Case Digest on Cleto Docena vs. Atty. Dominador Q.

Limon (295 SCRA 262) – Lawyer Unlawful Conduct Facts: Respondent was petitioner’s lawyer in a civil case. During that case, he asked the petitioners to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the appealed decision. Petitioners forwarded the money to Limon. Later, the case was decided in their favor. They were unable to recover the money because the clerk of court said no such bond had ever been filed. IBP suspended him for one year. Hence this petition. Held: Disbarred (see Canon 1.01 and 16.01). Respondent’s allegation that the money was payment of his fees was overcome by other evidence. The law is not a trade nor craft but a profession. Its basic ideal is to render public service and to secure justice for those who seek its aid. If it has to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, lawyers should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. By extorting money from his client through deceit, Limon has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has indirectly eroded the people’s confidence in the judicial system. He is disbarred for immoral, deceitful and unlawful conduct. Case Digest on Victor Nunga v. Atty. Verancio Viray (306 SCRA 487) Lawyer Unlawful Conduct Facts: N accused V of notarizing documents without a commission. It appears that in 1987 and 1991 he notarized deeds of sale of property between the bank he works for and his minor son. At those times, he was not commissioned as a notary public. Held: SUSPENDED. Notarization is invested with public interest because3 it converts a private document into a public one. Notarizing without commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws (the Notarial Law) and by making it appear that he is so authorized is a deliberate falsehood which violates the lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01 (CPR) that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Case Digest on Atty. Prudencio Penticostes v. Prosecutor Diosdado Ibañez (304 SCRA 281) Lawyer Unlawful Conduct Facts: Pascual was sued for non-remittance of SSS benefits. She gave the contested amount to respondent, who was supposed to forward the same to the SSS and drop the charges. Respondent did not forward the amount. He only remitted the amount after his complaint for misconduct was filed with the IBP. Held: REPRIMANDED. A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. While Pascual may not strictly be considered a client of respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer’s handling of funds of a client is still applicable, thus, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. Also, even if he was acting as a prosecutor, Canon 6 provides that these canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks. Case Digest on Renato S. Ong & Francia N. Ong v. Court of Appeals, Inland Trailways, Inc. & Philtranco Service Enterprise, Inc. (301 SCRA 387) Attorney’s Fees Facts: Renato Ong was injured during a vehicular collision. He was awarded damages by the trial court. On appeal, the CA, the awards for actual damages, moral damages & attorney’s fees were reduced because (1) the cost & feasibility of corrective surgery had not been adduced in evidence, (2) the document relied upon to prove actual damages was not formally offered in evidence and (3) no evidence but the bare assertion of counsel was put forward to prove damages for unearned income. Held: Attorney’s fees is an indemnity for damages ordered by a court to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party, based on any of the cases authorized by law. It is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless the 2 have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The Court has established a set of standards in fixing the amount of attorney’s fees. Counsel’s performance, however, does not justify the award of 25 percent attorney’s fees. The nature of the case was not exceptionally difficult, and his handling of the case was sorely inadequate, as shown by his failure to follow elementary norms of civil procedure & evidence. It is well-settled that such award is addressed to sound judicial discretion and subject to judicial control. Case Digest on Teodulfo B. Basas vs. Atty. Miguel I. Icawat (Duty to Client/Accounting of Client’s Money/Negligence) Facts: Atty. Miguel Icawat was the lawyer for Teodulfo Basas and some other laborers in their complaint against their employer. The NLRC rendered an adverse decision. Basas and his fellow workers, however, insisted that they appeal the decision. Atty. Icawat, however, failed to file the required memorandum of appeal. Basas filed an administrative complaint, also alleging that Atty. Icawat issued a receipt for an amount less than that which they had paid him. Held: GUILTY. Respondent’s failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the NLRC Rules of Procedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law. Respondent practically admitted that he did not file the memorandum. His failure to file the memorandum clearly prejudiced the interests of his clients. Respondent manifestly fell short of the diligence required of his profession, in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the money he received from his clients, respondent also violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. The Court fined Atty. Icawat in the amount of PhP 500, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Case Digest In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani (Duty to the Court/Negligence of a Lawyer) Facts: Atty. Vicente Bayani was the lawyer for the appellant in a criminal case. He failed to submit his proof of service in his appellant’s brief which subsequently caused the inability of the appellee to file his own brief. The IBP was order to investigate on the matter and despite repeated notices, Bayani failed to submit the proof of service and his answer to the IBP’s query. Hence, this administrative complaint. Held: GUILTY. Atty. Bayani’s failure to submit proof of service of appellant’s brief and his failure to submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the Supreme Court, a clear violation of the canons of professional ethics. It appears that Atty. Bayani has fallen short of the circumspection required of a member of the Bar. A counsel must always remember that his actions or omissions are binding on his clients. A lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that representation. Further, lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure and anyone who deals with them has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to his client’s cause. Having been remiss in his duty to the Court and to the Bar, Atty. Bayani was suspended from the practice of law for 3 months and until the time he complies with the Order of the Supreme Court to submit the required proof of service. Case Digest on Office of the Court Administrator vs. (Judge) Florentino S. Barron (297 SCRA 376) Impropriety Facts: Judge Barron was arrested during an entrapment operation when he tried to solicit bribes from an American national in exchange for ruling in the latter’s favor in a pending case. Held: Judge dismissed. A judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. The conduct of respondent shows that he can be influenced by monetary considerations. His act of demanding and receiving money

1

Held: Suspension lowered to 2 months – his arguments are partly persuasive. despite the fact that medical certificates were presented in his favor. an appeal would only be futile. he went abroad and paid no further attention to the case until he received the decision. Case remanded because of error by the judge in not using searching questions to find if the plea was made knowingly. and when he did appear. Thus. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. 2 . In this case. The order of default was received by counsel but no steps were taken to have it lifted or set aside. Besides. To satisfy the award for damages. who then sold it to Abecia’s wife. Also. it was only several years later that she complained when no more relief was available to her. His reason was. no FAME which will warrant a lifting of the order. Case Digest on Sarah B. which erodes the respect for the law and the courts. no matter how nominal the amount involved. Atty.even if he was ultimately acquitted. SC said that a lawyer was without authority to waive his client’s right to appeal and that his failure to appeal within the reglementary period constituted negligence and malpractice. Velasquez v. This is also his first offense. 124049. he said he would rely solely on the plea in the mistaken belief that it would lower the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Ibadlit (302 SCRA 604) Negligence of Counsel Facts: On January 28.” Case Digest on Ruferto Gutierrez and Maritess Passion vs. A public official is also judged by his private morals. Held: Case remanded. He is not being chastened for having had a pending criminal case at the time of his application for a judicial position but for his dishonesty and misrepresentation in the process of seeking that office. that he did not commit to handle his client’s case on appeal and that the testimonies of complainant and her brother were unpersuasive. Bulacan (302 SCRA 92) Gross Misconduct Facts: Administrative case against Judge C for incurring leaves of absence for an almost straight period of 3 years. Municipal Trial Court Judge of Calumpit. However. SC declared that it was highly improper for him to have adopted such opinion.03. Canon 18 required every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication. He now claims that these sales are void because Abecia forged his signature on the deeds of sale. Also. Esteban Abecia Lawyer on Property Under Litigation Facts: Daroy was plaintiff in a forcible entry case. Every prospective appointee to the judiciary must apprise the appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial office. he believed in good faith that his client’s case was weak and that she accepted his explanation that the adverse decision was not worth appealing anymore. proscribed by Rule 18. must behave with propriety at all times. Held: Reversed. 1999) Negligence of Counsel Facts: As an incident in the main case. a parcel of land of the defendant was sold to Daroy at an execution sale. Held: Binding on V. competence and diligence. Reontoy v. Vedana vs.from a party-litigant constitutes serious misconduct in office. The prohibition in Art. and others connected with the administration of justice are prohibited from acquiring “property or rights in litigation or levied upon in execution” the prohibition with respect to attorneys in the case extends only to “property and rights that may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. A judge. Sevilleno ( 304 SCRA 519) Negligence of Counsel Facts: In a criminal case for rape with homicide. The land was then sold to Daroy’s relative. Valencia (295 SCRA 1) Impropriety Facts: Complainant is the court interpreter and a relative of respondent judge. 1491 does not apply to the sale of a parcel of land acquired by a client to satisfy a judgment in his favor. Liberato R. Held: Judge is dismissed. much less uphold. Belan (294 SCRA 1) Lawyer Qualifications Facts: Concerned citizens of Binan Laguna charged respondent MTC judge with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However. complainant had reasonable opportunity to hire another counsel for a second opinion whether to appeal from the judgment or file a petition for relief. The Code mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties. which provides “(a) lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Judge Eudarlo B. It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct. Case Digest on People of the Philippines v. A judge’s official life can not simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. 1998 the SC found Ibadlit administratively liable and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 year for failing to appeal within the reglementary period the decision rendered against his client. the latter could not acquire the land. Case Digest on Corazon T. hence V was declared in default. Judge Estanislao S. V was also guilty of negli8gence because after making the special power of attorney. He hired Abecia as his lawyer and won. the fundamental rights of the accused. These are qualifications specifically required of appointees to the judiciary by Article VIII. The evidence shows that Daroy was a party to the sale at the time ot was made and did not “discover” it 9 years later as he claimed. Sec. Case Digest on Rodolfo P. and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. to his attorney was not the subject of the litigation. She claims that he kissed and fondled her when she went to his sala to inform him that the cases for the day were ready for trial. the accused pleaded guilty. His excuse is that he was suffering from a lingering illness of malignant hypertension. the defense lawyers did not protect. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Case Digest on Re: Leaves of Absence Without Approval of Judge Eric T Calderon. N. The act of concealing the two criminal cases against him is a clear proof of his lack of the said qualification and renders him unworthy to sit as a judge.” This is a motion for reconsideration. V appointed his counsel as attorney-in-fact to represent him at the pre-trial. prosecuting attorneys. They claim he committed perjury for failure to disclose a previous charge for two criminal offenses in his written application to the JBC. the second left the courtroom during trial and thus did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. While judges.B. CA & PCIB (GR No. Held: Respondent guilty of violating Canons 2. IBP disbarred Abecia. The parties made this arrangement to circumvent Art. 7(3) of the Constitution. including such circumstances as may reflect on his integrity and probity. Counsel failed to appear. most were made by his personal doctor (an orthopedic doctor). June 30. He was not defrauded <real issueà the parties thought that because the land had been acquired at a public sale to satisfy a judgment in a case in which respondent was complainant’s counsel. the 3 PAO lawyers assigned as counsel de officio did not perform their duty. but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. The first did not advise his client of the consequences of pleading guilty. Case Digest on Regalado Daroy vs. in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 1491 of the Civil Code which prevents lawyers from acquiring property and rights that may be the object of any litigation in which they may take by virtue of their profession. the tests given by the Court physician contradict the diagnosis given by his doctor. The third postponed the presentation of evidence for the defense. 3 and 22 of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

