L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS

LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS PART II A. Lawyers 1. Disbarment of lawyer for grossly immoral conduct Ui v. Atty. Bonifacio A.C. No. 3319. July 8, 2000. 333 SCRA 35 PONENTE: De Leon FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Bonifacio on the ground of immorality for having illicit relations with a married man which resulted in the birth of two children. Her defense: She married complainant's husband without knowledge, in good faith, of his true marriage status; that she parted ways upon knowledge of such fact. She is also charged for disrespect toward the IBP for willfully attaching to her Answer a falsified copy of the marriage certificate. HELD While a lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct," there is no fixed standard for such conduct. Although circumstances existed which should have irked Bonifacio's suspicion, her act cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to moral norms of society. Moreover, "a member of the bar must so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." Bonifacio's act of immediately distancing herself from complainant's husband upon knowledge of his true civil status avoids the alleged moral indifference--that she had no intention of flouting the law and the high standards of the legal profession. The complaint is dismissed but she is reprimanded for attaching to her Answer a falsified copy of her marriage certificate. 2. Malpractice Daroy v. Abecia A.C. No. 3046, Oct. 26, 1998. 298 SCRA 239 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Case of malpractice. Abecia was counsel of Daroy in a case for forcible entry. Judgment was for Daroy. To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff sold at public auction a parcel of land belonging to one of the defendants to complainant Daroy as highest bidder. Daroy alleged that he entrusted the title to the land (TCT No. T-315) to Abecia as his counsel and allowed him to take possession of the land upon the latter's request. Daroy, then, accused Abecia of having, forged his signature in a deed of absolute sale by means of which the latter was able to transfer a parcel of land first to Jose Gangay and eventually to his wife Nena Abecia. Abecia claimed that the land was conveyed to him as payment of his legal services to Daroy. HELD: Abecia is not guilty. The parties were mistaken in thinking that Abecia could not validly acquire the land. In Guevara v. Calalang, on facts similar to those in this case, the SC held that the prohibition in Art. 1491 does not apply to the sale of a parcel of land, acquired by a client to satisfy a judgment in his favor, to his attorney as long as the property was not the subject of the litigation. However, the parties thought that the transfer of the land to Abecia was prohibited and so they contrived a way whereby the land would be sold to Jose Gangay, whose wife Anita is the sister of Mrs. Nena Abecia, and then Gangay would sell the land to Mrs. Abecia. The sale of the land to Gangay may be fictitious and, therefore, void, but it is evident that Daroy intended to convey the land ultimately to Abecia. 3. Res judicata Reynaldo Halimao vs. Daniel Villanueva et. al A.C. No. 3825. Feb. 1, 1996. 253 SCRA 1 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment against Attorneys Villanueva and Ferrer, Jr., for serious misconduct. Halimao alleged that respondents, without lawful authority and armed with armalites and handguns, forcibly entered the Oo Xian Tiok Compound of which complainant was caretaker, on April 4, 1992 at 11:00 A..M. On August 14, 1992, respondents filed a comment in which they claimed that the complaint is a mere duplication of the complaint filed by Danilo Hernandez in Administrative Case

Page 1 of 43

L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS

No. 3835, which this Court had already dismissed on August 5, 1992 for lack of merit thus amounting to res judicata. HELD: The Investigating Commissioner properly dismissed the complaint in this case on the ground of res judicata, it appearing that it involves the same incident and the same cause of action as that Administrative Case No. 3825. The resolution of this Court in Administrative Case No. 3835 is conclusive, it appearing that the complaint in this case is nothing but a duplication of the complaint of Danilo Hernandez in the prior case. In dismissing the complaint brought by Danilo Hernandez in the prior case, this Court categorically found "want of a prima facie showing of professional misconduct on the part of the respondents [Attorneys Daniel Villanueva and Inocencio Ferrer, Jr.]" 4. Misrepresentation and Non-payment of bar membership dues Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas A.C. No. 4749. Jan. 20, 2000. 322 SCRA 529 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appears that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a “limited” practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership dues. HELD: GUILTY. 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, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment of membership or association dues. In addition, 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, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility that provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. 5. Diligence Elsie Aromin vs. Valentin Boncavil A. C. No. 5135. Sept. 22, 1999. 315 SCRA 1 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Ballesteros engaged services of respondent Atty. Boncavil in two cadastral cases. Upon receipt of the adverse decision in the 2 cases, Boncavil did not inform the claimants of the decision, did not file a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal, did not file a written offer of evidence despite the directive of the trial court and only filed a motion to substitute 4 years after the complainant’s father died. HELD: Atty. Boncavil was suspended for 6 months from notice with a warning that repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Boncavil violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility providing that “a lawyer should serve his client with competence and diligence” and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “a lawyer must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” 6. Conflicting Interests - Full Disclosure Hector Teodisio vs. Mercedes Nava A. C. No. 4673. Apr. 27, 2001. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Respondent Mercedes Nava alleged that petitioner acted as counsel for Melanie Batislaong in several cases as counsel for Espinosa and Palma in cases 2 filed by them against Batislaong and Nava. Respondent explained that Nava was the former manager of Batislaong who was fired because

Page 2 of 43

L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS

of mismanagement. Thereafter, Nava sued Batislaong, Palma and Espinosa for estafa. Because of alleged false receipts issued by Nava, Palma and Espinosa hired petitioner Teodisio in a civil case because they wanted to settle their debts to Batislaong through Nava and were unsure how to go about it. Hence, petitioner impleaded both Batislaong and Nava so there could be interpleader between the two. This was done with full disclosure to all parties concerned. HELD: - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Under Canon 6 of the previous Canons of Professional Ethics, a lawyer is deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The rule is designed to remove from attorneys the opportunity to take advantage of the secrets of clients obtained during the existence of the client-attorney relation. Even granting that the interests of Espinosa, Palma, and Batislaong are conflicting, petitioner cannot be held liable for acting as their common counsel in view of the fact that, as stated in their affidavits, petitioner explained to them the consequences of his representation and that they gave their consent to the same. 7. Disbarment of lawyer requires clear and preponderant evidence Danilo Conception vs. Daniel Fandino A. C. No. June 21, 2000. 334 SCAR 136 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Fandiño for gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice for having notarized several documents without having been appointed or commissioned as a notary public. The complaint was dismissed by the IBP because the documents submitted by complainant were mere photocopies. HELD Although disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are not civil or criminal nature, but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers, the rules on evidence cannot be disregarded considering that the exercise of one’s profession is at stake. Under the Best Evidence Rule, mere photocopies of the alleged notarized documents is inadmissible in evidence, in the absence of evidence to prove that the original copies of the same were lost or destroyed or cannot be otherwise produced. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear and preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty, with the burden of proof resting upon the complainant. 8. Withdrawal of Services without Just cause Felicisimo Montano vs. IBP A.C. No. 4215. May 21, 2001. PONENTE: Kapunan FACTS: Atty. Dealca, counsel for Felicisimo Montano withdrew his services for his client upon the latter's failure to comply with their retainer agreement. HELD: We find Atty Dealca’s conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Although he may withdraw his services when client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services, under the circumstances of the present case, Atty. Dealca’s withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the atty’s fees. Rule 20.4 of Canon 290, mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to him by complainant ( P 3,500.00), respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance with the demands of the Code. But, only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar will mdisbarment be imposed a s penalty. 9. Immorality Paras vs. Paras A.C. No. 5333. Oct. 18, 2001. 343 SCRA 414 PONENTE: Melo FACTS: Rosa Paras conducted a case for disbarment against her husband Justo Paras for gross immoral conduct and concubinage. The criminal case for concubinage was dismissed.

Page 3 of 43

L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS

HELD: Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law but also its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. Respondent has fallen below the moral bar when he forged his wife’s signature in the bank loan documents, and sired a daughter with a woman other than his wife. The dismissal of the criminal cases does not bar the filing of the administrative case. Paras was not disbarred. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the desired end. Suspended for 6 months. Ansa vs. Musa A.M. No. SCC-00-5. Nov. 29, 2000. 346 SCRA 240 Per Curiam FACTS: Ansa was a court stenographer assigned to respondent’s ( Sharia) court. The latter made several amorous advances towards her. Then that faithful day came and the poor stenographer finally realized that she would never be anything more than the “other woman”. Ansa charged her ex-lover with Gross Immorality, the latter resorted to the honorable way out, strongly and vehemently denying the whole thing. HELD: Musa violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Not only did he transgress the norms of decency expected of every person but he failed to live up to the high moral standard expected of a member of the Judiciary. 10. Intemperate Speech United BF Homeowners vs. Sandoval-Gutierrez A.M. No. CA-99-30. Oct. 16, 2000. 343 SCRA 162 PONENTE: Kapunan FACTS: In the SC resolution dated Sept.29, 1999, they dismissed the administrative complaint filed against Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez of the CA and Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo and directed the complainants to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for, among others, using intemperate, offensive and libelous language against Justice Gutierrez and the other members th of the 13 Division of the CA. Without authorization from UBFHAI, Bago launched a signature campaign and filed with the Office of the Court Administrator the administrative complaint against Justice Gutierrez. He used the name of the UBFHAI to launch his complaint. The Board subsequently asked Bago to resign. It would appear that the author of the administrative complaint was a certain Bago, a member of the 1999 UBFHAI Board and its duly elected Secretary. Without authorization from UBFHAI, Bago launched a signature campaign and filed with the Office of the Court Administrator the administrative complaint against Justice Gutierrez. He used the name of the UBFHAI to launch his complaint. The Board subsequently asked Bago to resign. HELD: In the SC resolution of 4 Sept. 1999, they found totally bereft of factual basis Bago’s accusations and innuendos against Justice Gutierrez. The charge of foot-dragging against this Court is not only malicious but also false because the Court had already acted on their complaint against Justices Gutierrez and Benipayo and dismissed the same in its Resolution. The Court finds Bago guilty of indirect contempt. While the Court recognizes a litigant’s right to criticize judges and justices in the performance of their functions, “it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. Baniqued vs. Rojas A.M. No. OCA-00-03. Oct. 4, 2000. 342 SCRA 1. PONENTE: Purisima FACTS: Complainant (OIC of the OCA’s Statistical Reports Division) charged respondent (a Statistician) with Grave Misconduct and Slander. Basically, during office hours, the latter called the former useless, biased and an idiot in front of everybody. HELD: SC fined Rojas. “This Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the

