Grounds for disciplinary

proceedings against judges

and justices

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Arellano University School of Law – Arellano Law Foundation
2017-2018

1
 Resolution to protect members of
judiciary from baseless complaints
• First of all, we deem it necessary to determine the applicability of
A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC, a Resolution Prescribing Measures to
Protect Members of the Judiciary from Baseless and Unfounded
Administrative Complaints, which took effect on November 3,
2003.

• Recognizing the proliferation of unfounded or malicious

administrative or criminal cases against members of the judiciary
for purposes of harassment, we issued said Resolution, which
provides:

2
Cont …

• 2. If the complaint is
(a) filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of a Justice or
Judge;
(b) for an alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year before such
filing; and
(c) shown prima facie that it is intended to harass the respondent, it must
forthwith be recommended for dismissal.

3
Cont…

• If such is n o t the case , the O ffice of the Cou r t

Adm in istra to r m ust requ ire the responden t to file a comm ent
w ith in ten (10) days fro m rece ip t of the com p la in t, and
subm it to the Cou r t a repo r t and recomm endation no t la te r
than th ir ty (30) days from rece ip t of the comm ent. The
Cour t sha ll act on the recomm endation be fo re the date of
com pu lso r y re tirem en t of the responden t, o r, if it is no t
possib le to do so , w ith in six (6) m on ths from such date
w ithou t p re jud ice to the re lease of the re tirem en t benefits
le ss such am oun t as the Cour t m ay o rder to be w ithhe ld ,
tak ing in to accoun t the g rav ity of the cause of action
a lleged in the com p la in t.

4
 Power of the Sup rem e Cou r t

• A r tic le 8 Section 6 . The Sup rem e Cou r t sha ll h ave

adm in istra tive super v ision over all co ur ts and the
personnel thereof . – Philippine Constitution 1987

• By v ir tue of th is pow er, it is o nly the Sup reme Cour t that

can oversee the jud ges' and cour t p ersonnel's com p liance
w ith a ll law s , and take the p roper adm in istra tive action
aga in st them if they com m it any v io lation thereof. N o o ther
b ranch of governm en t m ay in trude in to th is pow er, w ithou t
runn ing a foul of the doctrine of separa tion of p owers. –
Maceda v. Hon. Ombudsman Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781. April 22,
1993

5
 Com petence to rev iew a jud icia l o rder
o r decision belongs to the Cou r t
• “No other ent ity o r offic ial of the Government , no t the
p ro secu tion o r in vestig ation se r v ice of any o ther b ranch ,
no t any functionar y thereof, h as competence to rev iew a
jud ic ial o rder o r decis ion--w hether fin a l and execu to r y o r
not--and p ronounce it e rroneous so as to lay the basis fo r a
crim ina l o r adm in istra tive com p la in t fo r rendering an un ju st
judgm en t o r o rder. That p re rogative be longs to the cou r ts
a lone.” - De Vera v. Pelayo, 335 SCRA 281(2000)

6
 Powers, funct ions, and dut ies of the
Off ice of the Ombudsman
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions, and duties:
( 1) I nvestigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.
( 2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official
or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or
controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and
expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent,
and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of
duties.
xxx

7
 Ombudsman Act of 1989 [ R. A. 6770]

• Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
provides:
• “Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have the following powers, functions and duties: (1) Investigate and prosecute on
its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer
or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take
over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation
of such cases.”
xxx xxx
• “Section 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority, Exceptions.- The Office of
the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive
officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies,
including members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be
removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the
Judiciary.

8
 When criminal complaint against a Judge or
other cour t employee arises from their
administrative duties

• In fine , w here a crim inal com p la in t aga in st a Ju dge o r o ther

cou r t em p loyee arises fro m the ir adm in istrat ive d ut ies , the
Om budsm an must defer actio n on sa id com p la in t and refer the
same to th is Co ur t fo r determ inat io n w hether said Judge o r
cou r t em p loyee had acted w ith in the scope of th e ir
adm in istra tive du ties. - Maceda v. Hon. Ombudsman Vasquez,
G.R. No. 102781. April 22, 1993

9
 Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could
enter tain a criminal complaint for the alleged
falsification of a judge's cer tification
submitted to the Supreme Cour t, and assuming
that it can, whether a referral should be made
first to the Supreme Cour t.
• Thus, the Om budsm an should f irst refer the matter of
petit io ner's ce r t if icates of se r v ice to th is Cour t fo r
dete rm inatio n of w hether sa id ce r tifica tes re flected the true
sta tu s of h is pend ing case load , as the Cou r t has the
necessar y reco rd s to m ake such a dete rm ination .
• The Om budsm an canno t com pe l th is Cour t, as one of the th ree
b ranches of governm en t, to subm it its reco rd s , o r to allow
its p ersonnel to test if y o n th is matter, as suggested by
pub lic responden t Ab ie ra in h is a ffidavit -com p la in t. - Maceda
v. Hon. Ombudsman Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781. April 22, 1993

10
 Whether the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation
over the acts of a judge in the exercise of his
official functions alleged to be in violation of the
Anti-Graf t and Corrupt Practices Act, in the
absence of an administrative charge for the same
acts before the Supreme Cour t.