Respondent erred in returning the seized articles – even though the warrant was invalid. Felimon C. not only in the performance of his official duties but also in his everyday actuations. his writing of vicious editorials compromise his duties as judge in the impartial administration of justice. respondent judge committed acts of forcible entry. No other position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than perhaps a seat in the judiciary. judge dismissed. When L refused. Held: Judge Agcaoili is fined and suspended. The personal behavior of a judge in his professional and everyday life should be free from the appearance of impropriety. From the record it could be fairly concluded that he had habitually abandoned his sala for no justifiable excuse at all. 5. Case Digest on Gregorio & Teresita Lorena v. Agcaoili (249 SCRA 423) Impropriety Facts: Respondent was charged with impropriety and gross ignorance of the law. The court investigator found that the writ was improperly issued because the allegations of fraud and attempts to abscond in the affidavit were bare assertions and not substantiated by the facts. the error or mistake committed by a judge should be patent. is patently applicable to the instant case. He was also seen in eating and drinking in the company of said defendants. or misconduct. he should have been aware that. Case Digest on Benalfre J. or increase involvement with lawyers and litigants. would show gross incompetence. gross. Case Digest on Benjamin Sia Lao vs. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor . Judges should avoid impropriety of the appearance of impropriety. Absent a clear showing that the judge has acted arrantly. the serious nature of the tasks of judges requires them to be circumspect in both their public and their private dealings. and if he does so. avoid not only impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety. in frequently leaving his station. In a case for illegal logging. Improper conduct erodes the public confidence in the judiciary. Held: JUDGE DISMISSED. Judge A is fined for storing the effects in his house and their intent to charge storage fees. He also gave firearms to his men in order to assault complainant’s workers. Case Digest on Flaviano B. illegal articles (illegally cut lumber) are not returned to the possessor. 3 . Hence. Abelila III (295 SCRA 267) Impropriety Facts: in a family dispute over a parcel of land. he dismissed the case and returned illegally cut timber to the defendants because the search warrant was invalid. Finally. The mayor invited the parties to a conciliation meeting but they still refused. Held: FINED. E then said: “mga tarantado. L still refused. G charges him with using his columns to ventilate his views. the halls of justice should not be used for unrelated purposes. The reason is that. his continuing to practice the profession during his suspension constitutes a gross misconduct and a willful disregard of the suspension order. He has repeatedly used insulting and inflammatory language against the governor and the provincial prosecutor and legal adviser. he was still under suspension from the practice of law. he should not have fraternized with litigants who had a pending case before him.01 of the Code of Judicial Ethics – i. He was later caught when a reporter from “Hoy Gising!” taped an interview which revealed that he intended to operate a drinking pub with scantily clad waitresses. but at the hearing on the motion for default. that the Court may impose its authority upon erring judges whose actuations. Respondent also fled from police when called in for questioning. He also violated Canon 2. is certainly prohibited from engaging in the practice of law. as well as more cautious of his actuations. Escano (302 SCRA 411) Impropriety Facts: E posted an advertisement for waitresses and singers to work at his restaurant at the RTC bulletin board. Judge Abelardo H.Held: Guilty of gross misconduct and abandonment of office. He should not have cursed L over the phone as a judge’s behavior must be beyond reproach. Court of Appeals (296 SCRA 171) Gross Misconduct Facts: Petitioner filed a case for recission against the Quetulios and Abadillas alleging that the former sold the land that had already been expropriated. Held: Case reinstated. on their face.02 and 5. The Quetulios did not file an answer. Case Digest on Carlos Dionisio v. Antonio Alano and Sheriff Alberto Ricardo Alano (303 SCRA 259) Impropriety Facts: G charged A with committing irregularities in a civil case for sum of money. he may be disbarred. Zosimo V. While S has the right to free speech. Hon. Rules 2. But in order to merit a disciplinary sanction. E phoned him and tried to convince him to sign. A judge is the visible representation of the law and the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice and that. during his suspension. to avoid impropriety or even or even the appearance of impropriety. Judge Emerito M.00. which should be obeyed though how erroneous it may be until set aside. Hon. Held: SUSPENDED. He should also manage financial interests so as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualification. E should not have called L by [hone – which gave the impression of undue pressure and influence. deliberate. a writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the effects seized were kept in Judge A’s house. Hon. Further. attempted to deny complainant of possession despite a lease in the latter’s favor. mabulok kayo sa kalabos!” and slammed the phone down. Held: REPRIMANDED. They reflect both on his office and on the officers he ridicules. Even though it was not proven that he was influenced by the defendants (the dismissal was proper). A judge must avoid even the semblance of impropriety. A suspended lawyer. accordingly. than he has shown in the performance of his functions and the discharge of his responsibilities to the Court and the citizenry. A judge must be the first to abide by the law and to weave an example for the others to follow. He also conducted interviews for this in his sala. Judge C should have been more conscious of his court duties. Case Digest on Spouses Benedicto & Rose Godinez v. Evidently. Galang v.03 provide that a judge should avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety. Rule 2. he should constantly keep himself away from any act of impropriety. he was also a writer for another paper. L accuses E and his conspirators of abuse of authority for later throwing them in jail. Although the charges against E were refuted by evidence. He should also refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality. co-defendant Hernando was permitted by the judge to appear as counsel for the defendants and file an answer. ignorance of the law. Santos (307 SCRA 582) Impropriety Facts: S was a judge and the publisher/columnist for a tabloid. interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities. when respondent Hernando appeared before the trial court and filed the Answer/Motion to dismiss. To do so erodes public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Cortes v.e. The owners allowed them to stay on the condition that they sign a written promise to leave after the grace period. As they are “expected to rise above human frailties” they must. he has caused great disservice to many litigants and has denied them speedy justice. in all their activities. Judge Adolfo Encomienda (302 SCRA 632) Impropriety Facts: Spouses Lorena were evicted from the property of Judge E’s brother. malicious. Case Digest on Republic of the Philippines vs. or done in bad faith. Held: Respondent DISMISSED. the issue becomes judicial in character and would not properly warrant the imposition of administrative punishment. The writ was issued in error. and this supposedly influenced his decision. In said case. They refused to vacate.

he has flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession. failure to turn over IBP donations from private individuals. later maintaining her as a mistress and having children by her. when asked to explain his actions before the SC. lawyers must ensure the faith and confidence of the public that justice is administered with dignity and civility. The power to disbar. are unbecoming of a member of the Bar. morality and decency. entering into another marriage while a prior one subsists. he violated Canon 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics directs a judge to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself. Atty.” Case Digest on Romulo F. the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. Held: Atty. he later married the same woman and had children with her. Ordinary citizens consider him as a source of strength that fortifies their will to obey the law. In addition. et al v. v. show his disregard of family obligations. Lauro L. it is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Through his acts. She was aided by her husband. Extending loans to IBP employees. al. it is imperative that he be conversant with the basic legal principles and aware of well-settled and authoritative doctrines. No evidence to substantiate the charges. An RTC judge cannot overturn a settled doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court. Keeping a mistress. (Canons 1&7. Narag claims that his wife was a possessive. Tapucar (293 SCRA 331) Facts: Respondent was previously dismissed as CFI judge for maintaining and cohabiting with his mistress. IBP disbarred him. Petitioner. Settled jurisprudence says this only applies to administrative. his moral indifference to scandal in the community. Case Digest on Rosalia Villaruel. (298 SCRA 133) Gross Misconduct Facts: During a dispute over land. Appropriation of Office Property. Case Digest on Julieta B. Narag (291 SCRA 451) Gross Immoral Conduct Facts: Atty. The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct whether in his professional or private capacity. Case Digest on Jesus Conducto vs. appointment of unworthy employees and relatives and organization of a secret society. the law and the lawyer’s oath. IBP (302 SCRA 138) Abuse of Authority Facts: G was accused of 16 IBP employees who sought his removal as IBP President for: Immorality. filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against her husband. such “peaceful” take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ of preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force. Judge Demetrio d. thus proving unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. his lawful wife. but a judge under the sanction of law. The illegal entry took place while the case was pending in the CA & while a writ of preliminary injunction was in force. Court of Appeals. The judicial acts complained of must be so corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law. which shows him to be wanting in moral character. It is gross misconduct & even without outright disrespect for the SC for the respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolutions requiring him to comment on the accusations contained in the complaint against him. Atty. remembering that he is not a depository of arbitrary power. probity. jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint out of spite. dishonesty. and good demeanor. Held: Fined for P5000. Thus. Jose A. however. otherwise. but a continuing qualification for all members. more importantly of justice. Despite this. He refused to suspend the mayor due to criminal charges against the latter for the crime of unlawful appointment. Flaminiano’s acts of entering the property without the consent of its occupants & in contravention of the existing writ or preliminary injunction & making utterances showing disrespect for the law & this Court. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent’s character. Held: CASE DISMISSED. A judge is a visible representation of the law and. Manuel v.03. when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity. is one to be exercised with great caution and only in a clear case of misconduct which seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband courted one of his students. 4 . Grossly immoral means it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. in honesty. Held: Disbarred (ratio is the same as the Narag case). Oronce. respondent failed to reply. Narag vs. Calimag (307 SCRA 657) Gross Misconduct Facts: M charged C with selling him a stolen car. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. et al: In the Matter of the Petition to Remove Atty. Code of Ethics for Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar. if he did the act deliberately. IBP disbarred him. he is prohibited from counseling or abetting “activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. The issue regarding legal ethics is whether the SC can assume jurisdiction or should it be considered a labor dispute under the jurisdiction of the NLRC. an attorney is also invested with public trust. Held: Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against him and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children. Monzon (291 SCRA 619) Gross Ignorance of the Law Facts: Respondent judge was charged with gross ignorance of the law. not criminal cases. failure to render a decision beyond the 90 day period from its submission constitutes serious misconduct to the detriment of the honor & integrity of his office & in derogation of a speedy administration of justice. or intentional neglect and failure to discharge said duties. Atty. A judge should avoid the slightest infraction of the law in all actuations. He even made statements displaying contempt for the SC and mocking the law and said court. et. hence. Judge Iluminado C. Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in litigation using abusive methods. questionable disbursements of funds. oppression/harassment.Case Digest on Felicidad L. Likewise. Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct. Although he says that they “peacefully” took over the property. one must not only refrain from adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility. A high degree of moral integrity is expected of a lawyer in the community where he resides. refusal to turn over records and money pertaining to the Employees’ Loan Savings Association. this petition. litigation would be endless. As a lawyer. he may be suspended or disbarred. Furthermore. for which he was arrested. Judge Abdulmajid Astih (300 SCRA 199) Gross Misconduct Facts: Judge Asith did not act on the case of the herein complainant for over 2 years despite the orders and directives of the Office of the Court Administrator to resolve it without delay. Case Digest on Erlinda Alonto-Frayna v. Also. et al. Grapilon. While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgment. Grapilon as President. it must be shown that the misconduct is serious and has a direct relation to his official duties amounting to misadministration. a lawyer. Dominador M. The SC also said that to warrant dismissal for misconduct. lest it be a demoralizing example to others. as well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children. Case Digest on Remedios Tapucar vs. and his outright defiance of established norms. Held: A Judge who deliberately and continuously refuses to comply with the resolution of the SC is guilty of gross misconduct & insubordination. Rule 7. As officers of the court. The judge opined that an official cannot be suspended for something that has happened in a previous term.