Page 4 of 43

Antonio M.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful. 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. Salayon A.M. Pimentel filed an administrative complaint for their disbarment. Judges 1. These reasons do not appear here to be present.000 each and issued a stern warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished. this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. Paras A.” 11.” The Court found the respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10. 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.” By express provision of Canon 6. Misconduct Aquilino Q. Jr. dishonesty or corruption. Pimentel. No. August 29. 2001 PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago FACTS: Respondent Judge was charged with grave misconduct for granting bail to the accused in a criminal complaint filed by complainant Sps. later withdrew his appearance on the ground that the presiding judge was his former law partner. 2000. In addition. by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question. Jr. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were due to honest mistake. however. The administrative case is remanded to IBP for further proceedings. Dec. immoral or deceitful conduct. The respondent granted bail based on affidavits and not on any other personal findings and/or examination. became the counsel for Maanay who was the opposing party. Case Baldomar vs. However.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS Judiciary. Llorente and Ligaya P. they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no falsehood. 4980. Baldomar alleged that Paras breached their lawyer-client relationship. His conduct. B. Fortuna vs. HELD: GUILTY. such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. No. HELD:It has been held that it is patent error for a judge to base his order of granting bail merely on supporting affidavits attached to the information since those are merely intended to establish probable cause as basis for the issuance of an arrest warrant and not to control his discretion to deny or grant bail in all situations. 15. Attys. 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. Generally the acts of a judge in an official capacity. Judge Pinaco-Sitaca A. No. in the absence of fraud. RTJ 01-1633. 4690. 339 SCRA 154 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel. must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion. at all times.C. 12. oversight and fatigue. Gross Ignorance of the Law a. June 19. Paras. respondents committed a breach of Rule 1. are not subject to disciplinary action even though such act may be erroneous. In general Sps. vs. A formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may not be done away with except for valid and cogent reasons.C. Formal Investigaton Mandatory in an Admin. dishonest. Fortuna. HELD: It appears that there was no formal investigation conducted by the IBP pertaining to the allegations made. 348 SCRA 212 PONENTE: Vitug FACTS: Respondent allegedly gave Baldomar legal advice and then. Here. Page 5 of 43 . But it is highly imperative that judges should be conversant with basic legal principles and be aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines-such as in the procedures for granting bail. 2000.

HELD In failing to determine whether the cases are governed by the summary rules. who under the injunction of Canon 1. In both cases. MTJ-00-1265. HELD: In Tavora vs. Judge claims she merely followed the law in dismissing the case. Canon 2). fined an equivalent to one-half of his salary for one month. No. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that: “a judge should also avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. he reversed himself nevertheless by issuing the Writ of Possession. RTJ-00-1522. (c) Grave disobedience to the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. integrity. A. 322 SCRA 559 PONENTE: Mendoza Page 6 of 43 .M. Dalanao disregarded the application of the Rules on Summary Procedure. in choosing to justify instead of correcting her error of quoting out of context the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules also violated Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 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. 2000. the judge’s act of issuing conflicting orders is likewise inexcusable. Judge Romeo V. Judge Policarpio S. MTJ-00-1242 Jan. 20. (b) Ignorance of the law in its highest order.M.” A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Such ruling should be familiar to the bench and the bar. and no order of arrest against can issue unless the accused is first required to appear but fails to do so. HELD: First of all. After declaring that the Writ of Execution cannot be made enforceable against herein complainants as they were not made parties to the case. No. “a patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of the Rule of Summary Procedure is a ground for disciplinary action. public opinion or fear of criticism. That “ignorance of the law excuses no one” has special application to judges. claiming that the decision was not final since a motion for reconsideration was filed. Complainants allege that respondent judge committed (a) Grave abuse of authority by knowingly rendering an unjust and unlawful order. there is no requirement for them to submit their dispute involving real property to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. she being a judge. he moved on to issue a Writ of Possession in favor of the original plaintiff (Espinas). MTJ-00-1275. Dalanao showed gross ignorance. As an MTC judge. Apr. no motion for reconsideration is allowed in cases covered by it.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS Carlito Aguilar vs. respondent Judge is guilty of ignorance of the law. “should be the embodiment of competence. It must be stressed that the case was NOT for ejectment but for quieting of title and/or ownership falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of RTC. As a consequence. Camano. This Court has impressed on judges the need to be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence. 6. Jan.01. Romulo Tolentino v. June 8. 2000. Jr. No.” The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. (Rule 2. Veloso it was already ruled that where parties do not reside in the same city or municipality or in adjoining barangays. In another case for malicious mischief. albeit without any malice or corrupt motive. 20. Secondly. Priscilla Hernandez A. which provides that “in every case a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interest. FACTS: Respondent Judge issued an order stating that complainants shall not be affected by a writ of execution because they were not made parties to the case.” Respondent. Under the summary rules.” Daniel & Suprema Dumo v.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.M. Dalanao immediately issued a warrant of arrest without first requiring the accused to appear. Perez A. 330 SCRA 49 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Judge Hernandez dismissed a case for recovery of possession of land on the ground that it was filed without prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. 2000.M. and independence. Under the summary rules. he obviously had no jurisdiction over the action for quieting of title and recovery of ownership filed by Espinas against the original defendants. Despite such order. 333 SCAR 62 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Judge Dalanao revived a forcible entry case which was already dismissed by his predecessor. Velaides Vercide vs. Victor Dalanao A. 2000.

HELD: Respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion in hearing the motion of the accused on the same day the motion was filed. Judge Adaoag took notice of the claim of Romeo Fernandez that he was not a party in the ejectment case and that he owned the lot by virtue of a Certificate of Land Transfer. Respondent judge. 1998. 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. He held in abeyance the resolution of complainant's motion for demolition until the decision in the tenancy case. MTJ-95-1045. to prevent the departure of the accused from the Philippines. the accused filed a Motion to Recall the Warrant of Arrest. Since the prosecutor and complainant were present and had been furnished a copy of the motion. complainant failed to appear and present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong. A. No. The only excuse for dispensing with it is if the matter to be heard is urgent. M. 1998. M. nevertheless set the hearing for the petition for bail four times. Dr. respondent Judge ordered that a preliminary investigation be had by the state prosecutor. Ramon T. There was no denial of due process. 1995. HELD: NOT GUILTY. he granted bail in favor of the defendant after several notices of hearing to the state prosecutor to which the latter failed to appear. however. Jan. which limits the authority to issue hold departure orders to the Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction. obstruction of justice and abuse of authority for holding in abeyance the resolution of complainant's motion for demolition in an ejectment case. M. bail was still a matter of right. After such grant. §4 of the former Rules of Court provides that notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing. They can live up to this expectation only by diligent effort to keep themselves abreast of the legal and jurisprudential developments. RTJ-97-1385. In this case. 39-97 of this Court. The court. the judge decided to hear the motion on the same day it was filed.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS FACTS: The complaint alleges that respondent Judge granted bail while pending the holding of a preliminary investigation. The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Nartatez A. The defense moved to quash the information against the accused on the alleged absence of a preliminary investigation. Upon learning that the warrant had already been issued on that day. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint alleging that the case was a tenancy case over which the MTC had no jurisdiction. knowing that bail was indeed a matter of right at that stage. Judge Luisito Adaoag A. this complaint was filed against him. HELD: The Court reprimanded Judge Nartatez and reminded him that he should keep himself abreast of Supreme Court issuances so as not to commit the same mistake in the future. For although respondent judge's resolution suspending judgment on the motion for demolition may be erroneous. persecution. the accused filed a motion for reinvestigation and prayed that issuance of the warrant of arrest be held in abeyance. 28. harassment. Lolita O. During the pendency of this. No. for good cause may hear a motion on shorter notice. As Judge Adaoag denied the motion. The Sec of Justice claims that calls the order is contrary to Circular No. It thus appears that complainant is actually the one who was remiss in the performance of his duties. 284 SCRA 58 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: In a Criminal Case before Judge Gal-Lang. Ardosa v. the error can at most amount only to an error of jurisdiction — Page 7 of 43 . respondent judge defends her decision to hear the motion of the accused for the recall of the warrant of arrest on the same day it was filed on the ground that anyway the public prosecutor was present. hostility. At that point. 8. However. 298 SCRA 710 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Hold departure order was issued by Judge Nartatez for violations of B. Nov. Luis C. The learning process in law is a never ending and ceaseless process. Gal-lang. 250 SCRA 344 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Judge Adaoag of MTC is charged with ignorance of law. Bengzon vs. 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. et al. bias. Re: Hold Departure Order Dated April 13. Rules 15. 1998 Issued By Judge Juan C. HELD: Case dismissed. incompetence. 98-10-141-MTCC Nov.P. 22. Complainant moved for a reconsideration of the resolution. 14. Consequently. No.