• Thus, the Om budsm an may not in it iate o r invest igate a

crim inal o r adm in istrat ive compla int be fo re h is office
aga in st pe titioner judge, pu rsuan t to h is pow er to
in vestig ate pub lic officers. The Om budsm an m ust indo rse the
case to the Sup rem e Cou r t, fo r app rop ria te actio n . - Fuentes
v. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, G.R. No. 124295,
October 23, 2001

11
 Whet her t he MTC can t ake cogni zance of a
compl ai nt of reckl ess i mpr udence agai nst an
i ncumbent j udge pendi ng t he resol ut i on of an
admi ni st r at i ve compl ai nt ar i si ng f rom t he same
f act s
• On January 31, 2003, complainant filed a letter complaint before the
Ombudsman-Vizayas, charging Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia, then Presiding
Judge of the MCTC, Calatrava-Toboso, Negros Occidental with the crime
of murder and the administrative offenses of grave misconduct and
abuse of authority.
• The complaint arose from the death of complaianant’s husband, on
November 12, 2002, as a result of a vehicular mishap between a Toyota
Land Cruiser driven by Judge Garcia and the motorcycle driven by the
deceased.
• The Graft Investigation Officer found the existence of probable cause for
the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide and
recommended the filing of the corresponding charges against Judge
Garcia.

12
Cont …

• Judge Garcia filed a Motion to Quash the I nformation on the

following grounds:xxx; ( 2) that the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged and over his person; and,xxx.

• Petitioner [ judge] argues that respondents violated this Court’s

pronouncements in Caoi bes, Jr. v. Ombuds man, directing the
Ombudsman to refer all cases against judges and court personnel
filed before his office to the Supreme Court; and, in Fuent es v.
Of fi ce of t he Ombuds man- Mi ndanao, restricting not onl y the
O mbuds man and the prosecut ion arm of the govern me nt , but
al so other official and f unct ionary thereof in init iat ing or
investigat ing j udges and court personnel .

13
 He ld

• In the case at bar, the crim ina l case filed aga inst
petitioner w as in no w ay related to the per fo rmance of h is
dut ies as a judge .
• From the fo rego ing , the filing of th e crim ina l charges
aga in st the petitioner b e fo re the M CTC w as w arranted by the
above c ircum stances.
• To re ite ra te , the case filed aga in st petitioner befo re the M CTC
is a crim inal case under its ow n ju risd iction as p rescribed
by law and no t an adm in istra tive case . To be su re, tria l
cou r ts re ta in ju risd iction over the crim ina l aspect of
offen ses com m itted by ju dges of the low er cou r ts . – Garcia
v. Miro, G.R. No. 167409, March 20, 2009

14
 When to file adm in istrat ive case
aga in st jud ges
• Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinar y
proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not
complementar y or suppletor y of, nor a substitute for, these
judicial remedies, whether ordinar y or extraordinar y. Resor t to
and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entr y
of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-
requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons
of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or
criminal nature. It is only af ter the available judicial
remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have
spoken with finality, that the door to an inquir y into his
criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have
opened, or closed. - Bello III v. Judge Diaz, AM-MTJ-00-1311.
October 3, 2003

15
Cont…

• P ro secu tion of the judge can be had on ly if “there be a

f inal declarat io n by a competent cour t in so me app rop riate
p roceed ing of the man ifestly unjust character of the
challenged judgment o r o rd er, and a lso ev idence of m a lice o r
bad fa ith , igno rance of in excusab le neg lig ence , on the par t
of the judge in renderin g sa id judgm en t o r o rder ” o r under
the stringent c ircum stances se t ou t in A r tic le 32 of the
C iv il Code . – Bello III v. Judge Diaz, AM-MTJ-00-1311.
October 3, 2003