unreadiness to conduct the cross-examinations and serious illness. Canon 19 (failing to resort to lawful means in representing his client). Sayson did not turn over the amount to his client. Sayson was later convicted for estafa. Enrique S. Case Digest on Ban Hua U. He had an active role in committing fraud since he falsely stated that the person making the deed of sale appeared before him and stated that the same was his free act and deed. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession. Case Digest on Atty. Despite the final decision of the SC. A new counsel who appears in a case in midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings that have transpired prior to his takeover. Held: Petition denied. Judges who cannot comply with such mandate should ask for additional time. DBP & APT were unable to appear for cross-examining CCC’s witnesses because the respective counsels were unprepared. must not only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law. Court of Appeals and Continental Cement Corporation (302 SCRA 362) Duty to Protect Client’s Interest Facts: CCC filed an injunction suit to prevent the DBP and APT from foreclosing on its mortgages. petitioner was able to prevent the execution for 17 years. 5 . forcing Resurreccion to pay the same amount again. honesty & good morals) such as estafa or falsification render one unfit to be a member of the legal proession. and thus render the judgment ineffectual. he prolonged a family dispute by using dilatory tactics and placing an advertisement in order to ridicule his opponents – in violation of Rule 1. the Complainant in the criminal case. Atty. He has also been previously reprimanded for bribing a judge and for consistently using dilatory tactics to prolong a litigation. also. The facts and the law should advise them that a case such as this should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. During trial. they must possess the highest degree on integrity and probity and an unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives. By committing the acts in question.04 (foisting or commission of falsehood. bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Also. All the accusations of the petitioners were either unsubstantiated or refuted by controverting evidence. DBP & APT filed this petition alleging denial of due process. the SC has previously assumed administrative jurisdiction over the IBP president. or that they require further study or whose stenographic notes were yet to be transcribed – and these are excepted from being included the certificate by a proviso contained therein. The withdrawal of APT’s previous counsel in the thick of the proceedings would be a reasonable ground to seek postponement of the hearing. Lastly. particularly justices and judges. that he filed a civil case knowing that the reliefs he prayed for were probably granted in the SEC case – thus belying his certification against forum shopping. a public health nurse. Held: Petition denied. unavailable or ill. If the petitioners allege that the IBP terminated them as an act of reprisal and with malice or bias. Raula A. Case Digest on Victoriano P. Also. Held: DISBARRED. 27. Pagalilauan (297 SCRA 593) Good Moral Character Facts: Cabulisan filed an administrative complaint against respondent for grave misconduct committed as follows : (1) peeping into the bathroom where Marilyn C. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts. Counsel should have taken adequate steps to fully protect the interest of his client. respondent violated the trust reposed in him and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and rigid standards of morality required in the judicial profession. even if there was no wrongful act. they are also officers of the court. such necessitates a duty on the part of the new counsel to prepare himself for the next scheduled hearing. Judges are mandated to decide cases seasonably.Held: Charges dropped. The SC has consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency & the non-observance of said rule is ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. They filed several petitions and motions for reconsideration with the trial court and the CA despite the fact that it would never prosper as the trial court’s decision had long become final before the said petitions were filed. A lawyer must uphold the integrity of the profession. explaining in their request the reasons for the delay.e. this would constitute gross abuse of authority and serious misconduct – warranting the use of the SC’s supervisory powers over the IBP. Judge Adrian N. hence judgment was rendered for CCC. He brings honor to it by honesty and fair dealing and by performing his duties to society. A motion to postpone trial on the ground that counsel is unprepared for trial demonstrates indifference and disregard of his client’s interest. The lower court decided this as a waiver. Case Digest on Development Bank of the Philippines and Asset Privitization Trust v.04 that lawyers should encourage their clients to end a controversy by a fair settlement. Chua (306 SCRA 465) Falsehood/Forum-shopping/Dilatory Tactics Facts: Chua was charged with many offenses. Acts of moral turpitude (i. Case Digest on Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs.01. Sanchez v. other charges dismissed for lack of evidence. shows the negligence of the new counsel to actively recover the records of the case. the bar. that he caused to be published an advertisement of a SEC decision in order to bring ridicule and shame upon a corporation. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the client and zeal in the defense of their client’s right. but it must also remain extant in order to maintain one’s good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. 12. done contrary to justices. He has thus violated Rules 10.01 and 13. Sayson’s acts of delaying the hearings before the OSG and the IBP reinforce this view. 3. G is ordered to transfer the funds of the savings and loan association to an account in their name to prevent the appearance and suspicion of impropriety. Judge Augustine A. Held: Sayson DISBARRED. Resurreccion v. Vestil (298 SCRA 1) Facts: Complainant charged RTC Judge Vestil with falsifying his monthly certificate of service submitted to the SC by stating that he has no pending case submitted for decision or resolution that has gone beyond the NINETY (90) day period allowed by law when in fact there were numerous civil & criminal cases which the respondent failed to resolve within the said period. Held: Respondent Judge suspended and fined. However. Counsel for APT was absent on several occasions because of withdrawal of previous counsel.when evidence shows the signature was forged. impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. People who run the judiciary. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but did not do so. Ciriaco C. even if counsel had been ill with dengue. 12. rather than pass the blame on the previous counsel. Sayson (300 SCRA 129) Facts: respondent was accused of having appropriated for his own benefit the amount of P 2. Court of Appeals (293 SCRA 622) Assisting in the Speedy Administration of Justice Facts: Judgment was rendered against the petitioner ordering it to reconvey the cemetery to the rightful owners. Case Digest on Tomas Cabulisan v. Held: Respondent filed for voyeurism. but more importantly. and (3) allowing local practitioners to write decisions for him. he chose not to notify his co-counsels who could have conducted the cross-examination. forum-shopping and causing in court proceedings). Flores v. and daughter of the owner of the house where he was boarding. The excuse that it was due to the former counsel’s failure to turn over the records of the case to APT. Atty. 5000. (2) having a mistress in the neighboring town.02 (causing undue publication of a pending action). They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case. the courts and his clients. was then taking a bath.00 representing the amount which was delivered by the Resurreccion to the respondent as compensation or settlement money of a case for homicide thru reckless imprudence. Dumayas.02. As to the issue of jurisdiction. Respondents say most of the cases were either inherited & substantially heard by other judges. The evidence was found to support the charges that he notarized a forged deed of sale. Neither the proviso nor the fact that notes are to be transcribed is a valid defense for not deciding within the required time.

Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year. Sergio Angeles was the legal counsel of Teodoro Rivera and 2 others in a civil case. Atty.C. Indeed. No. never told his clients of the amount he had received and never remitted the same to him. The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995 elections. Respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. In a letter-complaint. Complainant charges respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law. Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel. January 19. Held: GUILTY. Atty. respondent. Furthermore. his supposed predilection to a case pending before him. should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly. he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. Pimentel. Angeles. In addition. The sheer magnitude of the error renders the defense of honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue. Atty. Atty. January 20. Jr. Judge B was fined in the amount equivalent to 1-month salary with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more seriously. No. as a senior citizen. we believe. default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest against Complainant for which he was arrested and jailed for 1 day with a fine of P10. immoral or deceitful conduct. Atty. Llamas.000 from one of the defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the judgement against the latter. Francisco R. oppressive conduct and abuse of authority when the latter held him in contempt of court on account of the statements he made in his letter-complaint which statements. While the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the due administration of justice. this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. Angeles received almost PhP 50. Cortes v. Jr. whichever is later. with utmost restraint. however. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. Salayon A. No. Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues. Held: GUILTY. offensive or malicious statements “equivalent to misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the proceedings before the same within the meaning of Rule 71. however insignificant. It appears that Atty.” The Court found the respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10. Santos. August 29. v. Rivera and his 2 co-plaintiffs received a favorable decision. by indicating “IBP Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby misprepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chpater.C. Jr. Angeles was not disbarred but the Court ruled that his act amounted to serious misconduct. There should never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer. and with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and preservation not for retaliation or vindication. it was used merely to support his contention in his motion for inhibition. 2000 – Judge on Improper Imposition of the Punishment of Contempt Facts: Complainant was one of the co-accused in an adultery case filed before the sala of respondent Judge Bangalan. If at all. and/or fatigue on the part of the members of the canvassing committees who prepared the SoVs. and data in his pleadings. Atty. nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. On the other hand. In addition. as incredible and simply unacceptable.000 each and issued a stern warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished. he moved for the voluntary inhibition of respondent judge on the ground that the latter cannot be impartial over the criminal case because complainant previously filed an opposition to the appointment of respondent as RTC judge. However.Case Digest on Teodoro R. Rivera and his co-plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. immoral or deceitful conduct. are absolutely privileged in nature. A judge may not hold a party in contempt of court for expressing concern on his impartiality even if the judge may have been insulted therein. nor consent to the doing of any in court. alleged that the respondents tampered with the votes received by them by either adding more votes for particular candidates in their Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of particular candidates in their SoV. There is a limit. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of the COMELEC and held the position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig City Board of Candidates. complainant insists. Llamas A.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.M. The only explanation they could offer for such irregularities is that the same could be due to honest mistake. has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. Held: GUILTY. Held: GUILTY. Angeles. Case Digest on Flaviano B. respondents committed a breach of Rule 1. Complainant further alleges that he filed a notice of appeal from the order of contempt but respondent directed him to submit a record on appeal despite the fact that the same is not required under the rules. Attys. what is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous figures in one or two SoVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election returns.” By express provision of Canon 6. dishonest. respondent judge issued an order citing Complainant in direct contempt of court. however. respondent judge ordered him to submit a record on appeal. after posting a notice of appeal.00. For this. in the performance of official duty. to what can be construed as an honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue. Pimentel filed an administrative complaint for their disbarment. For deceit in dealing with his client. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law. oversight and fatigue. The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. Angeles was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year. Case Digest on Soliman M. if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part. Rivera vs. Respondents also argued that the IBP Board of Governors had already exonerated them from any offense and that the motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed in time. Judge Felina Bangalan A. who for a number of years now. vs. by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question. the alleged offensive and contemptuous language contained in the letter-complaint was not directed to the respondent court. 6 . human error. who is now of age. Here. 2000 Facts: Attys. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were due to honest mistake. such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. averring further that his pleading contained derogatory.C. leaving them to discover such fact on their own. The Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer’s equipment in the practice of his profession. A judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion for his inhibition that questions or puts to doubt. Llorente and Ligaya P. For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no falsehood. 2000 Misrepresentation and Non-payment of IBP Dues Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. August 29. 2519. respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1. averred that he is only engaged in a “limited” practice of law and under RA 7432. 2000 Duty of Lawyer to Client/Proper Conduct Facts: Atty. the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment of membership or association dues. Sergio Angeles A. Thus.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. MTJ-97-1129. The Court said that while it is true that the complainant attached the administrative letter-complaint in his letter for respondent judge to inhibit in the criminal case. When complainant appealed said order in the same court. judges.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful. Moreover. dishonest. 4749. 4690. No. he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership dues. Case Digest on Aquilino Q. Antonio M. Upon failure to do so.

CA) which states that . Hence. city or municipality where he was arrested. that a motion for reconsideration is prohibited. he granted bail in favor of the defendant after several notices of hearing to the state prosecutor to which the latter failed to appear. nevertheless set the hearing for the petition for bail four times. Judge Jovellanos entertained motions for bail and ordered release for suspects whose cases were not pending in his court nor were they arrested within his jurisdiction. She added that. granted the motion for reconsideration. the instant complaint. Consequently. She alleges that Judge Fabros granted the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration after the case had been dismissed the case for failure of plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the Preliminary Conference. the evil sought to be avoided in the Manchester case does not exist in election cases. it is clear that the respondent judge was in utter disregard of established rules amounting to gross ignorance of the law. She averred that it is elementary.M. The complainants questioned both Orders for Release issued by Judge Jovellanos. RTJ-00-1522 January 20. respectively. in giving due course to the motion for reconsideration subject of the present 7 . Gacott. respondent Judge ordered that a preliminary investigation be had by the state prosecutor. A. is merely ancillary to main cause of action and is not even determinative of the court’s jurisdiction. Fabros A. violation of Canons 1. A judge should be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with statutes and procedural rules. Judge Eustaquio Z. the original Judge already made an order that from the deposit given by the protestant for the expenses of reopening the questioned ballots. It was not necessary to hold hearing so that the prosecution could show that evidence of guilt of the accused was strong since a preliminary investigation had been ordered by the court. applies only where the judgment sought to be reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. 2000 Judge Granting of Bail Facts: Respondent Judge is being charged with gross ignorance of the law. the required fees in this case was not yet paid by the protestant. among other things. January 19. under Section 19(c) of the Rules of Summary Procedure. Considering that the case was referred to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation. grave abuse of authority. respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion. and apply the recent ruling. and 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and incompetence in connection with granting bail to the accused in a criminal case for child abuse. an amount shall be allocated for the payment of the required fees. Case Digest on Jesusa Santiago vs. August 1. January 31. Based on the facts and circumstances attendant to the case. so elementary. he may apply for bail with any MTC or MCTC in the place where he was arrested. 2000 Payment of Docket Fees in Election Cases Facts: Judge Gacott is being administratively charged in this case with serious misconduct. both suspects were released by order of Judge Eduardo Jovellanos. Contempt proceedings is not one of those instances where a record on appeal is required to perfect an appeal. inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law.M. No. a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. 2000 Judge on Issuance of an Order of Release Facts: Jesusa Santiago and Margarita Sanchez were complainants in two different criminal cases before the MTC of San Ildefonso. alleging that the requirements for the bailbond had not been fulfilled and that the said judge had no jurisdiction to order the release. partiality and with intent to cause an injury to complainant. because the Code of Judicial Ethics requires him to be an embodiment of. Held: GUILTY. During the pendency of this. specifically Rule 3. Bulacan and the RTC of Rosales. Thus. Secondly. in violation of the rule. The defense moved to quash the information against the accused on the alleged absence of a preliminary investigation. the judge ordered the revival of the case out of malice. to which the docket fees shall be made to apply. To his opinion. It thus appears that complainant is actually the one who was remiss in the performance of his duties.M. As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law. Jr. Thus.01. Judge Eduardo Jovellanos Margarita Sanchez vs. Case Digest on Romulo Tolentino v. the filing fee in an election case is fixed and the claim for damages. presiding judge of the MCTC of Alcala-Bautista. If a RTC judge is not available. not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Here. Case Digest on Alfredo B. Pampanga. First. a judge is expected to keep abreast with and be proficient in the interpretation of our laws. There was no denial of due process. At that point. MTJ-99-1226. this complaint charging him primarily with gross ignorance of the law. knowing that bail was indeed a matter of right at that stage. Truth is. Judge Jovellanos owes the public and the court he sits in proficiency in the law. MTJ-00-1289. the order of dismissal issued by respondent judge due to failure of a party to appear during the preliminary conference is obviously not a judgment on the merits after trial of the case. 2000 Grant of a Motion for Reconsideration Facts : Complainant Lucas was the defendant in an ejectment case pending before respondent judge. More importantly. the Court held that the Manchester ruling relied upon by respondent Judge does not apply to election cases. and he cannot feign ignorance thereof. A perusal of the challenge order reveals that respondent judge failed to live up to what is expected of him as a dispenser of justice. Judge Policarpio S. While it is true that not every error or mistake of a judge renders him administratively liable. RTJ-99-1513. Judge Jovellanos did not have jurisdiction to order the release of the detainees. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence which goes against Canon 3. In fact. One may not be given provisional liberty if the bailbond is not registered with the proper office. the respondent judge was duty bound to adhere to. On e of the principal duties of a judge is to be abreast with law and jurisprudence since the administration of justice requires continuous study of the law and jurisprudence. the election protest was properly filed. The Pahilan case was decided long before the respondent made a ruling on the election case. a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated under Section 19 (c) of the present Rule on Summary Procedure. complainant failed to appear and present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong. Camano. we find the respondent judge’s order to be not it accord with the established rule on the matter. The SC held that respondent judge not guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. In this case. Held: NOT GUILTY. No. Jr. respondent judge’s decision granting bail to the accused was proper and in accordance with law and jurisprudence. in both cases. Thus. This complaint arose when respondent Judge dismissed an election case on the ground of non-payment of docket fees. Pangasinan. The suspects in each of the criminal cases were caught by authorities and detained. complainant herein now accuses respondent of denying the prosecution the chance to adduce evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong and that bail should not have been granted in his favor. After such grant. grave abuse of discretion. However. notwithstanding the fact that the respondent herself had pointed out in open court that the case is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. charging respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion Held: NOT GUILTY. Thus. he may either apply for bail with the court where his case is pending or with any RTC in the province. nor is she guilty of ignorance of the law. 2. Held: GUILTY. A.Anent the charge of gross ignorance of the law in requiring complainant to submit a record on appeal. the accused could be considered as entitled to bail as a matter of right. Judge Eduardo Jovellanos A. No. Thus. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge. bail was still a matter of right. Hence. Jugde G issued the dismissal order relying on a case (Manchester vs. However. Judge Jovellanos was suspended for 1 year without pay issued the warning that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Judge Amelia A. The complaint alleges that respondent Judge granted bail while pending the holding of a preliminary investigation. judicial competence. This rule.a case is deemed commenced only upon the payment of the proper docket fees. The Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that when a suspect is arrested outside of the province. city or municipality where his case is pending. He must have the basic rules at the palm of his hands as he is expected to maintain professional competence at all times. the detainees had not registered the bailbond in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Respondent judge. Case Digest on Gloria Lucas v. however. of the Code of Judicial Conduct. in this case. but respondent judge. although the case was had been previously admitted and was deemed properly filed by the original Judge (inhibited himself due to relationship to one’s of the parties) whom Judge Gacott replaced. As a rule. There are two defects in the Orders for Release signed by Judge Jovellanos. Enojas v.M. when the law is elementary. In a latter case ( Pahilan).

