rule, a judge is
they should be beyond reproach.
prohibited from serving as executor,
ANTONIO M. LORENZANA vs.
administrator, trustee, guardian or
JUDGE MA. CECILIA I.
other fiduciary. The intent of the
AUSTRIA, Regional Trial Court,
rule is to limit a judge's involvement
in the affairs and interests of private JUDGE ROGELIO S.
individuals to minimize the risk of LUCMAYON, A.M. No. MTJ-13-
conflict with his judicial duties and 1837, September 24, 2014, J. Brion
to allow him to devote his undivided
attention to the performance of his SC Administrative Circular
official functions. When a member No. 3-92 states that the Halls of
of the bench serves as administrator Justice may only be used for
of the properties of private functions related to the
individuals, he runs the risk of administration of justice and for no
losing his neutrality and impartiality, other purpose. It prohibits the use of
especially when the interests of his halls of justice for residential and
principal conflicts with those of the commercial purposes. Since such
litigant who comes before his court. use of the court’s premises degrades
the honor and dignity of the court in
The only exception to this rule as set addition to exposing judicial records
forth in Rule 5.06 is when the estate to danger of loss or damage.
or trust belongs to, or the ward is a Complainant’s evidence had
member of his immediate family, sufficiently established that Mantua
and only if his service as executor, used his chambers in the Hall of
administrator, trustee, guardian or Justice as his residential and
fiduciary will not interfere with the dwelling place.
proper performance of his judicial
duties. The Code defines "immediate Immorality has been defined
family" as being limited to the "to include not only sexual matters
spouse and relatives within the but also ‘conduct inconsistent with
second degree of consanguinity. rectitude, or indicative of corruption,
CONRADO ABE LOPEZ, indecency, or is willful, or
represented by ATTY. shameless conduct showing moral
ROMUALDO JUBAY vs. indifference to opinions of
respectable members of the erode the people's faith in the
community, and an inconsiderate Judiciary. Members of the Judiciary
attitude toward good order and should be beyond reproach and
public welfare.’" It was proven that suspicion in their conduct, and
Mantua engaged in an extramarital should be free from any appearance
affair with his mistress. There is no of impropriety in the discharge of
doubt that engaging in an extra their official duties, as well as in
marital affair is not only a violation their personal behavior and everyday
of the moral standards expected of life. ANTONIO S. ASCAÑO, JR.,
the members and employees of the CONSOLACION D. DANTES,
judiciary but is also a desecration of BASILISA A. OBALO, JULIETA
the sanctity of the institution of D. TOLEDO, JOSEPH Z. MAAC,
marriage which the Court abhors EMILIANO E. LUMBOY, TITA
and is, thus, punishable. F. BERNARDO, IGMEDIO L.
DOROTHY FE MAH-AREVALO NOGUERA, FIDEL S.
vs. JUDGE CELSO L. SARMIENTO, SR., DAN T.
MANTUA, REGIONAL TRIAL TAUNAN, AMALIA G. SANTOS,
COURT OF PALOMPON, AVELINA M. COLONIA, ERIC
LEYTE, BRANCH 17, A.M. No. S. PASTRANA, AND MARIVEL
RTJ-13-2360, November 19, 2014, B. ISON vs. PRESIDING JUDGE
J. Perlas-Bernabe JOSE S. JACINTO, JR., A.M. No.
RTJ-15-2405, January 12, 2015,
The New Code of Judicial CJ Sereno
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
mandates that judges must not only
maintain their independence,
integrity and impartiality; they must
also avoid any appearance of
impropriety or partiality, which may
Cases: can, for good reasons, ask for an
extension and such request is
The Supreme Court has
generally granted. But Judge
always emphasized the need for
Bustamante did not ask for an
judges to decide cases within the
extension in any of these cases.
constitutionally prescribed 90-day
Having failed to decide a case within
period. Any delay in the
the required period, without any
administration of justice, no matter
order of extension granted by the
how brief, deprives the litigant of his
Court, Judge Bustamante is liable
right to a speedy disposition of his
for undue delay that merits
case. Not only does it magnify the
administrative sanction. In Office of
cost of seeking justice, it undermines
the Court Administrator v. Garcia-
the people’s faith and confidence in
Blanco, the Court held that the
the judiciary, lowers its standards,
90day reglementary period is
and brings it to disrepute. A member
mandatory. Failure to decide cases
of the bench cannot pay mere lip
within the reglementary period
service to the 90-day requirement;
constitutes a ground for
he/she should instead persevere in
administrative liability except when
its implementation. Heavy caseload
there are valid reasons for the delay.
and demanding workload are not
OFFICE OF THE COURT
valid reasons to fall behind the
ADMINISTRATOR vs. JUDGE
mandatory period for disposition of
BORROMEO BUSTAMANTE,
cases. The Court usually allows
A.M. NO. MTJ-12-1806, April 7,
reasonable extensions of time to
2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
decide cases in view of the heavy
caseload of the trial courts. If a
Prompt disposition of cases is
judge is unable to comply with the
attained basically through the
90day reglementary period for
efficiency and dedication to duty of
deciding cases or matters, he/she
judges. If judges do not possess
those traits, delay in the disposition
of cases is inevitable to the prejudice
of the litigants. Accordingly, judges
should be imbued with a high sense
of duty and responsibility in the
discharge of their obligation to
administer justice promptly. This is
embodied in Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct. Here,
it is undisputed that Civil Case No.