16
 A n o n ym o u s co m p laint

• F irst, w e c lear the ob jection of responden t judge that the

le tter
-com p lain t shou ld no t be g iven due cou rse because it is
only anonymous . Sectio n 1 , Ru le 140 of the Rev ised Ru les of
Cour t p rov id es that the d isc ip lina r y p roceed ings aga in st
judges and justices m ay be in stitu ted under e ith er of th ree
w ays:
• 1 . by the Sup rem e Cou r t m otu p rop rio ;
• 2 . upon a ve rified com p la in t; o r
• 3 . upon an anonym ous com p lain t, suppo r ted by pub lic reco rd s
of indub itable in teg rity.
• Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Gedorio, A.M. No.
RTJ-05-1955, May 25, 2007

17
 Lack o f verificatio n is
o n ly a fo rm al d efect
• A s to the con ten tion of responden t that the Cour t shou ld no t
have taken cogn izance of the com p la in t because the letter-
compla int w as not verif ied , as requ ired in Ru le 139-B , §1 of
the Ru les of Cou r t on D isbarm en t and D isc ip line of A tto rneys ,
su ffice it to say that such const itutes o nly a fo rmal defect
and does not affect the jurisd ict io n of the Cour t o ver the
subject matter of the compla int . "The ve rifica tion is m ere ly
a fo rm a l requ irem en t in tended to secu re an assu rance that
m atte rs w h ich are a lleged are true and co rrect — the cour t
may s imp ly ord er the co rrect io n of unverif ied p lead ings o r
act on it and w a ive strict com p liance w ith the ru les in
o rder that the end s of justice m ay be se r ved ." (Fernandez v.
Atty. Novero Jr., A.C. No. 5394, December 02, 2002)

18
Effect of retirem ent of resp o n d ent jud ge

• Responden t's re tirem en t from office did no t render the p resent

adm in istra tive case m oo t and academ ic . N e ither d oes it free
h im from lia b ility. (Lagcao v. Judge Gako, A.M. RTJ-04-1840,
August 2, 2007)

19
 D eath o f resp o n d ent ju d ge

• The d ism issal of the adm inistrative case against Judge

Bu tacan by reason of h is d em ise is in acco rdance w ith Bo te v.
Judge Eduardo w here the Cour t he ld that in v iew of the death
of Judge Escudero , fo r hum an ita rian reasons, it is
in app rop ria te to im pose any adm in istra tive liab ility of a
pun itive natu re ; and decla red the adm in istra tive com p la in t
aga in st the responden t Judge , d ism issed , c lo sed and
te rm inated . - RE: Application for retirement/gratuity
benefits xxx., A.M. No. 12535-ret., April 22, 2008

20
 Ju d ge also liab le if co u rt em p lo yee
fratern ized w ith litigant
• Unfo r tunately, these standard s w ere no t m et by responden t
Judge A lagar in th is case hav ing tolerated unknow ingly h is
employee to fratern ize , rece ive o r give personal favo rs no
m atte r how sm all, w ith par ty litig an ts in a case pend ing
befo re h is sa la .

• Thus, w h ile th is Cou r t find s the responden t Judge to have

acted w ith im par tia lity and p rop rie ty in dea ling w ith the
com p la inan ts in C rim ina l C ase N o . 4252 , w e f ind fault o n
h is par t in fa il ing to super v ise the conduct and
behav io r of h is co ur t employee fo r the la tte r ’ s im p roper
use of h is veh ic le , to the detrim en t of the cou r t ’ s im age . -
Balderama v. Judge Alagar, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1449. January
18, 2002

21
 H a vin g lu n ch w ith co u n sel

• Fo r respondent jud ge to eat lunch w ith counsel is not w rong

per se . The Canons, how ever, p rov ides that as m uch as
possib le he shou ld be scrupu lously care fu l to avo id any
su sp ic ion that h is so c ial o r business o r friend ly
re la tion sh ip is an e lem en t in “dete rm in ing h is jud ic ia l
cou rse. ” Know ing that A tty. Ve rano , Jr., is counse l of the
petitioner in an annu lm en t case pending be fo re him , the
responden t judge shou ld have though t tw ice abou t jo in ing
counse l fo r lunch , especia lly in the cou r troom at that. -
Pertierra v. Judge Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799. September
12, 2003

22
 Effect of reco n ciliatio n o f the p arties

• The sub sequen t reconciliation of the par tie s to an

adm in istra tive p roceed ing does no t strip the cour t of its
ju risd iction to hear the adm in istra tive case un til its
reso lu tion . Atonem ent, in adm in istrative cases, m ere ly
ob lite ra tes the persona l in ju r y of the par tie s and does no t
extend to e rase the offense that m ay have been comm itted
aga in st the pub lic se r vice . (Flores v. Judge Garcia, A.M.
No. MTJ-03-1499, October 6, 2008)