MTJ-99-1218. whose decision thereafter become final. While a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for every erroneous order or decision he renders. Pablo Suzon. Eastern Samar. The RTC subsequently reversed the conviction of Creer and ordered his release. Judge Fabillar was suspended from service for 6 months without pay and ordered to pay a PhP 20. Respondent Judge appreciated one (1) mitigating circumstance (old age). Judge Lirios convicted the accused. which is merely an ordinary mitigating circumstance. anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. Judge Quiroz ruled that the case would be governed by ordinary rules of procedure rather than the summary rules of criminal procedure because the case fell within the exceptions in P. Creer was then apprehended and jailed by order of Judge Fabillar. Creer subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration. so long as he remains on the bench. and sentenced him to a straight penalty of 7 months imprisonment and imposed a PhP 1. the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Judge Briccio Ygana A.000 or both. it is imperative that he continues to be conversant with the basic law and maintain the desired professional competence. Having received an adverse judgement. Creer alleged that respondent judge made him sign an application for probation which the said judge denied. Malicious mischief. Jason appealed the decision to Branch 153 of the RTC of Pasig City. if unsold. However. RPC) which was tried and decided by Judge Aniceto Lirios of the MTC of Naval. September 6. Complainant averred that respondent Judge acquitted the accused and declared her to only be liable civilly. Every judge should know that in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law for offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Creer vs. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Held: GUILTY. the unawareness of or unfamiliarity with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and duration and graduation of penalties merit disciplinary action from reprimand to removal. The rule is that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. stating that he had to appreciate the mitigating circumstance that Suzon was already 70 years of age. And when the law is so elementary. Ortiz vs. 4 months and 1 days to 6 years) and a fine of not more than Five Thousand Pesos (P5. No. Judge Aniceto Lirios A. Case Digest on Fredesminda Dayawon v. August 4. 2000 Judge Issuance of a Writ of Execution Facts: Teresita Jason was the defendant in an ejectment case before the MTC of Pasig City. Badilla A. Held: GUILTY.00). Observance of the law. Respondent judge. Before trial. Jason filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ygana. that relative immunity is not a license to be negligent or abusive and arbitrary in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives. The Sheriff of Branch 153 executed upon some personal properties of Jason and gave a Notice to Vacate. Judge Aniceto Lirios was fined in the amount of PhP 5. grave threats is penalized with imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months (arresto mayor) and a fine not exceeding PhP 500. Judge Alex L. August 1. Judge Lirios defended his decision. is required of every judge. on the other hand. In this case. not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. 2000 Order of Acquittal Facts: Ms.M. if the threat is not subject to a condition (Article 282). Held: GUILTY. Complainant stressed that these admissions. the indeterminate sentence should have a fixed minimum and maximum.M. The imposition of a straight penalty of seven (7) months by respondent Judge is clearly erroneous. accessory or otherwise or of the civil liability arising therefrom [Section 1 B(4).000 (Article 329). arguing that the summary rules not the ordinary rules should be followed for his case. Respondent judge affirmed the decision of the MTC and subsequently issued a Writ of Execution for the judgement. Dadizon questioned the punishment meted by the said judge. Judge Quiroz was reprimanded. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. No. considering that such rule is applicable to criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding PhP 1. an appeal had already been perfected. MTJ-00-1259 August 4. erred in applying the ordinary rules of procedure instead of the rules of summary procedure. Judge Concordio Fabillar A.M. MTJ-00-1295. therefore. At the time complainant applied for probation. the case should be remanded through the regional trial court to the metropolitan trial court for execution. Under the Revised Penal Code. As judge of thirty-three (33) years. arguing that the Writ of Execution should have been issued by the court of origin and not the appellate court. Case Digest on Carlos B. respondent should have known that the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides for the imposition of a prison sentence in the minimum and maximum term for offenses punishable by the Revised Penal Code or the special laws.000 fine. the subject criminal cases should have been tried under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. When the law is sufficiently basic.D. were clearly sufficient to convict the accused of the crime of estafa. Although respondent Judge eventually denied the application. The case was assigned to Judge Alex Quiroz. is penalized with imprisonment of 2 months and 1 day to 6 months (arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods) if the value of the damage caused exceeds PhP 1. MTJ-00-1309. It is true that a judge may err in fixing the minimum and maximum terms of an indeterminate sentence. charging the latter with gross ignorance of the law for conducting hearings for probation despite his pending appeal. the alleged damage to complainant was estimated to be PhP 50. with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. A judge has a duty to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. ase Digest on Alfonso C. irrespective of other imposable penalties. The offense committed was Falsification by a Private Individual and Use of Falsified Document punishable under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code which provides for a penalty of imprisonment of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (ranging from 2 years. which he is bound to know and sworn to uphold. Thus. The only exception is the execution pending appeal which is not evident from the records of this case. RTJ-00-1543. Creer filed an administrative complaint against Judge Fabillar. Ortiz filed an administrative complaint against Judge Quiroz.000 and issued stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely by the Court. Camarines Sur. No. with “Gross Ignorance of the Law and Incompetence” relative to Criminal Case for estafa. acting presiding judge of the 9th MCTC of Giporlos-Quinapundan. 2000 Imposition of Proper Penalty Facts: Felicidad Dadizon was the complainant in a prosecution for Falsification of a Public Document (Art. alleging that the straight penalty of 7 months is way below the penalty provided by law. August 14. Judge Ygana was fined PhP 10. Quiroz A. presiding judge of Branch 69 of the MTC of Pasig City. Held: GUILTY. remembering that he is not a depository of arbitrary power.M. Judge Maximino A. the fact still remained that he had acted on it by asking the probation officer to conduct a post-sentence investigation instead of outrightly denying the same as so explicitly mandated by the law.M. Revised Rule on Summary Procedure]. 2000 Conducting Hearings for Probation Facts: Respondent Judge Concordio Fabillar. Creer appealed the conviction to the RTC where it was affirmed.Case Digest on Felicidad Dadizon vs. but a judge under the sanction of law. 8 . Held: GUILTY. In fact. 1508. presided by Judge Briccio Ygana. 172. No. it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles. but had failed to comply seasonably therewith despite demand. He was further warned with the most severe penalty for another infraction by him. He must have the basic rules at the palm of his hand and be proficient in the interpretation of laws and procedural rules. Badilla of the Municipal Trial Court of Pili. Canon 18 mandates that he should administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself. however.000.000 for gross ignorance of the law. Biliran. a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it.000 fine. convicted Carlos Creer of grave coercion. despite Alamos’ admittance in open court that she had received the subject goods from complainant to be sold on commission basis with the obligation to remit the proceeds of the sale or to return the items. No. The rule is that if the judgment of the metropolitan trial court is appealed the regional trial court and the decision of the latter is itself elevated to the Court of Appeals. Canon 4 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that the judge should be studious of the principles of law. together with the finding that the accused had acted in bad faith. Fredesminda Dayawon charged Judge Maximino A. 2000 Application of Rules of Procedure Facts: Alfonso Ortiz initiated a criminal complaint against Inocencia Hernandez for malicious mischeif and grave threats. Case Digest on Teresita Jason vs. The case should have been remanded back to the MTC for execution.000.

respondent Judge accused him of dishonesty and subsequently prevented him from reporting for work. He further averred that complainant should have invited his attention by filing the proper motion or by writing a personal letter informing him of the non-transmittal of the records within three months from the date of his order of transmittal. Bellosilo. the process of learning the law and the legal system is a never-ending endeavor. despite constant follow-up by counsel. hence the record could not be transmitted to the Court of Appeals. Quezon City. Branch 34. the Court stated: “he (judge) sits not only to judge litigated cases with the least possible delay but that his responsibilities include being an effective manager of the court and its personnel. Judge V had been consistently late for 45 minutes to 1 1/2 hours during scheduled hearings. MTJ-00-1245. The non-transmission of the records by reason of inefficiency of the staff cannot exonerate respondent judge from administrative liability. 88-2187.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. T-1806. Several SC Circulars have been issued which enjoin judges to be punctual in the performance of their judicial duties. As administrative officer of the court. Furthermore. No. No. Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct exhorts judges to be “faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. If indeed complainant Rivera committed falsification in the accomplishment of his personal data sheet.” The Court has not been remised in reminding judges to exert diligent efforts in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence. Poro. However. Habitual tardiness amounts to serious misconduct and inefficiency in violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. he moved on to issue a Writ of Possession in favor of the original plaintiff (Espinas). is inexcusable. A judge cannot hide behind the incompetence of his subordinates. Held: GUILTY. Sheriff III. Metropolitan Trial Court.00 to P2. Rule 3. However. he is expected to keep abreast with his docket. The Secretary urged the Court Administrator to look into the fact that the order in question was issued in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. Case Digest on Antonio Yu-Asensi vs.The Court finds it fit. Rule 3. Villanueva A.M. Needless to state. January 19. Judge Romeo V. Quezon City vs. ase Digest on Re: Hold-Departure Order Dated August 9. RTJ-00-1525 January 25.000. No. Despite such order. and attorneys are of value.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates: “A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. A.M. 2000 Tardiness of Judges Facts: Complainant charges Judge Villanueva for serious misconduct and/or inefficiency particularly violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics on promptness and punctuality. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to the Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction. MCTC. said writ was returned unsatisfied because the herein complainants was the actual owners and occupants of the questioned property without being impleaded in the original case. hence. No. Held: GUILTY. Neglect and Delay in Elevating the Records of Civil Case No.M. judges should always be vigilant in their quest for knowledge so they could discharge their duties and responsibilities with zeal and fervor. he should not however exercise his authority over them in an oppressive or despotic manner. 00-1281-MTJ. Case Digest on Daniel & Suprema Dumo v. to which the complainant was the plaintiff’s counsel. While a judge may have supervision over his employees. Poro. Branch 34. At the very least. Mendoza A. recognizing that the time of litigants. The most that he can do is merely to file an administrative complaint against the erring employee. Martin Pantaleon v.” Case Digest on Atty. Poro-San Francisco-Tedela-Pilar. Judge Bellosillo should have realized that it is the Supreme Court which has the authority to discipline/dismiss his subordinate. Circular No. As a 9 . and that if the judge is not punctual in his habits. Held: GUILTY. which he later on did but after the complainant Rivera filed an administrative charge against him (Judge Bellosillo) for conduct unbecoming. Perez A. grave abuse of discretion and patent partiality. respondent Judge issued an order stating that complainants shall not be affected by said writ because they were not made parties to the case. respondent judge contends that the court stenographer misplaced the transcript of the testimony of one of the witnesses. the most that Judge Bellosillo could have done was to file an administrative charge against complainant Rivera. Subsequently. a judge is expected to keep a watchful eye on the level of performance and conduct of the court personnel under his immediate supervision who are primarily employed to aid in the administration of justice as required by Canon 3. he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction in the administration of justice. where only a period of 30 days is required. thus delaying the cause of complainant where he was the plaintiff in a reckless imprudence case. 2000 Facts: Sheriff Dante Rivera allegedly falsified his Personal Data Sheet. In the case of Re: Judge Fernando Agdamag. MTJ-00-1316. Mendoza. complainant filed a Notice of Appeal within the reglementary period and consequently. 2000 Issuance of Hold Departure Order Facts: MTC Judge Mendoza issued a Hold Departure Order in Criminal Case No. For this. witnesses. 39-97 dated June 19. No. 2000 Gross Inefficiency and Duty/Liability over Court Personnel Facts: In this case. After receiving an adverse decision. Due to his tardiness. three years have passed and the records of the case have not been transmitted. Afterwhich. Judge Francisco D. respodent Judge filed an administrative complaint against the sheriff. 1997. to reduce the recommended fine of P5. C’s lawyer had also been compelled to extend trial even beyond the prescribed period provided for by law.M. MTJ-00-1242 January 20.00 considering that no nefarious motive on the part of respondents judge has been shown. Judge Teofilo Guadiz A. A judge has no authority or power to prevent an employee from reporting for work. Respondent MTC Judge issued a Writ of Execution to enforce the decision of a case involving quieting of title and recovery of ownership of real property. 2000 Issuance of Conflicting Orders Facts: Spouses Dumo filed this administrative complaint against respondent Judge Perez for gross ignorance of the law. Poro-San Francisco-Tedela-Pilar.000. a delay of three years in the transmission of court records to the appellate court. In his Answer. Arnie Pena Osabel. September 25. entitled “People of the Philippines v. Cebu Office of the Court Administrator v.” pending before him in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.” Certainly. respondent Judge is charged with Gross Inefficiency. Cebu. however. Case Digest on Dante dela Cruz Rivera. Acting Judge Reynaldo B. Canon 3. September 14. Metropolitan Trial Court. respondent Judge issued an order for the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court. Judge Salvador B. He is presumed to be cognizant of his responsibilities as a worthy minister of the law. 1999 Issued by Judge Salvador B.M. Held: GUILTY. He should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subjects.