212-B was already submitted for
resolution on October 17, 2008.
Being an ejectment case, it is
governed by the Rules of Summary
Procedure which clearly sets a
period of thirty (30) days from the
submission of the last affidavit or
position paper within which a
decision thereon must be issued.
Despite this, Judge Regencia
rendered judgment only about two
(2) years and four (4) months later,
or on February 18, 2011.
GERSHON N. DULANG vs.
JUDGE MARY JOCYLEN G.
REGENCIA, A.M. No. MTJ-14-
1841, June 02, 2014, J. Perlas-
Bernabe
Being designated as acting
Clerk of Court or OIC, Ms. Miranda
had the duties and responsibilities of
a Branch Clerk of Court. As such, it
was her duty to collect and receive,
by herself or through a duly
appointed cashier, all monies in
payment of all legal fees; as well as
to receive deposits, fines, and dues.
A Clerk of Court, or an acting Clerk
of Court, has the duty to ensure full
compliance with the circulars of this
Court and the Court Administrator
on deposits or collections of court
funds. Clerks of Court perform a
delicate function as designated
custodians of the court’s funds,
revenues, records, properties, and
premises. As such, they are
generally regarded as treasurer,
accountant, guard, and physical
plant manager thereof. It is the duty
of the Clerks of Court to faithfully
perform their duties and
responsibilities. They are the chief
administrative officers of their
respective courts. It is also their duty
to ensure that the proper procedures
are followed in the collection of cash
bonds. Clerks of Court are officers resolution. Corollary to this
of the law who perform vital constitutional mandate, Section 5,
functions in the prompt and sound Canon 6 of the New Code of
administration of justice. Thus, an Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
unwarranted failure to fulfil these Judiciary requires judges to perform
responsibilities deserves all judicial duties efficiently, fairly,
administrative sanctions and not and with reasonable promptness.
even the full payment of the The mandate to promptly dispose of
collection shortages will exempt the cases or matters also applies to
accountable officer from liability. motions or interlocutory matters or
RE: REPORT ON THE incidents pending before the
FINANCIAL AUDIT magistrate. Unreasonable delay of a
CONDUCTED AT THE judge in resolving a pending
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, incident is a violation of the norms
BALIUAG, BULACAN, A.M. No. of judicial conduct and constitutes
P-153298, February 04, 2015, CJ. gross inefficiency that warrants the
Sereno imposition of an administrative
sanction against the defaulting
(Judges in undue delay of deciding magistrate. Office of the Court
cases.) The honor and integrity of Administrator v. Judge Fernando
the judicial system is measured not G. Fuentes, RTC, Br. 49,
only by the fairness and correctness Tagbilaran City / Paulino Bural,
of decisions rendered, but also by Sr. v. Judge Fernando G. Fuentes,
the efficiency with which disputes RTC, Br. 49, Tagbilaran City; A.M.
are resolved. Under the 1987 No. RTJ-13-2342 / A.M. No. RTJ-
Constitution, trial judges are 12-2318. March 6, 2013.
mandated to decide and resolve
cases within 90 days from (Judges gross ignorance of the law;
submission for decision or when the law is sufficiently basic,
not to be aware of it constitutes
gross ignorance of the law. )
Judge Tormis issued the warrant of
arrest in violation of the Rule on
Summary Procedure that the accused
should first be notified of the
charges against him and given the
opportunity to file his counter-
affidavits and other countervailing
evidence. The Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure has been in
effect since November 15, 1991. It
finds application in a substantial
number of civil and criminal cases.
Judge Tormis cannot claim to be
unfamiliar with the same. Every
judge is required to observe the law.
When the law is sufficiently basic, a
judge owes it to his office to simply
apply it; and anything less than that
would be constitutive of gross
ignorance of the law. In short, when
the law is so elementary, not to be
aware of it constitutes gross
ignorance of the law. Office of the
Court Administrator v. Hon.
Rosabella M. Tormis, Presideing
Judge, A.M. No. MTJ-12-
1818. March 12, 2013.
An administrative complaint was
filed against MCTC Judge Regencia.
The Supreme Court held that prompt
disposition of cases is attained
basically through the efficiency and
dedication to duty of judges. If
judges do not possess those traits,
delay in the disposition of cases is
inevitable to the prejudice of the
litigants. In this case, the civil case
was already submitted for
resolution. Being an ejectment case,
it is governed by the Rules of
Summary Procedure which clearly
sets a period of 30 days from the
submission of the last affidavit or
position paper within which a
decision must be issued. Despite
this, Judge Regencia rendered
judgment only more than 2 years
later. While rules prescribing the
time within which certain acts must
be done are indispensable to prevent
needless delays in the orderly and
speedy disposition of cases and,
thus, should be regarded as
mandatory, the Court has
nevertheless been mindful of the
plight of judges and has been
understanding of circumstances that
may hinder them from promptly
disposing of their businesses and, as
such, has allowed extensions of time
due to justifiable reasons. However,
Judge Regencia failed to proffer any
acceptable reason in delaying the
disposition of the ejectment case,
thus, making her administratively
liable for undue delay in rendering a
decision. Gershon N. Dulang v.
Judge Mary Jocylen G.
Regencia, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841,
June 2, 2014.
NOTARIAL LAW 3. Mortgages