23
 Co n victio n in a crim in al case

• Ev idence to suppo r t a conviction in a crim ina l case is no t

necessar y, and the d ism issa l of the crim ina l case aga in st th e
responden t in an adm in istra tive case is no t a g round fo r the
d ism issa l of the adm in istra tive case.
• Converse ly, conviction in the crim inal case w ill no t
au tom atica lly w arran t a find ing of g u ilt in the
adm in istra tive case . We em phasize the w e ll-se ttled ru le that
crim ina l and c iv il cases a re a ltogether d iffe rent from
adm in istra tive m atte rs , and each m ust be d ispo sed of
acco rd ing to the facts and the law app licab le to it. In o ther
word s, the dispo sition in the first tw o w ill no t necessarily
govern the th ird , and v ice ve rsa . (Velasco v. Judge
Adoracion G. Angeles A.M. No. RTJ-05-1908, August 15, 2007)

24
 Effect of resign atio n fro m o ffice

• eV rily, the resignation of Judge Q u itain w h ich w as accep ted by

the Cou r t w ithou t p re ju d ice does not render m oot and
academ ic the in stan t adm in istra tive case . The ju risd iction
that the Cour t had a t the tim e of the filing of the
adm in istra tive com p la in t is no t lo st b y the m ere fact that
the responden t judge by h is resignation and its consequen t
accep tance – w ithou t p rejud ice – by th is Cou r t, has ceased
to be in office du ring the pendency of th is case. The Cou r t
re ta in s its au tho rity to p ronounce the respondent offic ia l
innocen t o r gu ilty of th e charges aga in st h im . A con tra r y
ru le w ou ld be fraugh t w ith in ju stice and p regnant w ith
d read fu l and d angerous im p lica tion s. (Non-disclosure before
the JBC of the administrative case filed against Judge
Jaime V. Quitain, JBC no. 013, August 22, 2007)

25
 Grounds for outright dismissal

• Thus, in order for an administrative complaint against a retiring

j udge or j ustice to be dismissed outright, the following requisites
must concur:
( 1) the complaint must have been filed within six months from
the compulsory retirement of the judge or justice;
( 2) the cause of action must have occurred at least a year before
such filing; and
( 3) it is shown that the complaint was intended to harass the
respondent. (Mi guel Col orado v. Judge Ri car do M.
Agapi t o, A. M. no. MTJ-06- 1658, Jul y 3, 2007)

26
 W a rn in g is n ot a p en alty

• A w arn ing , h owever, no m atte r how stern , is no t a pena lty. -

Rosauro M. Miranda v. Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang, Sr., A.M.
No. RTJ-01-1665, November 29, 2001

27
 G ross igno rance of the law

• oT constitu te g ro ss igno rance of the law, the sub ject dec is ion,
o rder o r actuation of th e judge in the per fo rm ance of h is
offic ia l du tie s must not o nly be contrar y to exist ing law
and jurisp rudence but , most impo r tantly, he must be moved by
bad fa ith , fraud , d ishonesty o r co rrupt io n. In the case
befo re u s, the adm in istrative com p lain t does no t even a llege
that the e rroneous decision of responden t w as thus m o tiva ted.
- Sps. Daracan v. Judge Natividad, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447.
September 27, 2000

28
 Render i ng an unjust j udgment

• Knowingly rendering an unj ust j udg ment is bot h a cri minal and
an ad mi nist rat ive charge. As a crime, it is punished under Art.
204 of the Revised Penal Code the elements of which are:
(a) the offender is a judge;
( b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
( c) the judgment is unjust; and
(d) the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
• The gist of the offense therefore is that an unjust judgment be
rendered maliciously or in bad faith, that is, knowing it to be
unjust. - Sps. Dar acan v. Judge Nati vidad, A. M. No. RTJ-99-
1447. Sept ember 27, 2000

29
There is no liab ility at a ll fo r a m ere
erro r

• An un ju st ju dgm ent is one w h ich is con tra r y to law o r is not

suppo r ted by ev idence or bo th . The sou rce of an un ju st
judgm en t m ay be e rro r o r ill-w ill. T here is no liab il ity at
all fo r a mere e rro r. I t is w e ll-se ttled that a jud ic ia l
officer, w hen requ ired to exe rc ise h is judgm ent or d iscre tion,
is no t l iable crim inally fo r any e rro r w h ich he comm its,
p rov ided he acts in good fa ith .
• Bad fa ith is therefo re the gro und of l iab il ity . If in
rendering ju dgm ent the judge fu lly knew that the sam e w as
un ju st in th e sense a fo resa id , then he acted m alic iou sly and
m ust have been actuated and p reva ile d upon by hatred , envy,
revenge , g reed o r som e othe r sim ila r m o tive . - Sps. Daracan
v. Judge Natividad, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447. September 27,
2000
30
Cont…