Respondent judge's failure to comply with this duty resulting in the failure to give notice to the prosecution of pending application for bail merits a reprimand. it is highly imperative that they should be conversant with basic legal principles. While respondent was in error in believing that notice to the prosecutor is required only where bail is a matter of discretion. 1 of the Rules of Court is termed "grave abuse of discretion. Nonetheless. HELD: A notice of application for bail to the prosecutor is required even though no charge has yet been filed in court and even though under the circumstances bail is a matter of right. Villarin. the error must be "so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision. rulings and jurisprudence affecting their jurisdiction. to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders. b. nonetheless. In every case. Feb. Page 8 of 43 . No.000. M. assuming that the judge erred. a security guard at the Iloilo Central Commercial High School. a judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan or personal interests. trying to prevent Antonio Chin from entering the school. In cases such as this. Goko. 247 SCRA 175 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: John Girao. the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. respondent judge granted him bail in the amount of P8. 242 SCRA 110 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: A complaint was filed. the SC found that his error was not due to any conscious and deliberate intent to commit an injustice. dishonesty. Atty. No. 2. public opinion or fear of criticism. as a matter of public policy. would be nothing short of harassment and that would be intolerable. 1995. He surrendered to the police and was brought to the sala of respondent Judge Tito G. Tito G. MTJ-94-985. No. RTJ-95-1286. 241 SCRA 478 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: This is an administrative complaint against Judge Ariño for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment as defined and penalized under Article 204 of the RPC. A. RTJ-99-1484(A). HELD: In failing to observe these rudimentary requirements. Upon Girao's motion. 1995." Otherwise. Gustilo. Apolinario Muñez vs. protesting the grant of bail without hearing and without notice to trial fiscal. 11. the respondent judge showed gross ignorance of the law for which he should be fined. Oct. Chin v. Tucay vs. Domagas A. et al. While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgment. 24. It is alleged that respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of law. Judge Roger A. Teresita Q." To warrant a finding of ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. Mar. Antonio P. notwithstanding the pendency of seizure and forfeiture proceedings before the Bureau of Customs.000 sacks of rice to claimants. 2000. in the absence of fraud. 344 SCRA 178 PONENTE: Panganiban FACTS: Complainant alleged that the respondent judge ordered the release of 25. No. Jr. it has been the view that. the SC have stressed the importance of the duty of members of the judiciary to keep abreast of the laws. Requirements for liability to attach to gross ignorance of the law Rallos vs. accidentally shot Chin. yet. 21. M. A. A judge owes it to the public and the administration of justice to know the law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS what in Rule 65. of the Provincial Prosecutor's recommendation for approval of the bond. 1995. HELD: He showed poor judgment and gross ignorance of basic legal principles. Gustilo. Respondent judge showed lack of capacity for independent judgment. M. and ordered him released on the same day. Judge Ciriaco Ariño A. RTJ-94-1243. Aug.M. or corruption.

Respondent judge granted the defendant's motion for reconsideration. 341 SCRA 161 PONENTE: Ynares Santiago FACTS: This case deals with how to hold a judge administratively liable for ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. 337 SCRA 158 PONENTE: Gonzaga. Respondent has opened herself to charges of partiality and bias by meeting with the accused privately. dishonesty or corruption. with due notice to the parties. malicious. In comment. Respondent was in bad faith when respondent did not appear for hearing on the dates set for the hearing of which he had knowledge of. In fine. a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will. MTJ-00-1298. there was no supervening event. Complainant charged respondent Judge with abuse of authority.M. deferring execution. April 15. the assailed order or decision of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but. Natividad AM RTJ-99-1447.” Page 9 of 43 . which was granted by respondent judge. Daracan vs. Bad faith is not presumed and he who alleges the same has the onus of proving it. but must also be motivated by bad faith. Also. Oscar C. Thus. HELD: 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. 2000. paid the rents as they fell due or paid the docket fees. or some other like motives. bad faith is the ground for liability in either or both offenses. Lilia Español A. deliberate or in bad faith. the law requires that the error or mistake of the judge must be gross or patent. c. hatred.” 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. Adan vs. 27. dishonesty. malice. whose participation therein is essential to due process. 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.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS HELD: This act constitutes gross ignorance of the law. 289 SCRA 1 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS:Complainant filed a motion for execution. she should have ordered motu proprio the reopening of the trial for the purpose. Fernandez v. Sept. However. No. MTJ-98-1150. HELD: For liability to attach for ignorance of law. a judge will be held liable for rendering an unjust judgment when he acts in bad faith. more importantly. revenge or some other similar motive. to justify the taking of drastic disciplinary action. 1998. Similarly. it partakes of the nature of fraud. had renewed his lease contract. If respondent judge had entertained doubts that she wished to clarify after the trial had already terminated. it must not only be contradictory to existing law and jurisprudence. These are not present in the instant case. Abucejo-Luzano A. Impartiality. who are co-owners of the property. No. It is not disputed that complainant or his counsel was not informed of such ocular inspection. HELD: Respondent judge has shown ignorance of law by failing to order execution despite the fact that defendant had not given a supersedeas bond. However. Gross Ignorance of law. partially and rendering an unjust judgment relative to the aforesaid criminal cases. respondent judge explained that she granted the defendant's motion in view of a supervening event. M. we have held that to be punishable as such. fraud. it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. alleging that complainant's brothers. Respondent Judge has not only shown gross ignorance of the law and procedure but failed to live up to the norm that “judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial.Reyes FACTS:A careful reading of the order of acquittal shows that respondent judge conducted an ocular inspection of the place of the incident “on her way home” at which the accused was present and wherein respondent Judge was informed by the accused that “the area was fenced by the MSU”. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong. The court's duty was simply to order such execution.

Basic is the rule that a judge may not order the execution of judgment in the decision itself. Siapno A. while petitioner's counsel filed a Motion for Execution which was granted by respondent judge. The hearing for the application for a preliminary injunction was scheduled on June 24 but on that day. 330 SCRA 268 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: On June 18. gross ignorance of the law. judge issued a TRO.M. Section 21 of the Rules of Summary Procedure likewise provides that the decision of the RTC is immediately executory. On the same day. On June 28.M. 1998. It should be noted that the RTC modified the MTCdecision to the effect that it should not be immediately executed." Lu filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Also. Eduardo Jovellanos A. An ex-parte Motion to Withdraw deposit was filed and granted. No. Even if immediately executory. respondent Judge issued 3 orders: (1) suspension of the criminal case due to the principle of prejudicial question when the complainant was not a party to the civil case (no justification for the ruling was made). Inc. He disregarded the time-honored injunction on judges to be impartial both in fact and in appearance. 12. Agcaoili A. No. for its immediate execution. Billy Apalit A. Judge’s act of further extending the TROs. et al. this complaint for gross incompetence. October 16. enjoining judges to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence and to dispose of the business of their courts promptly and within the applicable periods. vs. 2000. HELD: Respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law when he rendered judgment providing. Emerito M. HELD: Judge Apalit is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. let a Writ of Execution be issued.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS Lu vs. filed a civil case for injunction and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO against complainants Marcos-Manotoc. MTJ-99-1199. Page 10 of 43 . Imelda Marcos-Manotoc vs. Puerto Azul Land. A Motion for Special Demolition was likewise granted without notice and hearing. MTJ-97-1139. Roberto Espiritu vs. HELD: Judge failed to observe Rules 3. RTJ-98-1405. the judge’s partiality for a party to a case before him is evident in several orders. even going to the extent of disregarding settled rulings. Apr. No. 1997.01 and 3. grave abuse of authority. In this case. An isolated error of judgment would normally not make a judge susceptible to administrative liability.M. MTJ-00-1274. mere suspicion that the judge is partial to a party is not enough. there should be adequate evidence to prove the charge. 280 SCRA 579 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Espiritu charged respondent judge with with ignorance of the law. judge again extended the TRO. 2000. there must be notice and hearing. Hence. in the dispositive portion. judge issued an order extending the effectivity of the TRO for 5 more days. July 6. 333 SCRA 54 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: In a criminal case for violation of BP 22. instead of conducting a hearing. Writ was issued without notice and hearing. 335 SCRA 122 PONENTE: Gonzaga-Reyes FACTS: On appeal. knowing fully well that he has not conducted a summary hearing and that he would not be able to conduct one in the succeeding days because of his other commitments.M. Jepson Dichaves vs. and (3) acquitting the accused because the checks were allegedly issued as a guarantee. suggests partiality to a party in the case. favoring the accused in the criminal case. June 8. Ma. 2000. abdication of official function and gross misconduct. MTC-judgment was modified by deleting the paragraph "(I)n accordance with the Rules. and gross partiality alleging irregularities committed by respondent judge in the conduct of the preliminary investigation of his complaint against Dumlao. stating that such “is good until such time that the writ of preliminary injunction shall have been resolved”. (2) disqualification of counsel of complainant for taking part in the prosecution of the criminal case allegedly due to the fact that the civil aspect of the case was being litigated.05 of the Code of Judicial conduct.

M. Respondent judge thus correctly granted bail to Dumlao. in violation of Rule 114. The reason for this rule is that ejectment suits involve only the issue of material possession and does not decide the issue of ownership. respondent judge granted bail to Weny Dumlao without notice to the prosecution. Jan.000. respondent judge ordered the arrest of the accused. Either respondent judge was grossly ignorant of the law or he deliberately disregarded it to favor the accused. Malfeasance/Misfeasance in Rendering Unjust Judgment. which indicates rather clearly respondent judge's partiality. MTJ-00-1246. Ignorance of the Law/ Nonfeasance Orlando Lapeña vs. Instead.00 and in doing so without a hearing.00 and reducing it to P10.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS HELD: The respondent judge is guilty of ignorance of the law. at that time. F. It was improper for him to meet them without the presence of complainant. P-00-1362. This partiality was nowhere more evident than in the private conference which he had with the Dumlaos in his chambers without the presence of the opposing party." HELD: Cordero opened himself to charges of partiality and bias by meeting privately with the four accused." and that even if the accused were not tenants. Considering the differences in causes of action. (b) that respondent privately conferred with the accused in his office which "logically and naturally arouses suspicion of graft and rank favoritism. Further demonstrating either deliberate disregard of the law or gross ignorance of the same. and no notice and hearing for the reduction were held. Judge Jose Cordero A.01 provides that "A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Dumlao was not in the custody of the court. The issue is whether or not there has been malfeasance or misfeasance in the suspension. No." Rule 2. 2000. 207 and art. 28. Gross Ignorance of Law and Impropriety Emeterio Gallo vs. What respondent judge should have done was to have Dumlao put his request in writing and then schedule the incident for hearing with notice to the prosecution. §18. No. The failure to observe the above requirement constitutes ignorance or incompetence which cannot be excused by any protestation of good faith. 323 SCRA 561 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: An unlawful detainer case was pursued by the Germinandas in one civil case and the ownership of the land in another case. 1994 he personally asked respondent judge to admit him to bail and reduce its amount.000.M. "nobody can eject them. 15. 208 of the RPC. however. Salvanera A. 2000. Dumlao subsequently submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court when on September 7. the complainant in this case." and (c) that he acted with bias and ignorance of the law. M. Time and again we have admonished judges not only to be impartial but also to appear to be so. Judge was reprimanded. and partiality for Dumlao as shown by the respondent judge granting bail and later reducing its amount when the fact was that. He not only has shown gross ignorance of law and procedure but has also failed to live up to the norm that "judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. No. HELD: It is settled that the pendency of an action questioning the ownership of the property does not bar the filing or the consideration of an ejectment suit nor the execution of the judgment therein. Jovito Pamarang A. 1995. Feb. Although then not in legal custody. 325 SCRA 440 PONENTE: Mendoza Page 11 of 43 ." E. Gross Ignorance Heirs of Juan and Natividad Germinanda vs. it was wrong for the judge to rule the complainants guilty of forum shopping in filing their complaints for unlawful detainer despite pendency of the ownership case. 245 SCRA 219 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Gallo charges that (a) in violation of art. he readily granted the request. The judge suspended the resolution in the unlawful detainer case until the ownership case has been terminated. MTJ-95-1035 June 21. D. Respondent judge erred. in fixing the amount of bail at P20. bias." He 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.