alleging that Judge Dizon had unduly influenced him to sign the Affidavit of Desistance and that he had not been fully appraised of the consequences of his actions in doing so. It is clear that the acts of the respondent judge have been less than circumspect. alleging that Judge AbucejoLuzano had modified her judgement because having received new information from the accused. and it cannot be the basis of a finding of guilt even in an administrative case. respondent judge reversed her decision and rendered a judgement for acquittal. Under said writ of possession. in conformity with his client’s decision. she should have ordered motu proprio the reopening of the trial for the purpose. On the issue of granting bail without the assistance of counsel. the acts of respondent in calling and meeting with the complainant still leave much to be desired and are deserving of reprimand. While there is no clear proof of malice. in effect. she conducted a personal ocular inspection of the place where the crime was committed without the presence of the parties involved. showed patent partiality over Espinas. partiality and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. V) and recommending a different lawyer. August 3. Case Digest on Atty. admitted additional evidence without giving the prosecution a chance to object to its introduction or to controvert the same.” A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The only evidence offered by complainant was the Affidavit of his client Meriam Colapo. The conduct of the ex-parte inspection. was so broad to affect all persons including herein complainants. It appears that Judge granted bail without the assistance of the counsel of record.consequence. it is imperative that he should have basic knowledge of the law. 2000 Facts: William Adan was the complainant in 2 criminal cases for Grave Oral Defamation tried and decided by Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano of the MCTC of Lopez Jaena.. Jr. Held: NOT GUILTY. Jr. Case Digest on William R. Canon 2). however. which according to complainants. Valenzuela v. opposed the Motion to Dismiss. civil. The investigation did not find any conclusive evidence that Judge Dizon was personally biased in favor of either party in the disposition of the case in question. Thus. respondent Judge is guilty of ignorance of the law. Jr. Held: NOT GUILTY. he must also appear to be impartial. If respondent Judge had entertained doubts that she wished to clarify after the trial had already terminated. V filed his Notice of Withdrawal. he reversed himself nevertheless by issuing the Writ of Possession. The issuance of said writ gave rise to the suspicion of partiality or bias in favor of Espinas. Dacera.M. with due notice to the parties. whose participation therein is essential to due process. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that: “a judge should also avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Judge Teodoro A.M. Secondly. As a municipal trial court judge. The presumptions of regularity and good faith in the performance of judicial functions on respondent’s part are negated by the circumstances of record. The complainant’s failure to present his principal witness. No. Espinas used such Writ of Possession against the herein complainants in order to eject them from their property and deprived them from the enjoyment of the same. To support his position. was highly improper as she. vs. Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano A. First of all. Held: GUILTY. it is error for the judge to go alone to the place where the crime was committed and make an inspection without previous knowledge or consent of the parties. A judge is not only required to be impartial.01. Atty. gross misconduct. The Supreme Court assigned an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals to investigate into the matter. he failed to present Colapo as Witness as she was allegedly out of the country although she was willing to testify at that time. RTJ-00-1573. Judge Reynaldo Bellosillo A. However.M. 2000 Facts: Leopoldo Dacera. With regard to the alleged act of respondent Judge suggesting to the accused that she should change her counsel (complainant Atty. Adan questioned the reversal of the conviction. respondent judge has opened herself to charges of partiality and bias by meeting with the accused privately. however. Judge allegedly granted bail to the accused despite not being accompanied and represented by her counsel at that time. Case Digest on Leopoldo G. Misamis Occidental. Meriam Colapo. He should have kept himself free from any appearance of impropriety and should have endeavored to distance himself from any act liable to create an impression of indecorum. he filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge. The crux of this controversy therefore is the issuance of respondent Judge of conflicting orders. She thus violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. No. he obviously had no jurisdiction over the action for quieting of title and recovery of ownership filed by Espinas against the original defendants. MTJ-00-1241 January 20. NapoleonS. It must be stressed that the case was NOT for ejectment over which MTC’s have original jurisdiction. The prosecutor later filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Dacera had executed and signed an Affidavit of Desistance from pursuing the prosecution. was the complainant in a prosecution for Qualified Theft filed with Branch 37 of the RTC of General Santos City with Judge Teodoro Dizon presiding. the Court found that the evidence adduced by the complainant was insufficient to substantiate the charges against him. Aghast by such decision. judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. After declaring that the Writ of Execution cannot be made enforceable against herein complainants as they were not made parties to the case. Valenzuela and he even suggested that the latter should be replaced by another counsel. Canon II of the Code of Judicial Conduct basically provides that judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Judge Abucejo-Luzano was fined PhP 10. Judges must keep abreast of the laws and jurisprudence to be able to render justice and maintain public confidence in our legal system. Respondent judge convicted the accused and sentenced them accordingly. the result of which apparently influenced her to reconsider her earlier decision. Furthermore. The complaint filed by Dacera against Judge Dizon. it was improper for respondent judge to meet the accused without the presence of complainant. the investigation did reveal that Judge Dizon had made telephone calls to Dacera and even had discussions with him inside his chambers in order to verify the truth about the Affidavit of Desistance. the judge’s act of issuing conflicting orders is likewise inexcusable. Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. (Rule 2. August 2. the Court held that it was valid and sufficiently based on the Manifestation filed by Atty. Dizon A. Dacera. Atty. oppression. Upon Motion for Reconsideration. 10 . Valenzuela. Respondent Judge has failed to live up to the norm that judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. MTJ-00-1298. However. he attached an Affidavit allegedly executed by his client Colapo. 2000 Facts: Respondent Judge is being charged with gross violation of the constitutional right of subject accused to assistance by counsel of her own choice. No. It must be noted that respondent judge did not actually dismiss the case upon motion of the prosecutor and even voluntarily inhibited himself upon motion of Dacera to disqualify him. Adan vs. corrupt motives or improper considerations. No matter how noble her intentions may have been. it was patent that he was contradicting his previous ruling by ordering therein “to eject all adverse occupants. respondent Judge was admonished to refrain from making calls to any parties-litigant and/or counsel with cases pending in his sala and sternly warned that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. in the absence of other evidence to prove his charges was fatal and said Affidavit cannot be given credence and is inadmissible without the said affiant being placed on the witness stand. More importantly. Held: GUILTY. In a BP 22 case.000 and issued a stern warning that any similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.” which of course. The question of jurisdiction if so basic and elementary a matter that a judge’s ignorance of it is simply inexcusable. during the hearing of the case. Subsequently. was dismissed for lack of merit. While a judge cannot be made liable for any criminal. or administrative charge for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith and in the absence of fraud. Her actions show an ignorance of the law and proper procedure to be followed for a situation such as this. the original plaintiff in the case for quieting of title. Respondent Judge should have known that an ex-parte ocular inspection without notice to nor presence of the parties and after the case had already been decided was highly improper. However. but for quieting of title and/or ownership falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of regional trial courts.