• M ere e rro r there fo re in the in te rp reta tion o r app lica tion of

the law does no t constitu te the crim e . - Sps. Daracan v.
Judge Natividad, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447. September 27, 2000

31
 W h e n go o d faith w ill n ot b e ap p lied

• We need no t be labo r ju risp rudence to accomm odate responden t ’ s

argum en t w h ich in e ffect po sits that no t ever y jud ic ial
erro r bespeaks igno rance of the law and that, if comm itted
in good fa ith , does no t w arran t adm in istra tive sanction . So
we have ru led and so w e have acted , bu t on ly in cases w ith in
the param eters of to le rab le judgm ent.
• Where , how ever, the issues are so s imple and the facts so
ev id ent as to be beyond perm iss ible marg ins of erro r, to
st ill e rr thereon amounts to igno rance of the law w h ich ,
hopefu lly, w as no t m ere ly fe igned to sub ser ve an unwo r thy
pu rpose . – Sps. Daracan v. Judge Natividad, A.M. No. RTJ-99-
1447. September 27, 2000

32
Co m p laint fo r gro ss ign o ran ce o f the law
is im p erm issib le if case is ap p ealed
• The m ain issue fo r ou r reso lu tion is w hether the in stan t
adm in istra tive com p la in t fo r g ro ss igno rance of the law is
perm issib le in l ight of the f il ing by compla inants of a
not ice of appeal and a p et it io n fo r cer t io rari assa iling
responden t judge ’ s dec ision and h is o rder of execu tion .

• In the p resen t case , the com p la inan ts filed th is

adm in istra tive case aga inst responden t judge w h ile the ir
appeal and pet it io n fo r cer t io rari challeng ing h is decis io n
and o rder w ere st ill pend ing w ith the RTC . Fo llo w ing ou r
se ttled p ronouncem en ts cited above , the in stan t com p la in t is
im perm issib le . – Camacho v. Judge Gatdula, A.M. No. MTJ-00-
1252. December 17, 2002

33
 Perio d to d ecid e o r reso lve the case
su b m itted fo r d ecisio n
• The 90-day period to decid e o r reso lve the case subm itted fo r
decis ion , fixed no less by the Constitu tion , is a mandato r y
requ irement . Hence , non-com p liance thereof sha ll sub ject the
erring judge to adm in istra tive sanction as th is Cour t m ay
deem app rop ria te .
• It is on ly in cer ta in merito rio us cases , i.e ., tho se
in vo lv ing d ifficu lt question s of law o r com p lex issues o r
when the judge is bu rdened by heavy case load s, that a longer
period to dec ide m ay be a llow ed but only upon p roper
applicat io n m ade w ith the Sup rem e Cou r t b y the concerned
judge .- Dr. Seares v. Judge Salazar, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1160
November 22, 2000

34
 Ju d ge attend ed the hearin g o f his
b rother

• Judge D o jillo “sa t beside the counse l of h is b ro ther ” and

“active ly coached , a id ed , assisted , and gu ided sa id counse l
by now and then say ing som eth ing , hand ing p iece of w riting ,
rem ind ing , and o r stopp ing the counse l from m an ife sting
som eth ing to the cou r t, and o ther sim ila r acts.”

35
Cont…

• Responden t, in h is de fense , sta ted that he a ttended the

hearing of his b ro ther ’ s e lection pro test case just to g ive
mo ral suppor t and , in the p ro cess, a lso o bser ve how
elect io n p rotest p ro ceedings are conducted . A lthough
concern fo r fam ily m em bers is deep ly ing ra ined in the
F ilip ino cu ltu re , responden t, be ing a judge , should bear in
m ind that he is also called upon to se r ve the higher
inte rest of p reser v ing the integrity of the entire
jud ic iar y. Canon 2 of the Code of Jud ic ia l Conduct requ ires
a judge to avo id no t on ly im p rop rie ty bu t a lso the m ere
appearance of im p rop rie ty in a ll activ itie s . - Vidal v. Judge
Dojillo, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591. July 14, 2005