bearing in mind that this learning process never ceases even as it is so indispensable in the correct dispensation of justice. it was only on October 5. 26. Liangco A. Aug.M. the failure to know or observe it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Pampanga claimed to own the same lot and issued a resolution declaring that the lot where Gozun and family were squatting as the new site of the Health Center. Respondent Judge claims that he was not aware of the decision as such was not attached to the records when he prepared the questioned resolution. judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law or from giving professional advice to clients. Pampanga. Considering that the losing party only had 15 days from receipt of the decision (or until August 18. Respondent’s failure to do so constitutes censurable conduct. No. Page 12 of 43 . Gross Ignorance of the Law. 1997 limits the authority to issue hold departure orders to RTCs in Criminal Cases within their exclusive jurisdiction. Respondent is suspended. 2000. HELD: Even if the decision of the CA was not in the records of the ejectment case. Jan. 339 SCRA 253 PER CURIAM FACTS: Gozun was in open and adverse possession of subject land for a period of 30 years. HELD: Judge not only acted without jurisdiction. Note that Gozun was not served with summons or given notice of the petition. MTJ-00-1314. there was no reason for the sheriff to wait until October 5. Partiality. 7. and further accused the mayor of having bribed respondent. Rodolfo Obnamia A. No. Gross Ignorance of Law. gross inefficiency. HELD: It is well settled that to stay the immediate execution of judgment in an ejectment case while appeal is pending.M. (b) file a supersedeas bond. 340 SCRA 1 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complainants herein allege that respondent Judge amended the order of Judge Nantes and acted with gross ignorance of the law and incompetence and knowingly rendered an unjust judgment. Sept. The municipality of San Luis. Sheriff IV of RTC Urdaneta. 39-97 dated June 19. Judge issued a resolution. A member of the bench must keep himself constantly abreast of legal and jurisprudential developments. but in so acting ignored blatantly the basic rules of fair play. the respondent sheriff still had a duty to make a timely return to the court. 1995 when he made a return. 1995. The execution of the decision therefore is a contentious matter. It was thus necessary for respondent judge to ensure compliance with the three-day notice rule for the hearing wherein he could then confirm the existence of the decision and resolution of the CA. However. Gozun vs. Incompetence. When the law violated is elementary. H. received a writ of execution on August 3. the defendant must: (a) perfect his appeal. 30. Also. Sheriff is guilty of nonfeasance. 2000. No Jurisdiction.M.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS FACTS: Parmarang. No. Judge Madronio even admits his oversight. and incompetence. i. hold departure order Hold Departure Order by Judge Aniceto Madronio A. Complainant was not notified of nor made a party to the petition. These circumstances were not present to justify the sheriff from desisting from the implementation of the writ of execution. 1995) to avert execution. and (c) periodically deposit the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. MTJ-97-1136. reasoning in favor of the municipality and upholding the resolution. Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment Clodualdo de Jesus vs. 2000. 99-12-192. Assuming that the writ was not enforced due to the aforementioned circumstances. Complainant avers that respondent's issuance of the resolution amounts to gross misconduct. G. 323 SCRA 345 PONENTE: Mendoza HELD: Supreme Court Circular No. They are required to be objective and cannot innovate at pleasure and justify such by their own perception of what is ideal or good. the same were brought to respondent judge’s attention by complainant in the supplemental opposition he filed to the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of Judge Nante’s order denying the plaintiff’s motion for writ of demolition.

2000. RTJ-99-1510 Nov. No. Complainant avers that Real’s errors were not honest mistakes and were product of bias in favor of Libo-on. The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Mar. in People vs. gross incompetence and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. HELD: A judge is expected to know the jurisdictional boundaries of courts and quasi-judicial bodies like the COMELEC and to act only within said limits. No. Libo-on filed an election protest with the MCTC. the NLRC issued an alias writ of execution. Respondent displayed a marked ignorance of basic laws and principles. Election Law Romeo Gustilo vs. However. Commission on Elections vs. 2001 PONENTE: Pardo FACTS: Nova filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other money claims against Station DZRM. RTJ-00-1574.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS Hold Departure Order Issued By Judge Eusebio Barot. It was grievious error for the judge to give due course to the habeas corpus petition. he was charged with gross ignorance of the law. iii. 99-8-108-MCTC. The Secretary of Justice calls attention to the fact that the order is contrary to Court Circular 39-37 which limits the authority to issue hold departure orders to RTCs in criminal cases within its exclusive jurisdiction.M. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion for truth. 2 Aparrie. Regular Courts have no Jurisdiction to Restrain Execution of Final Decisions of the Labor Arbiter Gorgonio Nova vs. to the end that he be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law. Hon. HELD: Regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and decide questions which arise and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor and the NLRC dismissed the appeal. Respondent judge granted Libo-on’s motion to advance the hearing without giving due notice to Gustilo. 1999. Cagayan A. No. ii. orders or awards rendered in labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of the DOLE. MCTC Br. habeas corpus proceedings are premature. They owe it to the public to be legally knowledgeable with basic laws and principles. 28. Real A. Ricardo S. 313 SCRA 44 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Judge Barot issued on February 10. Rodriguez vs. The canvassing yielded a tie. 6. Respondent then issued a TRO and annulled the proclamation of Real.M. de Jesus an order to prevent the departure of the accused from the Philippines. Calayan. Judge Sancho Dames A. 344 SCRA 565 PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago FACTS: Respondent allegedly granted improvidently a petition for Habeas Corpus thus. but also creates chaos and contributes to confusion in the administration of justice. MTJ-001250. 1999. The decision having become final. 2001 PONENTE: Quisumbing FACTS: Complainant Gustilo was a candidate for punong barangay with Weddy Libo-on as his lone opponent. It is imperative that judges be conversant with basic legal principles and aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines. HELD: Judge Barot is reprimanded with warning.M. A judge who wantonly arrogates unto himself the authority and power vested in other agencies not only acts in oppressive disregard of the basic requirements of due process. 28. Bonifacio A. Feb. for ignorance of the law is the bane of injustice. respondent Judge issued a TRO restraining the NLRC Sheriff from conducting the scheduled public auction. the breaking of which was in favor of Gustilo (who was duly proclaimed).M. Datu-iman Page 13 of 43 . 25. HELD: Where the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation had not yet completed its hearing and investigation proceedings with respect to an alien and there is no showing that it is unduly delaying its decision. Aug. Judge Buco R.

328 SCRA 151 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Ledesma’s land was taken by expropriation proceedings. Comelec filed a case for appropriate disciplinary action amounting to gross ignorance of the law. initiative. plebiscite.000. v. More importantly. After 22 years. the heirs were able to file an accion publiciana with Judge Eisma of RTC Branch 13. Ruben Mendiola A. Mar. It was dismissed by the MTC but reversed by RTC Branch 17. 2000. heirs of Ledesma enter and occupy the expropriated portion. Gross Negligence. No. July 5. Although Eisma’s orders were directed to the MTC. However. RTC interference with the business of the CA Martin Brizuela vs. Comelec sent telegrams to election officials in Lanao del Sur ordering them to delete Barangay Sumbago from the list of barangays in the Municipality of Bayang on the ground that it had not been legally created. Thus.M. who issued a TRO and preliminary injunction against the MTC. 335 SCRA 23 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: After defaulting on his loan and after the forclosure on his real estate mortgage and the lapse of the period of redemption. Tolentino also files an administrative complaint against Cabral for the loss of pertinent records on the case and for showing partiality for the accused.M. iv. 15. 2000. 304 SCRA 106 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: On March 29 and 31.000. mortgagor Brizuela files an action to annul the auction sale with RTC Branch 66. Romulo Tolentino vs. but on appeal to the CA. barangay officials seeking reelection brought suit against Comelec in Judge Datu-Iman’s court to stop implementation of the COMELEC directive. March 3. Mar. which case fell under the jurisdiction of the CA at the moment the decision of the former was appealed to the latter. 2000. Eisma is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. after hearing. 329 SCRA 1 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Prosecutor Tolentino files a petition for certiorari assailing the order of RTC Judge Cabral granting bail to a rape suspect. to be dudected from the balance of his retirement benefits. prompting SolGen Dela Cruz to file a case of forcible entry. Interference of court with another court of equal rank Romeo Dela Cruz vs. fined P5. Meanwhile. the lower courts cannot issue writs of injunction enforceable against the COMELEC. No. 2. the COMELEC has been accorded full discretion given its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election. HELD: The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is merely incidental to a pending action. Gross Ignorance. Cabral brings counter charges against Tolentino when the latter questioned certain orders of the court by distorting and Page 14 of 43 . referendum. HELD The principle that a court cannot prevent the execution of a decision of a higher court applies to salas of co-equal jurisdiction. HELD: Because of the subordinate status and rank of courts vis-a-vis the COMELEC. 1994 granting injunction. Impartiality. Mendiola had no power to entertain such motion because the annotation of the notice was made in relation to the annulment case filed in Branch 66. Judge Datu-Iman issued a temporary restraining order on April 9. It is dismissed. Estenzo. 1994. attaining finality when no appeal was filed. rendered a decision on May 2. the winning bidder files a motion to cancell the notice of lis pendens with Judge Mendiola of RTC Branch 63 who grants it. No. its effect was to prevent the execution of a final order of another RTC of equal rank and jurisdiction. RTJ-00-1544. Mendiola is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. fined P5.M. 28. Subsequently. and recall. RTJ-00-1528. Carlito Eisma A. RTJ-00-1560. 1994 and. This was stressed in the decision of this Court in Zaldivar v. Alfredo Cabral A. since its creation. 1999. Brizuela is able to cause the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the property.M. No. MTJ-99-1178. Judge DatuIman ought to have known that.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS A.