Issues: (1) Did Judge Malanyaon exercise grave abuse of discretion and act in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal cases? 11 . the accused can file motions for bail and the same can be entertained immediately without waiting for the raffle. In short. Calbayog City is no longer within his area of jurisdiction. There is thus no need or justification to retain the records of the cases and consider them “raffled off” to his own sala. It is. In tipping off and assisting Galvez. 4) if they failed to get married on August 28. January 28. Upon investigation. Case Digest on State Prosecutor Romulo Tolentino vs. there are only three instances. a judge is charged with exercising extra care in ensuring that the records of the cases and official documents in his custody are intact. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that: “A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.The employment or profession of a person is a property right within the constitutional guaranty of due process of law. The questioned acts of respondent Judge Liangco constitute a clear breach of his duty as a judge. She further alleged that Norberte actively assisted Galvez in the removal of her personal property from the latter’s residence. 1997. incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recording and filing system in his court because he is after all the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. that respondent Danilo Norberte. respondent Judge neglected his duty when he failed to register the marriage of complainant to Bernardito Yman. Such duty is entrusted upon him pursuant to Article 23 of the Family Code which provides: “It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificates not later than fifteen days after the marriage.M. Judge Liangco was suspended from service for 6 months without pay and issued the warning that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Danilo Norberte A. August 1. No case may be assigned to any branch without being raffled. For after granting bail to the accused. his right to due process would be infringed. No.M. No. Zenaida S. 2000 Facts: In her civil case versus Antoinetta Galvez. The nature and responsibilities of officers of the judiciary are not mere idealistic sentiments but true working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds. The reason he cited is that the accused in such cases are deprived of their liberty and that by automatically assigning these cases to his branch. Samar because : 1) physically indisposed and unable to report to his station in Sta. casts doubt on his integrity as a judge and erodes the confidence of the people in the judicial system. complainant feared it would complicate her employment abroad. Margarita. In his letter. The investigation revealed that Norberte was positively identified and seen by the complainant Sy and 2 other witnesses in the act of helping Galvez remove her personal property from her residence. Moreover. 53 were assigned to Branch 1 of the MTC of San Fernando presided by Judge Daniel Liangco. Tolentino also complained that several motions had been filed before respondent judge and have yet to be resolved and decided upon. Judge Juan Daguman A. Judge Nilo Malanyaon A. The offense of serious or grave misconduct refers to such misconduct that shows the element of corruption. the respondent judge alleged that the marriage of the complainant had to be solemnized in Calbayog City though outside his territory as municipal Judge of Sta. Norberte’s alibi did not prove to be credible. Respondent judge cannot therefore be adjudged guilty of the charges against him without affording him a chance to confront the said witness. xxx” Lastly. Case Digest on Zenaida S. 5) if the parties go beyond their plans for the scheduled marriage.” Respondent judge’s manner of automatically assigning jueteng cases to its own branch without the benefit of raffle. Clearly. Otherwise. Being an officer of the Court. Margarita. Acting State Prosecutor for Camarines Sur Romulo Tolentino assailed the orders for dismissal and the refusal to issue the warrants for arrest alleging that Judge Malanyaon had abused his authority and knowingly rendered unjust orders. 99-11-158-MTC. The records show that the loss was occasioned by carelessness on respondent Judge’s part. tipped off Galvez about the said writ. The Supreme Court ordered further investigation of the case and placed Judge Liangco on preventive suspension. A judge’s official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. Judge Sunga discovered that of the 55 jueteng cases filed in July 1999. Norberte was suspended for 1 month without pay and issued the warning that similar conduct in the future will be punished more severely.M. 3) that for the parties to go to another town for the marriage would be expensive and would entail serious problems of finding a solemnizing officer and another pair of witnesses or sponsors. presiding judge of Branch 30 of the RTC of Camarines Sur. She alleged. Norberte’s actions are an attempt to circumvent a valid court order. No. August 3. wherein a marriage may be solemnized by a judge outside his chamber[s] or at a place other than his sala. integrity. Judge Liangco explained that it has been his practice to automatically take over all jueteng cases without the need for raffling. with solemnizing marriage outside of his jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract with the office of the Local Civil Registrar. and the circumstances of this case do not fall in any of these exceptions. August 1. There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events. Beso v. complainant Erlinda Sy obtained a writ of preliminary attachment against all properties of the former. as provided by Article 8 of the Family Code. Judge Liangco clearly violated Supreme Court Circular No. Jr. respondent sheriff should have refrained from actuations though innocent and in good faith which may result in suspicion of impropriety and may consequently taint the good image of the judiciary.M. They are expected to serve with the highest degree of responsibility. No. Held: GUILTY. Meriam Colapo. RTJ-99-1444. MTJ-99-1211. Held: GUILTY. Noting that statistical improbability that 53 out of 55 jueteng cases should be assigned to only 1 Branch. This applies also to Judges. Daguman. In his comment. his alleged purpose of immediately extending provisional liberty to the accused shall already have been served. clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules. as solemnizing officer. 2000 Prompt Disposition of Cases/ Inefficiency/Abuse of Authority Facts: Judge Nilo Malanyaon. Judge Sunga demanded a written explanation as to how such a situation had come about. 00-1398-P. all jueteng cases are considered to be automatically raffled to his branch so that he may entertain motions for bail and the accused can be immediately released upon filing of the bond. loyalty and efficiency and to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum at all times. Pampanga received information about irregularities in the disposition of jueteng cases before the MTC’s of the said region. 2000) Facts: RTC Judge Pedro Sunga of San Fernando. Held: GUILTY. This Court reiterates that judges must adopt a system of record management and organize their dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. The authority of a judge to solemnize marriage is only limited to those municipalities under his jurisdiction. 7 which provides: “All cases filed with the Court in stations or groupings where there are two or more branches shall be assigned or distributed to the different branches by raffle. Additionally. Beso charged Judge Juan J. however. his mere presence at the scene is punishable. Sy filed a complaint with Branch 125 of the RTC of Kalookan City which was submitted for investigation. Sheriff of Branch 125 of the RTC of Kalookan City. complainant would be out of the country for a long period and their marriage license would lapse and necessitate another publication of notice. because of the need for provisional liberty. Even if Norberte did not tip off Galvez. 1997. to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. 2000 Neglect of Duty/Abuse of Authority Facts: In a Complaint-Affidavit dated December 12.” There is no connection at all between respondent’s alleged desire to facilitate the release of such accused on bail and his questionable act of retaining the records of the cases for direct assignment to his own sala. in fact. Case Digest on In Re: Procedure adopted by Judge Daniel Liangco (A. Case Digest on Erlinda Sy vs. 2) complainant said she had to fly abroad that same day. dismissed 5 separate criminal cases for lack of evidence and also refused to issue warrants of arrest on the ground of lack of probable cause.

It is the duty of the judge to rule upon the motions filed before him even if his actions are merely to deny them. Respondent judge pleaded for the understanding and compassion of the Court. Sultan. Under Rule 3.M. Meteoro A. Judge Delos Santos avers that she was on sick leave and therefore could not be expected to decide upon the case within the said period. No. Respondent should have rendered judgment in the forcible entry case before she went on leave. That he was burdened with a heavy case load and is a stroke victim. the respondent cannot escape responsibility for his inaction of the pending motions before him. The Court has consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency and non-observance of said rule is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. There is no doubt that a case of Forcible Entry falls within the Rules of Summary Procedure and as stated therein. all that he has to do is to file an application with the Court asking for a reasonable extension of time within which to resolve the case. August 24. Judge Sultan. This is to avoid or dispel any suspicion that something sinister is going on. accordingly. presided by Judge Amaro Meteoro. Under Rule 3. We have time and again reminded judges to comply with the rules regarding the period to decide cases. but the decision thereon was only promulgated on October 8. The Court is not unmindful of the Herculean task trial judges are faced with the perennial clogged dockets of the lower courts. It was observed that the said branch gave the least preference to cases submitted for decision. Held: GUILTY. Case Digest on Cob C. thereby inviting suspicion that something sinister or corrupt is afoot. depending on factors that tend to aggravate or mitigate his liability. Hon. the rules require the courts to decide cases ready for decision within 3 months from date of submission. Judge Rodolfo M. a judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. 34 were already beyond the reglementary period. The complainant alleges that respondent judge failed to decide the case within the mandatory 30-day period as provided by the Rules on Summary Procedure. 2 and 3 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct are without merit. The failure to render a decision within the 90-day period constitutes serious misconduct in derogation of the speedy administration of justice. after Civil Case No. which is the expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases. 1997.M. When circumstances arise that would prevent the judge from disposing a case within the reglementary period. a penalty of reprimand was imposed upon him with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar violation will be dealt with a more severe penalty by the Court. Quezon City A. However. Branches 87 and 98. (2) YES. While the prosecutor in this case is not without fault. that he had trouble recruiting and training competent personnel and that he had suffered a stroke. No. 99-11-423-RTC. Delay in the disposition of cases covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure defeats the very purpose of said rule. Rule 3. Amaro M. He was further directed to decide the subject case within a non-extendible period of 30 days from receipt of resolution. not to exonerate him. must be decided within 30-days. No.M. MTJ-00-1269. Held: GUILTY. In fact. It was only 2 years later that Judge Meteoro proceeded with the presentation of the defendant’s evidence. that it took one (1) year and five (5) months instead of three months to render a decision in civil case. Luzarraga filed an administrative complaint against Judge Meteoro.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The civil case was submitted for decision on April 1996.000 and issued a warning that similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely. 1999. the judge must nevertheless resolve on those matters promptly by granting or denying them. After the said plaintiff had rested his case and presented his evidence. Quillal-Lan vs. Even assuming arguendo that the various motions filed by the prosecutor were considered to be mere scraps of paper or without merit. The Court fined Judge Sultan PhP 20. Judge Alicia L. 2000 Facts: On September 15 to 17. 2000 Facts: Complainant contends.M. No. the record of this administrative matter does not show that respondent made an attempt to make such a request. was a different story. Conformably. Case Digest on Dominga D. the case was transferred to the newly-created Branch 64 of the RTC of Camarines Norte. presided over by Judge Elsie Ligot-Telan and Judge Justo M. the Branch Clerk of Court had not submitted the required docket and inventory of cases for a number of years. 2000 Facts: The daughter of complainant Dominga Quillal-Lan was the defendant in a Forcible Entry case before Judge Alicia Delos Santos of the MTC of Digos. to decide it which is way beyond the three-month period mandated by the Constitution. Judges must adopt a system of record management and organize their dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. some of which involve detention prisoners.000 to be taken from his retirement benefits. The case was finally submitted for decision a year later. The allegations that respondent judge had violated Canons 1. Good faith and absence of malice. Dela Cruz v. 908 was submitted for decision. The audit team reported that Judge Ligot-Telan had a well-managed docket. August 16. he preferred to keep the case pending.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases within the periods fixed by law. she is required to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases within the required time frame. Delos Santos A. September 4. Case Digest on Juan Luzarraga vs. he should ask this Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the cases involved.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent appears to be remiss in her duties as judge when she failed to render judgment in the case as mandated by the rules. corrupt or improper consideration are sufficient defenses protecting a judicial officer charged with ignorance of the law and promulgation of an unjust decision from being held accountable for errors of judgment on the premise that no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be infallible. 12 . These charges were dismissed by the Court. Case Digest on Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC. The motions/incidents were left unacted upon from 3 to 5 months and were still pending when the administrative complaint was filed against respondent. if the caseload of the judge prevents the disposition of cases within the reglementary periods. Instead. There is no proof of grave abuse of discretion. the Office of the Court Administrator conducted an audit and physical inventory of pending cases in Branches 87 and 98 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. this should not be an excuse for them to abdicate their duty to dispense justice. however. Davao del Sur. Respondent judge was found guilty for his failure to resolve pending motions and/or incidents and. 2000 Facts: Juan Luzarraga was the plaintiff in a civil case assigned to Branch 41 of the RTC of Camarines Norte. Held: GUILTY. Furthermore. citing that his branch had more than 300 cases pending before it. August 3. Failure to decide such cases on time renders the rationale for the rule meaningless and inutile.000 with the warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent should be aware of his duties as an arbiter of justice. and to submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a copy of his decision within 10 days from promulgation thereof. Judge Meteoro was fined P20. among others. It is not disputed that it took respondent Judge one (1) year and five (5) months.(2) Was Judge Malanyaon guilty of unreasonable delay for failing to act on the motions filed by State Prosecutor Tolentino? Held: (1) NO. Records did not show that Judge Sultan ever requested for an extension of time within which to decide the cases submitted before him. This is in accordance with the mandate that the judge shall dispose of the business of the court promptly and decide cases within the prescribed periods. and it has no effective docket system and recording of cases. serve only to mitigate the penalty. in pursuance of the Court’s oft-repeated policy of speedy disposition of quality justice for all. 00-1572. RTJ-00-1582. either by a fine or suspension from the service. After an elapse of more than 7 months without a decision on the case. The Court reiterates that failure to decide cases within the required period is inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency which is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. Judge Delos Santos was fined PhP 1. Of the 57 cases submitted for decision. Held: GUILTY. Serrano A. More than one year had already elapsed since the submission of the case and respondent Judge has not decided the same despite the Motion for Early decision filed the complainant. respectively. However.