36
 Judge is a heck le r

• The regu la r session of a m un ic ipa l council w as in te rrup ted by

a heckler in the aud ience hu rling variou s accusato r y rem arks
and in su lts at the council m em bers. The heck le r is a judge ,
the in c iden t, the sub ject of th is case .
• A ll to ld , Ju dge M alanyaon d id no t d ispu te the facts as la id
dow n by the com p la inan ts and the la tte r ’ s w itnesses. He
just if ied h is behav io r though as the fulm inat io ns of a
righteously outraged c itizen w h ich acco rd ing to h im should
be segregated fro m h is funct io n as a jud ge.
• Judge M alanyaon deser ves to be taken to task fo r h is
ou trageous behav io r as it c lea rly v io la tes the Code of
Jud ic ia l Conduct. – Hon. Decena v. Judge Malanyaon AM No.
RTJ-02-1669. April 14, 2004

37
 No d ichotom y of p ersona lity

• Thus, the Cou r t has to d ism iss ou trig h t Judge M a lanyaon ’

s
suggestion that h is act ions be evaluated as o ne of a taxpayer
o r o rd inar y c it izen and no t as that of a jud ge .

• In fact, h is u tte rances were no t m ade under a c loak of

anonym ity, fo r the m em bers of the council, as w e ll as som e of
the peop le in the ga lle r y knew ver y w e ll that he w as a
judge . I t is h igh ly p robab le that his in vectives took on a
g reate r im pera tive on the listeners p rec ise ly because he w as
a judge , w ith a ll the autho rity a ttendan t to the office . -
Hon. Decena v. Judge Malanyaon AM No. RTJ-02-1669, April
14, 2004

38
 Co mme nt on Certior ari filed by publ ic
respondent judge in behal f of privat e
respondent
• Further, respondent judge, in signing and filing a comment with the
court on behalf of one of the parties, engaged in the private practice
of law.
• Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and Rule 5.07
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from engaging in
the private practice of law.
• In filing such comment, respondent judge violated the provision in the
Revised Rules of Court which provides:
“Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition
is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer
or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If either party
elevates the case to a higher court, the public respondents shall be
included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise
specifically directed, they shall not appear or participate in the
proceedings therein. - Tuzon v. Judge Cloribel-Purugganan, A.M. No.
RTJ-01-1662 [2001]
39
 C an the m e m b ers of the S upre m e C ourt be
re m oved fro m office only b y im p e ach m e nt?
• Ju stice Reyes m ain ta in s that Mem bers of the Cou r t m ay be rem oved
from office o n ly b y im peachm en t. S in ce rem ova l from office is a
d isc ip lin a r y o r adm in istrative sanctio n , it fo llow s that the re is
no m anner b y wh ich a Ju stice of th is Cou r t m ay be d isc ip lined fo r
acts done du ring h is in cum bency. Considering that the pow er to
im peach a Ju stice of th is Cou r t is lodged in the legis la tive b ranch
of the governm en t, the Cou r t is w ithou t au tho rity to p roceed
aga in st and disc ip line its fo rm er M em ber. H e added that w hat
constitu tes im peachab le offen ses is a p u re ly po litica l question
wh ich the Constitu tion has le f t to the sound d iscre tion of the
leg is la tu re , and that the m isconduct of leakage is n o t one of the
im peachab le offen ses. - In Re: Undated Letter of M r. Lou is C .
B iraog o , Pet it ioner in B iraogo v . N og rales and L imkaichong , G .R .
N o.179120A .M . N o. 09-2 -19-SC : A ugust 11 , 2009

40
Cont…

• When Ju stice Reyes compulso rily ret ired upon reach ing the
mandato r y age of 70 , h is perce ived m antle of p ro tection and
im m un ity, that the m ode of h is rem oval from office can be done
on ly th rough im peachm en t, no longer ex ists . H is du ties and
responsib ilitie s as a Justice hav ing ceased by reason of h is
re tirem en t, he is reve r ted to the statu s of a law yer and ,
consequen tly, can be sub jected to approp ria te sanctions fo r
adm in istra tive offen ses, par ticu la rly, an act of m isconduct.
The fact that the Investigat ing Committee , created per
Resolut io n d ated December 10 , 2008 of the Cour t, co mmenced
the invest igat io n d uring the incumbency of Just ice Reyes is
of no moment, as he w as then no t ye t a respondent in an
adm in istra tive m atte r aga in st h im . - In Re: Undated Letter of
M r. B iraog o , Petit ioner in B iraog o v . N og ra les and Limka ichong ,
G .R . N o.179120 A .M . N o. 09-2 -19-SC : A ugust 11 , 2009
41
 Res ipsa loquitor

• Under the doctrine of res ip sa lo qu itu r, the Cour t m ay im pose

its au tho rity upon e rrin g judges w hose actuations , on the ir
face , w ou ld show g ro ss incom petence , igno rance of the law o r
m isconduct. - Atty. Macalintal v. Judge The, A.M. No. RTJ-
97-1375. October 16, 1997]