M. The mere fact that complainant sent a letter requesting the withdrawal of the instant administrative case does not warrant the dismissal thereof. Cabusora A. gross negligence and inefficiency. Acting on the administrative complaint. b. Cessation from office because Page 15 of 43 . MTJ 01-1354. must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion. 348 SCRA 592. 15. Tolentino is also found guilty of the countercharges. The issue is whether the Affidavit of Desistance divested the SC of its jurisdiction to impose administrative sanctions upon respondent. No. and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer’s oath have proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. Dec. Sevilla vs. Continuance of admin. When he became a judge. He is also guilty of partiality in denying the prosecution the chance to file an opposition when Cabral fixed the date of a hearing close to the date of its service to the prosecution.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS misrepresenting the actual contents of such orders. Judge Fernandez A. Retirement Does Not Effect Dismissal Cabarloc vs. No. HELD: Judge Cabusora exceeded his authority in making a determination of the crime committed as this is the function of the prosecution and not of the investigating judge. HELD: A judge’s official conduct should be free from any appearance of impropriety. 348 SCRA 217. While the complaint for estafa had been dismissed. from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk. PONENTE: Kapunan FACTS: Judge Cabusora downgraded the crime to Homicide and exonerated Cadano. an administrative complaint would be brought against him. Apr. Rule 11. 19.02 as well as Canon 11. the court may proceed with its investigation and mete out appropriate penalty against erring officers of the court. the Supreme Court found that Cabral knowingly issued a manifestly unjust order granting bail despite strong evidence of guilt. case a.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Tolentino is reprimanded for breach of Canon 10. Judge Cabral is suspended for 6 months without pay. MTJ-00-1256. HELD Acting on the petition for certiorari. 4 2001 PONENTE: Gonzaga-Reyes FACTS: Respondent Judge’s failure to comply with the rules regarding the procedure for acceptance and disposition of cash bail bonds placed his integrity in serious doubt particularly when he replaced part of the cash bond with his personal check without any acceptable explanation. For grave abuse of authority.01 and 10. He must not act in a way that would cast suspicion in order to preserve the faith in the administration of justice. he issued two checks as payment but both bounced. rendering unjust judgment and for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. their conduct and behavior. Jr. the dismissal was on account of complainant’s voluntary desistance and not upon a finding of innocence. The primary object of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers. PONENTE: De Leon. Salubre A. and for threatening Cabral that if the prosecution’s motions are not granted. HELD: No. The client filed an estafa case but later on executed an Affidavit of Desistance. FACTS: Respondent judge misappropriated his client’s funds when he was still a lawyer and did not repay he same despite numerous demands. Rules 10.M. Dec.M. MTJ-00-1336. 3. gross ignorance of the law. 2000. Complainant’s Desistance does not Bar Juanito Agulan vs. It was also found that the judge committed error in conducting another preliminary investigation. the Supreme Court finds Cabral guilty of gross negligence and inefficiency for the loss of important records on the case. reversing his own findings motu propio and ordering the release of the two accused without authority. In the case of public servants in the judiciary. 2000. Administrative cases against lawyers can still proceed despite the dismissal of civil and/or criminal complaints against them.

respondent judge tried election cases while his relatives were candidates for various positions in the municipality. c. Perlito D. HELD: The arrest of the accused can be ordered only in the event the prosecutor files the case and the judge of the RTC finds probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. Biteng A.000. an administrative case against a judge does not become moot and academic simply because he had retired or resigned. 2. §6(b). Respondent has already retired. et al. MTJ-95-1056. totally omitting to consider whether it was necessary to do so in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS of retirement does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against a judge while he was still in service. Aquilino Inopiquez A. June 5. No. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complainant Siawan alleged that respondent Judge is guilty of grossly abusing his authority. MTJ-99-1213. Oct. 290 SCRA 568 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: The complainants instituted this administrative case against respondent judge for gross ignorance of the law in connection with the preliminary investigation of three criminal cases and the arrest of complainants. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of a judge. No. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. 2000. The OCA disagreed. M. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned and he should administer justice impartially and Page 16 of 43 . same amount set aside from his retirement benefits. Respondent ordered the issuance of a warrant solely on his finding of probable cause. Antonio C. respondent was forced to inhibit himself when several other relatives became involved in the case. In this case. PONENTE: Quisumbing FACTS: Carino was cited and ordered arrested and detained for indirect contempt without hearing by respondent judge. pointing out that according to jurisprudence. 2001. in the exercise of his discretion. v. HELD: Athough the disqualification of judges is limited only to cases where the judge is related to counsel within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity. Biteng was conveniently fined P25. rightly or wrongly. HELD: The SC agreed with the OCA and found that respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and incompetence. which axiom is intended to preserve and promote public confidence in the integrity and respect for the judiciary. It is contended that respondent ordered the arrest of complainants without the justification of doing so "in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Sumaliag A. to be susceptible to bias and impartiality. MTJ-97-1115. Resignation Carino vs. However. No. this does not render this case moot and academic. disqualify himself from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons. 1998. a criminal case was pending in the sale of respondent. Respondent has since retired. Despite motions of complainant for the judge to inhibit himself. the refusal of respondent to inhibit himself from the conduct of the case and his doing so only after being threatened with an administrative case could not but create the impression that he had ulterior motives in wanting to try the case. May 21. In the first controversy. A judge should not handle a case where he might be perceived.M. Also of note is that P25. The jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official has ceased in office during the pendency of his case. respondent did not do so notwithstanding that his (respondent’s) father-in-law was directly participating in the case. In the second controversy. The Executive Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint because Biteng had retired and could no longer be held liable. Flores. However.000 was withheld from Biteng’s retirement benefits pending the outcome of the instant complaint.M. Inhibition of a Judge Inocencio Siawan vs. the Rules nonetheless provide that a judge may. 341 SCRA 539. 4." as provided in Rule 112.

it is alleged. 1999. 1998. the Court required Judge Rojas to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for sitting in a case in which he had previously acted as counsel for one of the parties. Nieto Tresvalles AM MTJ-99-1236. who was appointed to the judiciary on May 17. Judge Rojas tried to justify his failure to inhibit himself from the beginning by stating that it was only after a close scrutiny of the case records that he discovered and remembered that he had handled the criminal case as public prosecutor years ago and also tried to minimize the seriousness of his breach of judicial ethics by claiming that anyway he did not conduct a full-blown trial. Feb. 1996. HELD: Yes. 6 dated April 10. that "no judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he . gross ignorance of the law and impropriety on the part of respondent judge. Rojas A. Judge Rojas tried the case. Oct. Leovigildo U. While the case was pending. Nov. Judge Manuel A. The purpose of the rule is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. Judge Rojas stated that he had not inhibited himself because the previous counsel of the accused. he took cognizance of the case and ordered the arrest of complainant and his Page 17 of 43 . July 29. 98-1-32-RTC. Judge Estrada. or to resign immediately from such position if they are already holding the same so as not to prejudice the expeditious and proper administration of justice. al A. 1987. 254 SCRA 158 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: In a Supplemental Complaint filed by Mantaring. The fact that he has already resigned as a Member from the Directorship of the Rural Bank of Labrador does not excuse him from any administrative liability. . 1994. German Agunday vs. The relationship in our culture known as magbalaes should have prompted respondent judge to inhibit himself from the case. 1987 strictly enjoins all Judges. Jr. On April 13. HELD: Respondent was the father-in-law of accused’s son. Mantaring vs. The failure of respondent judge to inhibit himself constitutes an abuse of his authority and undermines public confidence in the impartiality of judges. No. In re: Inhibition of Bienvenido R. Judge Rojas decided to inhibit himself from the case. Atty. HELD: Judge Estrada failed to comply with the directive of Circular No. Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R.'' The prohibition is not limited to cases in which a judge hears the evidence of the parties but includes as well cases where he acts by resolving motions. Roman. Estrada A. with Judge Rojas as public prosecutor. 1997. M. No. has been counsel [for a party] without the written consent of all parties in interest. 298 SCRA 306 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: A criminal case was initially tried in the RTC. A judge should not only be impartial but must appear impartial as well. did not object to his sitting in the case as the judge. 1998. As the original counsel for the accused did not interpose any objection. against Judge Molato. Rosalie Cariño. . did not resign from the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Labrador until May 31. 6 dated April 10. Rule 137. 1998. 319 SCRA 134 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Respondent Judge was charged with gross inefficiency. Instead. Sr. On July 7. signed by them and entered upon the record. 30. Judge Rojas is subject to disciplinary action. Moreover. Respondent failed to inhibit himself even if he was related to the accused. Judge Rojas was appointed judge of the trial court on November 12. No. 1998. It is alleged that because of the filing of the first complaint against him. et. 293 SCRA 313 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Circular No.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS without delay. it charges respondent with harassment. issuing orders and the like as Judge Rojas has done in the criminal case. however. 25. M. As a Judge he should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. 1996. RTJ-93-964. In violation of this circular. Clerks of Court and Sheriffs not to accept the position of director or any other position in any electric cooperative or other enterprises. respondent Judge Molato should have inhibited himself from conducting the preliminary investigation of a criminal case considering that the respondents in that case were complainant and his son. §1 of the Rules of Court expressly states. 98-6-185-RTC. however. M. 28.