Powers and Duties of a 4. Hypothecations

Notary Public 5. charter parties or

affreightments
Section 241 of the Revised
Administrative Act enumerates 6. letters of attorney
the General Powers of a Notary
7. land/buildings or
Public:
interest therein:
1. To administer all oaths and
1. deeds
affirmations provided for by
law: 2. mortgages

1. in all matters incident to 3. transfers and

his notarial office; assignments

2. in the execution of: 4. other writings

as are
1. affidavits
commonly
2. depositions provided or
acknowledged
3. other documents
before notaries.
requiring an oath
3. To act as magistrate in the writing
1. To receive proof or
of affidavits or depositions
acknowledgment of all writings
relating to commerce, such as 4. To make declarations and certify
the truth thereof under his seal of
1. ships, vessels or boats:
office, concerning all matters done
1. Bills of Exchange by him in virtue of his office.
2. Bottomries
  The law imposes on the notary A: General Rule: Only those
public two kinds of duties: admitted to the practice of law are
qualified to be notaries public.
1. execution of formalities
Exception: When there are no
required by law; and
persons with the necessary
2. verification of the capacity and qualifications OR where there are
identity of the parties as well as qualified persons but refuse
the legality of the act executed. appointment. In which case, the

 Extent of Jurisdiction of a following persons may be appointed

Notary Public: as notaries:

1. those who have passed the
Under the Notarial Law, the studies of law in a reputable
jurisdiction of a notary public in university
general, used to be CO-
2. a clerk or deputy clerk of court
EXTENSIVE with the province for
for a period of not less than
which he was commissioned; and
two years
for the notary public in the City of
Manila, the jurisdiction is CO-  Effects of notarization:
EXTENSIVE with said city.
1. The notary, in effect, proclaims
Circular 8 of 1985 however,
to the world:
clarified further that the notary
public may be commissioned for the 1. that all the parties therein
same term only by one court within personally appeared
the Metro Manila region. before him

 Q: Must a Notary Public 2. that they are personally

always be a lawyer? known to him

3. that they are the same the former presumption is
persons who executed the that the law assumes that
instrument the act which the officer
witnesses and certified to
4. that he inquired into the
or the date written by him
voluntariness of the
are not shown to be false
execution of the
since notaries are public
instrument; and
officers.
5. that they acknowledged
personally before him that
they voluntarily and
freely executed the same

6. 2. Converts a private
document into a public
one and renders it
admissible in court
without further proof of
its authenticity. (Joson vs.
Baltazar)

7. 3. Documents enjoy a
presumption of regularity.
It constitutes prima facie
evidence of the facts
which give rise to their
execution and of the date
of said execution, but not
of the truthfulness of the
statements. The reason for