Hon. official and otherwise. Court Interpreter respectively. presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Jaro. Guerrero v. These are all legal but clearly dilatory means used by the complainant to delay the case for 4 years. Sulla charging respondent Judge Rodolfo C. any delay in the administration of justice may result in depriving the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case and will ultimately affect the image of the judiciary. A delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice. Samar. Bucatcat. uprightness and honesty. they used abusive language in describing the respondent’s acts. No.05 admonishes all judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law. provides that no judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he. But as of May 21. The Court fined Judge Loja PhP 2. A then charged J with ignorance of the law & oppression because the fact that the counsel de officio did not know the particulars of the case meant that A would be denied due process. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 15(1) and (2). Complainant avers that she is the legal wife of respondent Bucatcat. date of complainant’s letter. Guerrero. Held: Judge reprimanded. Lazo v. The judge claims he did so in the hopes that his presence would allow the parties to settle amicably. malice or corrupt purpose. They were also thwarted on appeal. in the absence of showing of any bad faith. Court employees have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of courts of justice. J should be commended for his efforts to expedite the case. 2000 Negligence/Incompetence of a Judge Facts: Norma Esguerra was the complainant in a criminal case for Falsification of a Public Document tried before Judge Guillermo Loja of Branch 26 of the RTC of Manila. A judge should always be imbued with a high sense of duty & responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly administer justice. January 28.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which calls for a judge to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Held: Complaint dismissed. 2000 Facts: Dr. The case was submitted for decision in April 1997. Leyte. Judge Antonio V.05. at the time of the filing of the letter-complaint. Held: Case dismissed.” [Rule 3. Also. the reason J appointed a FLAG lawyer was because A’s lawyer had postponed several hearings because he was ill or out of town.Bucatcat (complainant) charged her husband. Moreover. respondent Judge Ramos has not rendered any decision in the said case. He cannot exercise his discretion whether to inhibit himself or not. 13 .02. Adriano Villamor (296 SCRA 88) Good Faith in Rendering Decisions Facts: Carlos and his counsel. hence. A careful study of the facts shows that Judge Loja is guilty only of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE and not of the administrative complaint filed against him. Article VIII of the Constitution. During the trial. Judge Loja countered by stating that he had indeed decided upon the case but rather. Rules of Court. which was later set aside by the SC. Judge Guillermo Loja A. Edgar Bucatcat and Gene Jaro A.M. Judges are presumed to be aware of Rule 3. There is no clear proof that the respondent judge falsified his certificate of service simply because his decision was dated. Under this provision. the decision was just not dated. There is sufficient evidence to hold respondents liable for immorality for maintaining an illicit relationship with each other. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity. Rule 137. of the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Gandara. or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by them in good faith. he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people.] It is an oft-repeated maxim that justice delayed is often justice denied. The Code of Judicial Conduct likewise provides that a judge “should administer justice impartially and without delay” [Rule 1. P-93-985. Respondents DISMISSED from service. was pregnant with their third child. civilly. Like any public servant. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. Case Digest on Rolando Sulla v. No. It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct. RTJ-00-1523. Jaro (respondents). The order of direct contempt may only be considered as an error of judgment. Antonio T. the Presiding Judge is mandated to disqualify himself from sitting in a case. of the personnel who work thereat. and Gene S. Case Digest on Marta Bucatcat v. 1999. Case Digest on Atty. it must be taken into consideration that Judge Loja has a heavy case load (almost 800 cases pending) and that this is the first offense by a judge who provided long and consistent service to the Judiciary. in the pleadings before the CA. Tiong (300 SCRA 214) Facts: Judge Tiong was accused of failing to inhibit himself in a criminal case because he was related within the fourth degree of affinity to the accused. 2000 Duty of Court Employees Facts:Marta T. from the judge to the lowest of its personnel.M No. Thus. and despite constant requests for its early resolution.05. Ramos. September 27. In this case. with immorality. Held: GUILTY. Ramos A. Moreover.] and directs a judge to “dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Edgar Y.Section 15 (1) of Article VIII of the Constitution provides that all cases filed before the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three (3) months from date of submission. 8121. August 15. Rolando A. Hon. A judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of judgment. brings the court into disrepute and ultimately erodes public faith and confidence in the judiciary. with unreasonable delay or refusal to render a decision in criminal Case No. Case Digest on Carlito D. lack of knowledge of the case or unavailability for trial. Even assuming that there was a slight delay in deciding the case. Rule 3. to preserve the court’s good name and standing. Amion v. inter alia. Rodolfo C. Held: GUILTY. Also. However. Complainant alleged that Judge Loja failed to decide the case within the 90-day reglementary period and further accused him of falsifying his certificate of service in order to make it appear that he had decided the case. She claims that respondents are having an illicit relationship with each other. Chiongson (301 SCRA 614) Speedy Administration of Justice Facts: A is a policeman charged with murder. judges cannot be held to account criminally. Case Digest on Norma Esguerra vs. charged respondent with gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment after they lost a civil and a criminal case tried by respondent. Judge Roberto S. is related to either party within the sixth degree pf consanguinity or affinity. Held: GUILTY. A had various lawyers during the said case who always postponed the hearings for various reasons such as illness. MTJ-00-1319. This Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously pursuant to Rule 3.M. J ordered that he be represented by counsel de officio because A’s attorney was ill.000 and issued a warning that similar conduct in the future will be more severely punished. respondent judge cited them for direct contempt. respondents allegedly have two (2) children together and that respondent Jaro. or to counsel within the fourth degree computed according to the rules of the civil law. Case Digest on Baltazar D.

Case Digest on Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court – Branch 24. Held: Judge Gatdula acted vindictively & oppressively. He should administer justice impartially & without delay. If hindered by illness. If his health problems were preventing him from doing his duty. She should either ask for additional time to decide or devise an efficient filing system to expedite decision.Case Digest on Fe T. His acts are not free from the appearance of impropriety. Branch 68 of Camilang. F does not deny the inaction but says B has no standing as she is only the attorney-in-fact of the plaintiffs to the civil case. A judge is mandated to render judgment not more than ninety (90) days from the time the case is submitted for decision. He eventually explained that the suspension of hearing was made because the request for change of venue was pending in the SC. standing or personal interest of the complainant is immaterial in administrative cases which involves the public good. Rojas (292 SCRA 306) Impartiality November 10. One of the criminal cases he inherited was one in which he acted as prosecutor. B left 7 criminal and 3 civil cases undecided within the 90-day period required by section 15. Isabela. the penalty will be mitigated. 2010 Facts: Atty. 14 . there had been no actions on 268 other cases assigned to him. since after being reminded of this. resolutions) some of which Judge Rojas did make. Respondent suspended the scheduled hearings in both cases. Bernardo v.g. apparently irked by the request of petitioner. Basilan. Finally. Held: FINED but penalty mitigated. he should have retired early so a healthier successor could act on the case load. These and the peace and order problems in his locality prevent him from expediting. orders. Judge Amelia A. This prevents not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge.05 of Canon 3 enjoins all judges to attend promptly to the business of the court and decide cases within the time fixed by law. let alone beyond reproach. Held: FINED. Held: Fined for gross neglect of duty. The prohibition does not only cover hearings but all judicial acts (e. Judge Rodolfo A. Zamboanga del Sur. Rule 3. Case Digest on Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC. Held: Judge is filed & reprimanded. Case Digest on Dolores Gomez v. Judge R cleared most of his docket (even those not overdue for decision) before retiring. Jr. Zamboanga del Norte (303 SCRA 208) Facts: Judge Apostol had a backlog of 280 cases. His delay in commenting on the change of venue also effectively delayed both cases by 5 months. he delayed his comment thereto. and the judge is prevented by factors beyond his control. The Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should administer justice without delay and dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the reglementary periods. a judge should inform the Office of Court Administrator and ask for additional time to decide in order to avoid the sanctions. Judge says he has constant medical problems and no legal researchers to help him. Ipil. the fine is mitigated. He also says that the counsels did not object and he never held “full-blown” hearings anyway. (306 SCRA 50) Facts: Upon retirement. and Municipal Circuit Trial Court. especially in summary proceedings. He explained that his delay in inhibiting himself from presiding on that case was because it was only after the belated transcription of the stenographic notes that he remembered that he handled that case. Case Digest on Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Branch 2. if there is no malice or bad faith. He said his failure was due to a serious illness. Fabros (307 SCRA 28) Speedy Administration of Justice Facts: B accused F of inaction in an unlawful detainer case for 7 months when the rules on summary procedure call for a decision in 30 days. The Rules of Court prevent judges from trying cases where they acted as counsel without the consent of the parties. When required by the SC to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Tarlac (305 SCRA 61) Facts: Judge R was due for compulsory retirement. some of which were undecided beyond the 90-day period. Members of the bench have a duty to administer justice without undue delay. Failure to render the decision within the prescribed period of ninety (90) days from submission of a case for decision constitutes serious misconduct and gross inefficiency. Article VIII of the Constitution. Case Digest on Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Judges must decide cases expeditiously. as required by Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Also. Bumanlag. However. Gatdula (293 SCRA 433) Facts: Gomez is the complainant in 2 different criminal cases before Judge Gatdula. Rojas was appointed a judge. Held: FINED. However. When she petitioned the SC to change the venue of 1 of the cases. The OCA found that he had many pending cases. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Failure to do so within the reglementary period constitutes a neglect of duty warranting administrative penalties. He need not have suspended both hearings as the change of venue only involved one case. Labason.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful