Monaliza D. Diaz Atty.

Novy Cruz
Bachelor of Laws LNU- Law Professor
PALE DIGESTED CASES

1.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ILLUMINADA P.
CABATO, ET AL.
A.M.No. RTJ -14-2401, January 25, 2017
FACTS:

Sherill IV Oliver N. Landingin of the RTC, Br. 7 in Baguio complained of bias and partiality
against Judge Mona Lisa T. Tabora of the same office for affixing her signature on the DTR Bundy
Cards of his other co-employees. The Office of the Court Administrator directed the conduct of
discreet investigation and found that instead of using the bundy clocks, the court personnel were
manually entering their arrival times in their bundy clock cards and office logbooks. The
investigating team issued a Memorandum recommending that several employees be made to file
their comments on charges of Dishonesty within 10 days that includes clerk of courts and judges.
The OCA classified the court personnel into four groups: 1) personnel who have no entries in the
attendance log books/sheets.The OCA found them liable for simple negligence for having failed
to enter their respective time-outs. Thus, the OCA recommends that they each be found liable for
Simple Negligence and fined the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely ; 2) personnel who have no
entries in time-outs in the attendance log books/sheets. The OCA recommended that the court
employees, considering that their mistakes were due to inadvertence more than anything else, were
liable for simple negligence in the performance of their duties and that they pay a fine in the amount
of Two Thousand Pesos (PhP2,000.00) each with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
any similar act or omission shall be dealt with more severely; 3) personnel who made untruthful
time-outs in the attendance log books/sheets. The OCA thus found the court personnel liable for
Serious Dishonesty and recommended that, considering that this would be their first time to be
administratively liable, the above court personnel be fined in the amount of PhP10,000.00 each
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.Court
Stenographer Venus D. Saguid - Saguid explained that her double entry of her afternoon time-in
was by sheer inadvertence. This coupled with the fact that she was present during the roll call by
the OCA team shows that her entries were not untruthful. The OCA thus exonerated her from any
administrative liability; 4) the Judges and Clerk of Court who certified the DTR’s of the court
personnel. The OCA thus concludes that since the Court has already lost jurisdiction over them, it
is recommended that the instant administrative matter be dismissed as to them.In summary, the
OCA made the following recommendations in its AMA dated September 12, 2014.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents are guilty with violation of reasonable rules and regulations

HELD:

YES. In Contreras vs Monge, the Court classified the failure of the court personnel to enter their
time-in and time-out in the office logbook as a light offense, to wit: “Her act of not logging in and
out of the attendance logbook was, without doubt, her second violation of civil service rules. A
light offense such as violation of reasonable offense such as a violation of reasonable office rules
and regulations, if violated for the second time,is punishable by suspension for 1 to 30 days.”

In Office of the Court Administrator vs Kasilag “Falsification of a DTR by a court personnel is a

grave offense. The nature of this infraction is precisely what the OCA states: the act of falsifying
an official document is in itself grave because of its possible deleterious effects on the government
service. At the same time, it is also an act of dishonesty, which involves fundamental principles of
public accountability and integrity. Under Civil Service regulations, falsification of an official
Monaliza D. Diaz Atty. Novy Cruz
Bachelor of Laws LNU- Law Professor
PALE DIGESTED CASES

document and dishonesty are distinct offenses, but both may be committed in one act, as in this
case.

2.
SANTIAGO D. ORTEGA VS. JUDGE ROGELIO DACARA

A.M No. RTJ-15-2423 , Jan. 11, 2017

FACTS:

Ortega filed a complaint of gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law against Judge Dacara
when he denied his application for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against BFAR RO V.
He stated that the judge did not know the difference between writ of preliminary injunction and
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Dacara in his decision stated that Ortega did not present
any evidence for the need to be protected, that the trial court is prohibited to issue preliminary
injunction according to P.D. 605 and that his court has no jurisdiction since the defendants are in
Pili Camarines Sur.

ISSUE:

WON Dacara is correct in his decision to not issue the writ of preliminary injunction

HELD:

Yes. Dacara is correct in stating that he is prohibited from issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction in accordance with sec. 1 of P.D. No. 605. The SC also stated that in order for a judge
to be rendered liable in his mistake in the exercise of his adjudicative functions there must be fraud,
malice or bad faith on his part. In this case there was no evidence to prove that Dacara committed
bad faith.

3.

JUDGE MARTONINO R. MARCOS VS. JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER

A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472 , January 24, 2017

FACTS:

The controversy stemmed from the death of complainant's grandson, Marc Andrei Marcos (Marc
Andrei), during the initiation rites of Lex Leonum Fratemitas (Lex Leonum) held on July 29, 2012
at the Veluz Farm, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.
Finding probable cause to sustain the prosecution of the accused in the said case, Judge Cabrera-
Faller issued an order directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest and, at the same time, the
archiving of the entire record of the case until the arrest of the accused. However, ten days later,
Judge Cabrera-Faller issued another order directing the recall of the warrants of arrest of the three
accused which she claimed were issued inadvertently. And on August 15, 2013, the said judge
issues the Omnibus Order quashing, lifting and setting aside the warrants for their arrest and
ultimately dismissing the case against all of them for lack of probable cause.
The order of dismissal prompted complainant to file this administrative case against Judge
Cabrera-Faller.
Monaliza D. Diaz Atty. Novy Cruz
Bachelor of Laws LNU- Law Professor
PALE DIGESTED CASES

ISSUE:

WON Cabrera-Faller is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and for violating the Code of Judicial
Conduct

HELD:

Yes.The Court ruled finds Judge Cabrera-Faller guilty of of gross ignorance of the law and for
violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 3. 01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.
RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.
CANON 3 - A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.
When Judge Cabrera-Faller issued the warrants, she also archived the case. She, however, did not
cite any ground in A.C. No. 7-A-92 for the suspension of the proceedings. What she did was
unprecedented. She did not even bother to wait for the return of the warrants or wait for the six-
month period. By doing so, she exhibited bias, if not incompetence and ignorance of the law and
jurisprudence. It could also be that she knew it, but she opted to completely ignore the law or the
regulations. Certainly, it was a case of grave abuse of discretion as her actuations were not in
accord with law or justice.
Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. The
appearance of bias or prejudice can be as damaging to public confidence and the administration of
justice as actual bias or prejudice.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence. They are likewise mandated to be faithful to the law and to maintain
professional competence at all times. A judge owes the public and the court the duty to be
proficient in the law. He is expected to keep abreast of the laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Basic
rules must be at the palms of their hands for ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the
mainspring of injustice.
Unfortunately, Judge Cabrera-Faller fell short of this basic canon. Her utter disregard of the laws
and rules of procedure, to wit: the immediate archiving of Criminal Case No. 11862-13, the recall
of the warrant of arrest which she claimed were issued inadvertently and the hasty dismissal of the
case displayed her lack of competence and probity, and can only be considered as grave abuse of
authority. All these constitute gross ignorance of the law and incompetence.
Judge Cabrera-Faller was dismissed from service.

4.
ORLANDO S. CASTELO, ET AL. VS. ATTY. RONALD SEGUNDINO C. CHING
A.C. No. 11165, February 6, 2017
FACTS:
Orlando Castello, et al received summons from Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 22 for an
ejectment case filed against them by Leonida Delen and Spouses Nestor and Jesiebel Delen alleged
owner of the residence of the Castellos. Upon verifying, the Castellos discovered that the property
in contention was actually named previously from Castello heirs parents but was cancelled in favor
of the Delens by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. Irregularities were present in the execution
and authorization of the Deed of Absolute Sale. With their discovery, the Castello heirs filed with
IBP an administrative case against Atty. Ching on the lawyer’s gross negligence in notarizing the
Deed. After due proceedings, Commissioner Eduardo Robles rendered a report and
recommendation finding Atty. CHing guilty of gross negligence in notarizing the Deed. The IBP
on the other hand adopted and approved the recommendation with modification.
Monaliza D. Diaz Atty. Novy Cruz
Bachelor of Laws LNU- Law Professor
PALE DIGESTED CASES

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Ching was guilty of gross negligence in notarizing the Deed.
HELD:

Yes. Atty. Ching was guilty of gross negligence in notarizing Deed. A notarized document is
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Thus, a notary public should observe utmost care in
performing his duties to preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. The
Supreme Court affirmed Commissioner Robles’ observation. Giving Atty. Ching the benefit of the
doubt, the court cannot skip to notice the fact that Atty. Ching still failed..It is also that Atty. Ching
failed to secure properly his instruments, so that persons would not have opportunity to forge
notarizing documents with his signature affixed therein. With the facts taken into considerations,
the SC found Atty. Ching guilty of gross negligence in notarizing Deed.

5.

ANITA SANTOS MURRAY VS. ATTY. FELICITO J. CERVANTES

A.C. No. 5408, February 07, 2017

FACTS:

On February 2, 2001, complainant filed before this Court a Complaint charging respondent with
violating Canon 188 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant alleged that
sometime in June 2000, she sought the services of a lawyer to assist in the naturalization (that is,
acquisition of Philippine citizenship) of her son, Peter Murray, a British national. Respondent was
later introduced to her. On June 14, 2000, she and respondent agreed on the latter's services, with
complainant handing respondent the sum of Php 80,000.00 as acceptance fee. About three (3)
months passed without respondent doing "anything substantial." On September 11, 2000,
complainant wrote respondent to inform him that she was terminating his services and expected
that respondent return the said fees. As respondent failed to return the Php 80,000.00 acceptance
fee, complainant instituted the Complaint in this case and a criminal proceedings against
respondent for violation of Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

This case was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its investigation,
report, and recommendation. . After the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Investigating Commissioner Demaree J.B. Raval (Commissioner Raval) furnished a Report dated
September 9, 2002 recommending that respondent be reprimanded and required to return the sum
of Php 80,000.00 to complainant. Respondent filed before this Court a Motion for Leave to Admit
Additional Evidence with Motion to Dismiss. This Motion was forwarded to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and was treated as respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, with an additional three (3)-month suspension
for every month (or fraction) that respondent fails to deliver to complainant the sum of P80,000.00.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines refers proposed actions to this Court. Recognizing the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines' limited competence in disciplinary cases impels a concomitant
recognition that, pending favorable action by this Court on its recommendations, its determinations
and conclusions are only provisional.

ISSUE:
Monaliza D. Diaz Atty. Novy Cruz
Bachelor of Laws LNU- Law Professor
PALE DIGESTED CASES

WON Respondent falls short of the standards imposed by Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and entitled for suspension

HELD:

Yes. The Court ruled that respondent acknowledged his duty to compensate complainant for the
amount of P80,000.00 and made his own commitment to make this compensation. He may not
have been bound by a juridical instruction, but he was certainly bound by his own honor. That he
has failed to adhere to his own freely executed commitment after more than a decade speaks
volumes of how he has miserably failed to live up to the "high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing" that is apropos to members of the legal profession. For this reason, Court
exact upon respondent a penalty more severe than that initially contemplated by the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Board of Governors. Moreover, to impress upon respondent the urgency of
finally returning to complainant the amount he received, the Court impose on him an additional
penalty corresponding to the duration for which he fails to make restitution.Hence, the respondent
Atty. Felicito J. Cervantes is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and six (6)
months. He is ORDERED to restitute complainant Anita Santos Murray the sum of P80,000.00.
For every month (or fraction) the he fails to fully restitute complainant the sum of P80,000.00,
respondent shall suffer an additional suspension of one (1) month.