held them guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of P100. if on every occasion the party apparently aggrieved were allowed to stop the proceedings in order to await the final decision on the desired disqualification. But. that Judge Baldo had ordered the cleaning of a vehicle in which the bodies of the victims were found. 1997. filed a motion seeking the inhibition of the respondent Judge Arcangel from the case. Jr.M. Rayos bears as much responsibility for the contemptuous allegations in the motion for inhibition as his client. HELD: The power to punish for contempt is to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. the Court sustains Judge Arcangel's finding that petitioners are guilty of contempt. which respondent judge denied for lack of merit in his order of Dec 17. 112869. No. As a lawyer. Arcangel G.R. 281 SCRA 523 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Franklin N. 93-9-741-0. The situation called for sedulous regard on his part than that of the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. it would appear that. he is not just an instrument of his client. 7. or hostility toward." 6. at the very least. As this Court held. 1996. MTC. HELD: There is no direct evidence that Judge Baldo had ordered the cleaning of the Tamaraw van. Drilon referred this case to the Court for possible disciplinary action against Judge Baldo for having committed grave abuse of discretion in view of a sworn statement given by Luis Corcolon. Atty. Atty. Grave Abuse of Discretion Letter dated August 25. Kelly R. Paul T.00. Consistent with the foregoing principles and based on the abovementioned facts. The impression could not be helped that his action in the case was dictated by a spirit of revenge against complainant for the latter's having filed an administrative disciplinary action against the judge. Moreover. 252 SCRA 444 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: It appears that on Nov 18. and in an order. Atty. hon. Laguna in the Gomez-Sarmienta case A. the complainant. contrary to his assertion. 1993. Rayos. Delay in Deciding Cases Page 18 of 43 . Respondent judge found offense in the allegations on the motion for inhibition filed by complainants. Judge Baldo did not even take the trouble to ascertain who had ordered the van washed. Rayos' duty to the courts is not secondary to that of his client. Jr. 29. an administrative complaint against respondent and Judge Manuel A. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins him to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [to] insist on similar conduct by others" and "not [to] attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have materiality to the case. he was present when the van was cleaned and that his presence wittingly or unwittingly conveyed his approval to those who cleaned the vehicle. Nov. But the following circumstances tend to show that. Rayos. one of the accused in the rape and murder of Eileen Sarmenta and the murder of Allan Gomez. there were bounds set by his responsibility as a lawyer which he could not overstep. Jan. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. HELD: The mere filing of an administrative case against a judge by one of the parties before him is not a ground for disqualifying him from hearing a case. Roman. had previously been filed and it was paramount that respondent was free from any appearance of bias against. and while he owed him whole-souled devotion.. or demand the immediate inhibition of the judge on the basis alone of his being so charged. al vs. in order to destroy evidence of the crime. out of hatred and revenge for them because of the filing of the first case by the complainant. 5. Atty. His client came to him for professional assistance in the representation of a cause. Only occasionally should it be invoked to preserve that respect without which the administration of justice will fail. it was improper for respondent judge to have issued the warrants of arrest against complainant and his son without any finding that it was necessary to place them in immediate custody in order to prevent a frustration of justice. 1993 of Secretary Franklin Drilon on the alleged participation of Judge Geronimo Baldo. cannot evade responsibility for the allegations in question. Calauan. Wicker's counsel. Based on Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Mantaring. Indeed. many cases would have to be kept pending or perhaps there would not be enough judges left to handle all the cases pending in all the courts.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS son. however. Wicker et. 1993. No. in the case at bar.

Undue delay undermines public faith and confidence in the judges to whom aggrieved party’s turn for the speedy resolution of their cases. is a result of technical problems with the office computers. Canon 3.000) Esguerra vs. RTJ-00-1606. No. set instead for hearing defendant Mayor’s Motion to Dismiss. The Constitution mandates that lower courts have 3 months within which to decide cases or resolve matters submitted to them for resolution. No. Respondent claimed first that she had decided the case and had given copies to the parties. Lilia Lopez A. Hence. etc. Judge Loja A. this is the third time that respondent has failed to decide cases within the period. Thereafter. Rule 3. it was incumbent upon the judge to immediately act on plaintiff’s prayer either by expressly granting. RTJ-00-1523. Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. the reasons she advanced herein are the same as in the previous two instances. June 20.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of their business promptly and decide cases within the required period. 347 SCRA 6 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Respondent issued an order admitting defendant’s Formal Offer of Evidence and directed both parties to submit their respective memoranda. HELD: Respondent’s excuse is unsatisfactory. Judge denied the allegations and maintained that even assuming arguendo that there was a slight delay in the promulgation of the Page 19 of 43 . respondent must realize that compassion has its limits. he should nevertheless be sanctioned for undue delay in acting on the prayer for issuance of said writ. Leoncio Janolo A. No. 28. Respondent acknowledges the delay. The judge claims that he was only trying to prevent the improvident issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or to avert the improper denial of the same. to make it appear that he had no case then pending. denying or deferring its resolution. However. Angel Gil vs. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. Failure of judges to render judgment within the period constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions. respondent judge still had to decide the case. Regardless of whether the issuance of the writ was urgent or not.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS Patria Maquiran vs. No. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Five years after a suit for damages was submitted for judgment. 346 SCRA 162 PONENTE: De Leon FACTS: Respondent judge refused to set for hearing Viaje’s application for preliminary injunction and to add insult to injury. which he claims. RTJ-00-1536 Nov. 2000. The reasons adduced by respondent are unsatisfactory. 5. judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Dec. An administrative complaint against respondent for gross negligence. HELD: Although the judge cannot be held liable for ignorance of Rule 58 of Civpro. Curiously.M. Viaje vs. HELD: The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of their business promptly and decide cases within the required period. a complainant was filed alleging that it took respondent more than 4 months to act on his Formal Offer of Evidence and that it is also evident from the records that 3 months had elapsed and the case has still remained undecided.M. Although the Court is inclined to be compassionate. 15. which was delayed several times. 2000.M. He also points out that the issuance of the writ did not appear to be urgent. she explained that she had surgery. 2001. that her parents passed away. Hernandez A. Finally. 2000. Aug. 338 SCRA 1 PONENTE: Purisima FACTS: Complainant charged that respondent failed to decide the case for falsification of public documents within 90 days after it was submitted for decision and theorized that there is a possibility that respondent might have falsified his certificate of service sent to this court. so as to enable him to receive his salary. RTJ-00-1602. Over 5 months later. both parties failed to submit so respondent issued another order reiterating his previous directive. This court has constantly impressed upon judges the need to decide cases expeditiously for justice delayed is justice denied. (Fine was P1.M.

2000. Page 20 of 43 . The 5 motions/incidents were left unacted upon from 3 to 5 months and were still pending when the administrative complaint was filed against him. RTJ-001567. and 3 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct. Under Rule 3. on the matter of the pending motions and other incidents. 2000. Also. No. Aug. the respondent cannot escape responsibility for his inaction of the pending motions before him. partiality. One of the cases was dismissed for the reason that complainant’s nonappearance and his failure to adduce evidence violated accused’s right to a speedy trial. a letter-complaint was filed against respondent for: knowingly issuing unjust orders for the dismissal of these cases without seriously determining the operative facts and the applicable law in cavalier disregard of due process and motivated by bad faith. RTJ-99-1444. There is no clear evidence that respondent intentionally falsified his monthly certificate of service simply on the basis that his deciison was undated. and despite the filing of three Motions for Early Decision.The complainant alleges that respondent gravely abused his discretion by issuing unreasonable orders for postponement to unjustly delay the administration of justice. the Court has consistently impressed upon the judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.M. Isauro Balderian A. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials. 334 SCRA 242 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: A complaint of ejectment was filed in the sala of MTC Judge Balderian. falsehood. holding that probable cause had not been established by the prosecution and making it constitutionally impermissible to issue a warrant of arrest. July 24. It is settled that it is the judge who must be satisfied that there is a probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. HELD: The respondent is not liable for dismissing the 5 criminal cases due to his honest belief that there was no probable cause. When the last required paper was filed on 31 March 1997.M.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. to be rendered not later than April 30.M. While the prosecutor in this case is not without fault. corrupt motives 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. HELD: The unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. Bersamira A. the case was deemed submitted for decision. 337 SCRA 162 PONENTE: Kapunan FACTS: Respondent judge issued an order dismissing certain criminal cases. No. Good faith and the absence of malice.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS decision. and the Code of Judicial Conduct. MTJ-00-1276. all in excess of his jurisdiction and in grave abuse of discretion and violative of Canons 1. Tolentino v. it was by reason of mere inadvertence as respondent had an average case load of 800 cases. 3. No. 2. being consistently in the top three in the Manila RTC for the last four successive years would seem to argue against the allegation of incompetence. June 23. However. Thereafter. and intentionally to cause undue injury to the state and the private complainant by giving unwarranted benefits to the accused. After the lapse of 10 months from the time the last paper was filed. respondent's above-average disposal of cases. Dela Cruz vs. Malanyoan A. 336 SCRA 353 PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago FACTS: Respondent was charged with the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. abuse of authority and falsification against him. HELD: Respondent is only guilty of simple negligence. said case remained undecided. the judge must nevertheless resolve on those matters promptly by granting or denying them. a judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide the cases within the required periods. Even assuming arguendo that the various motions filed by the prosecutor were considered to be mere scraps of paper or without merit. Indeed. which respondent had long been pending without respondent having acted thereon or resolved the same. the SC found respondent remiss in his duty. 2000. Felimon Cuevas vs.

