P. 1
Marcelo Asuncion vs. Hon. K. Casiano P. Anunciancion AM No. MTJ-90-496

Marcelo Asuncion vs. Hon. K. Casiano P. Anunciancion AM No. MTJ-90-496

|Views: 238|Likes:
Published by Angelo Isip
Persons and Family Relations
CASE DIGEST
Persons and Family Relations
CASE DIGEST

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Angelo Isip on Jun 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/03/2015

pdf

text

original

A.M. No. MTJ-90-496 August 18, 1992 MARCELO B.

ASUNCION, LUCITA ASUNCION, JOSEFINA DEL ROSARIO, MIRIAM ASUNCION, and MARILOU ASUNCION, complainants, vs. HON. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIANCION, JR., Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch XI, Manila, respondent. Issue: Whether or not the respondent, Judge K. Casiano P. Anunciancion, displayed and is guilty of serious misconduct, oppression and ignorance of the law, which further resulted to a violation of the complainants’ human rights. Facts: Respondent Metropolitan Trial Court Judge K. Casiano P. Anunciacion, Jr. of Manila was being charged with 1) ignorance of the law and judicial incompetence, 2) oppression and arbitrary exercise of power, and 3) violation of human rights in line with his exercise of judicial decision-making in a previous ejectment case which involved the complainants (as respondents) and a Herminio Samson (who filed the ejectment case and stood as the complainant). During the said ejectment case hearing, the said respondent judge allegedly hastily adjourned the proceedings after the complainant Marcelo Asuncion gave his statement, which the respondent judge saw as an admission of the contempt being charged against the respondents of the said ejectment case, and issued an Order. Furthermore, during the said ejectment case, Asuncion requested a postponement because his lawyer was not available at that time. However, it was denied by the respondent judge and, in a loud voice, declared that he would put Asuncion's wife and daughters in jail, where he indeed called a branch sheriff to enforce his order to put Asuncion's wife and daughters in jail. Held: The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, for investigation, report and recommendation. On June 8, 1992, Judge Edgardo P. Cruz submitted an Investigation Report recommending that respondent Judge be fined and given an appropriate warning. After reviewing the records of the proceedings before respondent Judge, the Court agrees with the investigating Judge that respondent Judge Anunciacion acted arbitrarily, despotically and with complete disregard for the complainants' rights, when he ordered them to be jailed without even informing them of the charge against them, either by furnishing them with a copy of the contempt motion or reading it to them. Respondent Judge did not inform the complainants of the nature and cause of the accusation against them contrary to the directive in Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Neither did he give the complainants a chance to explain their side. Moreover, respondent Judge denied them the right to be assisted by counsel and the right to defend themselves, even as their father, Marcelo Asuncion, pleaded for postponement of the proceedings because his lawyer was not available at the time. By his oppressive and precipitate action, respondent Judge displayed arrogance and gross ignorance of the law and violated the complainants' human rights.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge K. Casiano P. Anunciacion, Jr. guilty of serious misconduct, oppression and ignorance of the law and sentences him to pay a fine of P10,000 to the cashier of the Supreme Court. He is warned that a repetition of the offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->