42
 Res ipsa loquitor

• In severa l cases, the Cou r t has d isc ip lined law yers w ithou t
fu r ther in qu ir y o r reso r t to any fo rm a l in vestig a tion w here
the facts on reco rd su ffic ien tly p rov ided the basis fo r the
dete rm inatio n of the ir adm in istra tive liab ility. – Query of
Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC,
August 19, 2009
• Cour t d isbarred a law yer w ithou t need of any fu r the r
in vestig atio n a fte r consid e ring h is actions based on reco rds
show ing h is uneth ica l m isconduct. - In re: Complaint against
Atty. Asoy, Adm. Case No. 2655 July 9, 1987
• A tria l-type hearing is no t de riqueur . - In re: Complaint
against Atty. Asoy, Adm. Case No. 2655 July 9, 1987

43
 Q u antum o f evid en ce

• It is likew ise a se ttled ru le in adm in istra tive p roceed ing s

that the bu rden of p rov ing the allegat io ns in the compla int
w ith substant ial ev id ence fa lls on the com p la inan t. -
Bautista v. Justice Abdulwahid A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-97-CA-J
[2006]

44
 Quant um of evidence requir ed for re moval of
judge fro m office

• Jurisprudence dictates –

“ The ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be

est abl ished beyond reasonabl e doubt. Such is the rule
where the charges on which the removal is sought is
misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption or
incompetence. The general rules with regard to admissibility of
evidence in criminal trials apply. - Jabon v. Judge Si banah E.
Us man, A. M. No. RTJ-02-1713 [ 2005]

45
 A cts o f a co lle gial co u rt

• It is a lso im pera tive to sta te tha t the Reso lu tion dated M ay 31 ,

2004 w as no t rendered by Justice Abdu lw ah id a lone , in h is
ind iv idua l capacity. The Cou r t of Appea ls is a co llegia te cou r t
whose m em bers reach the ir conclu sion s in consu lta tio n and
acco rd ing ly render the ir colle ctive judgm ent a f te r due
de libe ra tion . Thus, w e have he ld that a charge of v io la tion of the
An ti-G ra ft and Co rrup t P ractices Act on the g round that a
co llective dec is ion is "unju st" canno t p ro sper. Consequen tly, the
filing of charg es aga in st a s ing le m em ber of a d iv ision of the
appe lla te cour t is in app rop ria te . - Baut ista v . Justice Abdu lwah id
A .M . OCA IPI N o. 06-97-CA -J [2006 ]
• The act of a sing le m em ber, though he m ay be its head, done w ithout
the par tic ipation of the others , canno t be considered the act of
the co lleg ia l body itse lf. – A SP Jamsan i-R od riguez v . Just ice Ong ,
et , a l. A .M . N o. 08-19-SB-J A ugust 24 , 2010

46
 “
R end ering know ingly unjust jud g m e nt" does
n ot apply to a collegial court
• Responden ts shou ld know that the p rov is ions of Ar tic le 204 of the
Rev ised Pena l Code as to "rendering know ing ly unju st judgm en t"
re fe r to an ind iv idua l judge w ho does so " in any case subm itted to
h im fo r dec isio n" and even then , it is n o t the p ro secu to r w ho w ou ld
pass judgm en t on the "un justness" of th e dec is ion rendered by h im
bu t the p roper appe lla te cou r t w ith jurisd iction to rev iew the
sam e, e ither the Cou r t of Appea ls and/or the Sup rem e Cou r t.
Responden ts shou ld likew ise know that said pena l a r tic le has no
app lica tion to the m em bers of a co lleg iate cou r t such as th is
Cou r t o r its D iv is ion s w ho reach the ir conclu sions in consu lta tio n
and acco rd ingly render their co llective judgm en t a fter due
de libe ra tion . It a lso fo llow s, consequen tly, th at a charge of
v io la tion of the An tiG ra f t and Co rrup t Practices Act on the g round
that su ch a co llective d ecis ion is "unjust" canno t p ro sper. -
Baut ista v . Just ice Abdu lwah id A .M . OCA IPI N o. 06-97-CA -J [2006 ]

47
 Ju d ge's co n victio n b y the R TC d o es n ot
n ecessarily w arrant her su sp en sio n
• The m ere ex istence of pend ing crim ina l charges aga in st the
respondent- law yer canno t be a g round fo r d isbarm en t o r
su spension of the la tter. To ho ld o ther w ise w ou ld open the
doo r to harassm en t of a tto rneys th rough the m ere filing of
num erous crim ina l cases aga in st them .
• By parity of reason ing , the fact of respondent's conv ict io n by
the RTC does not necessarily w arrant her suspension. We ag ree
w ith responden t's a rgum ent that s in ce he r conviction of the
crim e of ch ild abuse is cu rren tly on appea l be fore the CA ,
the sam e has no t ye t a tta ined fina lity. As such , she st ill
enjoys the const itut io nal p resumpt io n of inno cence . - Re:
Conviction of Judge Angeles A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC January
31, 2008

48
Existence of a presu m ption ind icating the guilt
of the accused d oes not in itself d estroy the
constitutional presu m ption of innocence

• It m ust be rem em bered that the ex istence of a p resum ption

ind ica ting the gu ilt of the accused does no t in itse lf
destro y the constitu tiona l p resum ption of innocence un less
the in cu lpating p resum ption , together w ith a ll the ev idence ,
o r the lack of any ev idence o r exp lanation , p roves the
accused's guilt beyond a reasonab le doub t. U n til the accused's
gu ilt is shown in th is m anner, the p resum ption of innocence
con tinues. - Re: Conviction of Judge Angeles A.M. No. 06-9-
545-RTC January 31, 2008

49
 Preventive su sp en sio n n ot ap p licab le to
ju d ges
• Based on the fo rego ing disqu is ition , the Cou r t is of the
reso lve that, w h ile it is true that p reven tive suspension
pendente lite does no t vio la te the rig h t of the accused to be
p resum ed innocen t as the sam e is no t a pena lty, the rules o n
p revent ive suspensio n of jud ges, no t h av ing been exp ressly
included in the Rules of Co ur t , a re am o rphous at best. – Re:
Conviction of Judge Angeles A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC January
31, 2008

50
 Preventive su sp en sio n fo r errin g law yer

• Ru le 139-B Sec . 15 . Su spension of a tto rneys by Sup rem e

Cour t. - A fte r rece ip t of respondent's an sw er or lap se of the
period therefo r, the Sup rem e Cou r t, motu proprio, o r at the
instance of the IBP Board of Governors upon the
recomm endation of the Investig ator, may suspend an atto rney
from the p ract ice of h is p rofessio n fo r any of the causes
specified in Ru le 138 , Section 27 , d uring the pendency of
the invest igat io n unt il such suspensio n is l if ted by the
Sup reme Cour t .

51
 Co lle gial co u rt n eed s to
act as o n e b o d y
• Responden t Ju stices con tend tha t they p rese r ved the co lleg ia lity of
the Fou r th D iv is ion desp ite the ir hav in g separa te ly conducted
hearing s, consid e ring that the th ree of them w ere in the sam e venue
and w ere acting w ith in hearing and commun icating d istan ce of one
ano ther.

• The in fo rm ation and ev idence upon w h ich the Fou r th Div is ion w ou ld
base any dec ision s o r o ther jud ic ia l action s in the cases tried
befo re it m ust b e m ade d irectly ava ilable to each and ever y one of
its m em bers d u ring the p roceed ing s. Th is necessita tes the equa l and
fu ll pa r tic ipation of each m em ber in th e tria l and ad jud ica tion of
the ir cases. It is s im p ly no t enough, there fo re, that the th ree
m em bers of th e Fou r th D ivis ion w ere w ith in hearing and
comm un ica ting d istan ce of one ano ther at th e hearings in question,
as they exp lain ed in h ind sig h t, b ecause even in tho se c ircum stances
no t a ll of th em sat together in session. - A SP Jamsan i-R od riguez
v . Just ice Ong , et , a l. A .M . N o. 08-19-SB-J A ugust 24 , 2010
52
Thank you for your
attention!!

53
• There is another reason why the complaint for disbarment here must be
dismissed. Members of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of
the Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and may be removed
from office only by impeachment (Article XI [2], Constitution). To grant a
complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member's
incumbency, would in effect be to circumvent and hence to ran afoul of the
constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from
office only by impeachment for and conviction of certain offenses listed in
Article XI (2) of the Constitution. Precisely the same situation exists in
respect of the Ombudsman and his deputies (Article XI [8] in relation to
Article XI [2], Id.), a majority of the members of the Commission on
Elections (Article IX [C] [1] [1] in relation to Article XI [2], id.), and the
members of the Commission on audit who are not certified public
accountants (Article XI [D] [1] [1], id.), all of whom are constitutionally
required to be members of the Philippine Bar. – Cuenco v. Hon. Marcelo B.
Fernan, A.M. No. 3135 February 17, 1988
54