However. Respondent has miserably failed to live up to this standard. 298 SCRA 710 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: In view of the report submitted by a Judicial Audit Team. Thus. Rule 3. Ng on the alleged inaction and failure of respondent Judge Ulibari to resolve pending motions in her sala was filed. 99-1-16-RTC June 21.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides: A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.09 requires judges to organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. Br. 97-8-262-RTC Nov. for an unreasonable period of time on eight (8) other cases. He also alleges that respondent is "a lazy judge" who calls her cases late at 9:30 in the morning in her chambers instead of in open court and who "repeatedly neglects or fails to discharge her duties. Art. As Masamayor did not specify the period of extension she was seeking. But the request for extension must be made on time. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit of Cases in the RTC. M. Rule 3. or administrative bodies. and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and Page 21 of 43 . Ng v.. and three months for all other lower courts. Canon 3. A heavy caseload may excuse a judge's failure to decide cases within the reglementary period.00 was imposed on him. §15 (1) of the Constitution states: All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty four months from date of submission for the SC. No. Indeed.000. to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for making her request for extension after the expiration of the reglementary period for deciding cases.000. III. Judge Balderian is guilty of gross negligence and inefficiency. a fine of P20. as admitted by her. maintain professional competence in court management. On the prompt resolution of cases. before the expiration of the period to be extended. she was directed to inform the Court whether or not she had already rendered her decision in the subject criminal case and.00 with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act or omission will be dealt with more severely. Rule 3. and (3) to archive ten (10) criminal cases. and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity. Art. quasi-judicial." The request was made after the original period had expired. §16 of the Constitution states: All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. To implement the constitutional mandate. but not his/her failure to request an extension of time within which to decide the same on time.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to decide cases within the required periods. this is not the first time Masamayor failed to make a request for extension before the lapse of the period to be extended. Nelson Y. cognizant of the caseload of judges and mindful of the pressure of their work. MTJ-98-1158.000. 27. Masamayor A. M. Nor was there any explanation given by respondent for the delay. HELD: Judge Gonzales was satisfactorily able to explain the delay of some of the cases while he was unable to explain others. twelve months for all lower collegiate courts. 1998. 316 SCRA 219 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: RTC Judge Masamayor asked for an extension of time within which to decide a Criminal Case on the ground that "the case involves legal questions which require careful study for which [she] has not enough time considering the very heavy caseload of the single-sala court over which she presides.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides: A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. Request of Judge Irma Zita v.e. i.08 requires judges to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities. No. 293 SCRA 342 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complaint by Atty. M. and facilitate the performance of administrative functions of other judges and court personnel.00. the Court required RTC Judge Gonzales of Iriga City to comment on his failure: (1) to decide three (3) civil cases within three (3) months from the time they had been submitted to him for decision. Iriga City A. 1998. 35. in any event. 1999. No. July 30. this Court almost always grants requests for extension of time to decide cases. Rule 3. (2) to act.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS HELD The Rule on Summary Procedure provides that the court shall render judgement within 30 days from the time the case is submitted for judgement. HELD: Masamayor is guilty of gross inefficiency and the Court ordered her to pay a fine in the amount of P5. Canon 3. Leticia Q. and unless reduced by the SC. Canon 3. VIII. Rule 3. Ulibari A. fined P5.” HELD: This is a reflection on respondent judge's management of her docket and indicates failure on her part to abide by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

She should at all times act with efficiency and with probity. RTJ-97-1394. of Laoag City. In his comment. A. brief. Three years had gone by without a decision. Dec. 248 SCRA 36 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS:This concerns the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator to take disciplinary action against Judge Francisco D. 277 SCRA 499 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Respondent is charged with gross negligence in failing to decide the cases within the reglementary period. This canon is intended to implement the Constitution which makes it the duty of trial courts to decide cases within three months. HELD: Judge Sulit claims that his caseload is appreciably lower than that of the other sala. he is required to decide cases within 90 days. Graciano H. The fact that respondent has no permanently assigned stenographer cannot completely excuse her failure to timely resolve several motions. No reason has been given by Judge Sulit why he failed to report these cases to the Court. It needs hardly to be said that delays in court undermine the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary and bring it into disrepute. 18177. is a frontline official of the judiciary. Ana v.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS fidelity. Sept. Romeo Sta. 2. A. 17660. This admonition has special application to respondent judge who. Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC. even as it gives parties to a suit the right to the speedy disposition of their cases. because he has been doing his best to dispose of cases on time. he alleges that the aforesaid cases were among 200 transferred to his sala when he assumed office and that he decided to wait. 16647. In the same report. the judge for his failure to decide nineteen (19) cases within ninety (90) days as required by law. however. When the audit team requested the Clerk of Court to produce the records of the said cases. August 18. Arinday. Respondent judge knew of the cases pending resolution. 17225.M. Rule 3. No. Indeed. Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of cases in MTCC-Br. No. Bello. and in his monthly reports submitted in 1993. 1995. lowers its standards. HELD: Respondent's failure to decide cases constitutes a violation of Canon 3. 1997. It should be noted that the aforesaid 6 cases (Criminal Cases Nos. the latter was able to account for only six (6) cases with the explanation that the other thirteen (13) cases are still with Judge Sulit. RTJ-96-1350. relying on the possibility of an amicable settlement by the parties. three (3) months or ninety (90) days from the filing of the last pleading. Presided by Judge Luis B. 17. Jr. his Quarterly Report dated March 1994 shows that he had only 300 pending. 18204 and 19303) were still undecided at the time of the audit.e. Page 22 of 43 .05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to dispose of their court's business promptly and decide cases within the period specified in the Constitution. Rule 3. HELD: Under the law. 1997. i. 5. As this Court has held: "Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary. Branch 16. he omitted to mention the nineteen (19) cases in question. Sulit of the MTC in the Cities (Branch 2) at Batangas City and certain employees of his court. a judge cannot wait indefinitely for the parties to come to a settlement without opening himself to suspicion of partiality and bias." Office of the Court Administrator vs. the admonition that a judge's conduct should be above reproach (Canon 31. and the employees for their failure to observe office hours. M. and brings it into disrepute. Panganiban A.. Canons of Judicial Ethics) applies with greater force to his dealings with the Court under whose supervision he is. Batangas City. 94-10-96-MTCC. He admits that the cases were submitted for resolution when the prosecution rested and accused was considered to have waived her right to introduce evidence by her failure to do so. or memorandum. Indeed. M.05 requires judges to dispose of their court's business promptly and within the periods prescribed by law or rules. 283 SCRA 392 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complaint against Judge Arinday for delay in resolving 2 Criminal Cases was filed. Indeed. as an MeTC judge. The failure of Judge Sulit to disclose this fact constitutes serious misconduct and warrants the imposition of a penalty higher than that recommended by the OCA. No. Jr.

RTC A. the RTC reversed and remanded the case. 328 SCRA 584 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: RTC Judge Masamayor was twice found guilty of gross inefficiency for requesting an extension of time to decide cases even after the lapse of the period sought to be extended. Aug. of which fifty-seven (57) were criminal cases. Cannon 3.M. 28. the 90-day period had not yet expired according to the audit team. 1995. Judge Rolando Ramirez A. the OCA found that Branch 16 had ninety-nine (99) pending cases. but was only granted 45 days. fined P12. 9007. Of the fifty-seven (57) criminal cases. 9959. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. Of these. the Office of the Court Administrator ( OCA) sent a team to conduct an inventory and audit of pending cases in his court. of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 16) of Laoag City. on the date of the audit. the stenographic notes were not yet transcribed.M. respondent decided the case beyond the period. the 90-day period for deciding them had not yet expired. 10458. Masamayor’s occasional requests for extension to decide cases filed out of time shows serious neglect in the performance of her obligation to the parties and to the speedy and orderly administration of justice. 260 SCRA 333 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS:In view of the compulsory retirement on January 19. and brings it into disrepute. The report shows that there are only four (4) cases which Judge Bello failed to decide within 90 days (Civil case Nos. Page 23 of 43 . Jr. twelve (12) had been submitted for decision. No. four (4) had been submitted for decision but. she is guilty of gross inefficiency. Mar. ii. Mar. i. M. while forty-two (42) were civil cases. dated March 8. of the 42 civil cases. under judicial consideration”. §15 of the Constitution: All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court. in violation of the Rules on Summary Procedure. HELD While the Code of Judicial Ethics enjoins judges to decide cases within the period prescribed by law. lowers its standards. & 9163. No. as of the date of the audit. Duty to Decide Cases with Dispatch Especially Those Covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure Monfort Hermanos Agricultural Dev’t vs.000. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary. an extension of time to decide cases is allowed provided the request is made before the lapse of the period sought to be extended. Masamayor requested for an extension of 90 days to decide. 2000. In such case the remedy of complainants are those found in the Rules of Court and not an administrative case. On the other hand. 1995 of Judge Luis Bello. 1995. that his failure to decide within the period was due to numerous pleadings filed by the parties and other statements on the issue of prior physical possession was subjudice. It appeared that in these 4 cases. respondent Judge ruled in favor of defendants. VIII. but filed it beyond the 45th day. Complainants alleged that the MTC decision was rendered four months after the last pleading was filed. 99-2-79-RTC. HELD: Subjudice is defined as “under or before a judge or court. The Supreme Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. seven (7) were cases in which. The Court has constantly impressed upon judges the need to deicde cases promptly and expeditiously. Rule 3. In another case. The trial of the merits of the forcible entry case are still on going and besides the question posed by these issues are judicial in character as these go to the assessment of evidence. Request for Extension of Time to Decide Cases Request of Judge Irma Zita Masamayor vs. for it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied. thinking that her initial request of 90 days was granted. twelve months for all lower collegiate courts. and three months for all other lower courts. In its report.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct also enjoins the same rule: A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. HELD: Respondent judge failed to comply to decide within 90 days four (4) cases as mandated by Art. On appeal. 2001 PONENTE: Melo FACTS: In a forcible entry case. MTJ-01-1357. However.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS A. Complainants also allege that defendant’s defense on the administrative case. 95-3-89-RTC. Masamayor requested another extension. 23. Still unable to decide. 21.).

L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS iii. but the administration of justice. VIII. which is a judgment without a statement of the facts in support of its conclusion to be later supplemented by the final judgment. No. The need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of the complainants who are. a fine of P5. without prejudice to seeking an extension with the SC. As early as 1923. Administrative Complaint is not Dismissed by Withdrawal of Complainant Mosquera vs. Sept. who agreed to withdraw the administrative case. only witnesses therein. RTJ-99-1511. iv. HELD: Judge Coliflores is not liable for the year-long delay in the transmission of the records. The fact is that it took a year and eight months more before this was done and a copy of the complete decision furnished the complainant on December 16. Lopez A. which provides that in all cases lower courts must render their decisions within three months from the date of their submission. this Court already expressed its disapproval of the practice of rendering "sin perjuicio" judgments. RTJ-96-1338.00. MTJ-94-972 Jan. Failure to Decide Case Within Reglementary Period. What must be promulgated must be the complete decision. While he has supervision of Legaspi. §14 of the Constitution which prohibits courts from rendering decisions without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which they are based and §15 of the same Art. It is clear that merely reading the dispositive portion of the decision to the accused is not sufficient. Page 24 of 43 . Respondent failed to render her decision within three months as required by Art. fined P2. 1994. 240 SCRA 303 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Tan charged Judge Coliflores and Clerk of Court Legaspi for "obviously intentional deferment and delaying tactics" in the transmission to the RTC of the original records of her Case for concubinage filed against her husband and the latter's supposed paramour. HELD Lower courts must decide cases within 3 months from the date of submission. III. Judge Legaspi A.000. What respondent did in this case was to render what is known as a "sin perjuicio" judgment. M. Moreover. Legaspi now claims that he had talked with counsel of plaintiff. 335 SCRA 326 PONENTE: Gonzaga-Reyes FACTS: A case for recovery of possession was deemed submitted for decision with RTC Judge Legaspi. VIII. No. they could only mitigate the judge’s liability because a judge should not be at the mercy of the whims of lawyers and parties for it is not their convenience which should be the primordial consideration. in a real sense. 20. Plaintiff in the original case filed this administrative complaint against Legaspi for dereliction of duty. 5. It is the judgment that must be read to him.M. an administrative complaint is not automatically dismissed by withdrawal of complainant. Violation of Constitution Dizon vs. Matter No.000. The Judge had a right to expect that the Clerk of Court would enforce his order. Judge Mamerto Y. 1995. Coliflores Adm. stating the facts and the law on which such judgment is based. July 10. Judge cannot be expected to constantly check on the latter's performance of his duties since Legaspi is presumed to be a responsible employee. Non-observance constitutes a ground for administrative sanction. 7. §15 of the Constitution. Legaspi's explanation for the delay is not persuasive. Delaying Tactics Eteria T. HELD: Yes. He rendered judgement only after three years on the excuse that he had to act as pairing judge in three other Branches and that he allowed the parties such period to find an amicable settlement. He alleges further that he was denied the right to a speedy trial in violation of Art. Even assuming the excuses were true. VIII. 1997. 2000. §14(2) of the Constitution and that Judge Lopez falsified her decision by antedating it and including therein. Tan vs. as additional penalty. 278 SCRA 483 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complainant alleges that the failure of respondent judge to furnish him a copy of the decision until almost one year and eight months after the promulgation of its dispositive portion constitutes a violation of Art. Judge Legaspi is administratively liable for his failure to render the decision within the prescribed period of ninety days from the time the case was submitted for decision.

(3) The record of the case turned up on the table of the Court Clerk together with the “Offer of Exhibits” of the lawyer of the plaintiffs and the “Order”. 8. Perez cannot be held liable for Abuse of Discretion and Non-feasance merely because she refused to receive and implement the subject writ. to December 17. Luy is guilty of simple neglect of duty which. 91-354. HELD: Hatab correctly argued that he cannot be blamed for the delay since he had nothing to do with the subject writ considering that he was not the addressee thereof. when he finally issued the writ. et al. discreetness and due care in the performance of his judicial functions. He was finally able to endorse an alias writ of execution to the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the appropriate court. Ayo v.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS As the Clerk of Court. Complainant was the representative of Aquino and her minor children in Civil Case No. Both the Offer and the Order admitting the exhibits were not properly Page 25 of 43 . HELD: Relative immunity is not a license to be negligent or abusive and arbitrary in performing adjudicatory prerogatives. He has failed to set an example of official integrity. RTJ-99-1445 June 21. The gist of the anomalies committed by the respondent judge are: (1) The case was not tried. this case should be dismissed. 2000. V. Immorality and Unbecoming Conduct V. considering that the writ of execution was issued as early as July 15. 1997. faces disbarment for having penned a Decision long after his retirement from the Judiciary. 4748. Lucia Violago-Isnani. The case against him is dismissed. Sheriff Hatab. No. 1997. Negligence in the Duty to Informing the Parties of Final Judgment and Execution Ventura B. from July 15. which ultimately divested complainant of her property. 1997. 1997. M. Ayo claimed that the two did not even send the writ of execution through registered mail to the appropriate Clerk of Court and/or the Sheriff and his deputy who have administrative jurisdiction to enforce said writ. The reasons she gave in support of her defense are legal and valid. for loss of his earning capacity. the RTC of Dinalupihan only on June 9.. It does not relieve a judge of his obligation to observe propriety. 9. pursuant to the Civil Service Law.C. RTJ-99-1495. Luy endorsed it to the Balanga branch which does not have the territorial jurisdiction to enforce the writ. and Legal Researcher Astorga. What transpired was a mock or simulated trial inside his chambers where only the lawyer of the plaintiffs and a court stenographer from another court were present. he gave the same to complainant for delivery to the RTC of Dinalupihan only on December 17. former RTC Judge. respondent was duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of his officially designated duties. 4. 1998. It is alleged that respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty. Judge Isnani is not liable for grave abuse of discretion and partiality. No Judge or court personnel were present as there was actual Court session in open court going on at that time. Ayo alleged that it took respondents an unreasonably long time. No. is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first infraction. 343 SCRA 445 PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago FACTS: Complaint alleges that respondent judge refused to correct an obviously erroneous computation in a money judgment. Radjaie v. Her actions clearly showed that she was scrupulous in seeing to it that the requirements of fair play and due process were satisfied. (2) The records of the case were with Judge Alovera and remained with him even after his retirement. after the retirement of Judge Alovera. He gave no reason why. Worse. when the writ was issued. Clerk of Court Luy. Inc. 308 SCRA 543 PONENTE: Mendoza Facts: This is a complaint filed by Ayo against RTC Judge Violago-Isnani. responsibility and efficiency for others. Ponce Co. Alovera. Aug. Alovera A. actual damages. 18. He did not return the record to the Court Clerk in Charge of Civil Cases. Eduarte A. Aquino and her children were awarded indemnity for the death of her husband. to enforce the writ of execution. he is responsible for seeing to it that the records of appealed cases are properly sent to the appropriate appellate court without delay. As an officer of the court. 337 SCRA 244 PER CURIAM FACTS: Atty. Astorga was legally presumed to have regularly performed his duty as the writ was already endorsed to the sheriff. and moral damages. 1999. especially those in his staff. 2000.M. Only Luy must take responsibility for the delay in the implementation of the writ of execution. In an amended decision rendered by Judge Isnani.C. Clerk of Court Perez. A. No. In so far as she is concerned. Oct.

1994. Judge Manuel M. His delay in commenting on the change of venue also effectively delayed both cases by 5 months." which has given him "solace and comfort and even a reason to continue living. albeit immoral. he made a mockery of the judiciary and eroded public confidence in courts and lawyers. leading ultimately to its execution divesting the complainant of her property. (4) The “decision” of Judge Alovera was filed with the court by Judge Alovera himself and because he was no longer a judge his submission was refused. Rule 1. immorality is considered a grave offense and is punished by suspension for 6 months and 1 day to 1 year for the first offense and. Gatdula 293 SCRA 433 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Gomez is the complainant in 2 different criminal cases before Judge Gatdula. relationship with complainant although he is a married man. Under Rule XIV. respondent admitted the charges but claimed that he found solace in the arms of Dalida which his own wife could not offer him and that the separation with his wife has already made them strangers to each other. The integrity and independence of the judiciary can be reduced to one common denominator: the judge — the individual who dispenses justice. Respondent denied all of these and claimed to have been living alone since the separation from his wife. As already noted. HELD: Disbarred. Respondent suspended the scheduled hearings in both cases. pompously flaunting his erstwhile standing as a judge. HELD: He is guilty of immorality and perjury and recommended his suspension without pay for one (1) year. probity and independence. 1997. and failing to make good a promissory note he had made to pay his wife as support for their daughter and his promise to pay P500. When she petitioned the SC to change the venue of 1 of the cases. a judge's official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. apparently irked by the request of petitioner. in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 16. De la Peña Badel A. Thereafter. Respondent has thus sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. Ecube-Badel vs. as required by Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.00 a month from January 1995. HELD: Guilty.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS filed and do not bear markings of having been received by the court. 199 SCRA 75 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Judge Calanog was accused of conduct unbecoming a public official and immorality. by dismissal. and upon whose attributes depend the public perception of the judiciary. RTJ-90-447. Calanog. His acts are not free from the appearance of impropriety.M. In so doing. There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private morals. When required by the SC to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The Code dictates that a judge. Respondent gravely abused his relationship with his former staff. must behave with propriety at all times. HELD: Judge Gatdula acted vindictively & oppressively. No. pursuant to the decision in a support case filed by complainant. The evidence against respondent were all quite telling on how the latter acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having the questioned decision come to fore. let alone beyond reproach. Canon I. respondent declares that it is "this new-found family. Dec. Judge Rodolfo A. who is sworn to assist the courts and not to impede or pervert the administration of justice to all and sundry. §23(o) of the Civil Service Rules and applicable rulings. 273 SCRA 320 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: A complaint for immorality charged respondent Court Stenographer for having illicit relations with Dalida by whom he had begot a child. He need not have suspended both hearings as the change of venue only involved one case. Castillo alleged that he (Calanog) established an intimate. He disregarded his primary duty as an officer of the court. for the second offense. Page 26 of 43 . A. integrity." Instead of expressing remorse or even regret for having left his wife. As the SC has very recently explained. he delayed his comment but eventually explained that the suspension of hearing was made because of the pending request for change of venue. P-97-1248. Dolores Gomez v.01 — A judge should be the embodiment of competence. June 13. Jr. Emma J. he announces that he has in fact brought an action for annulment of his marriage. Castillo vs. No. M.

Complainant alleges that respondent acted with manifest partiality in declaring the case submitted for decision although complainant had not yet finished presenting his evidence. requesting that the issuance of the TCT be expedited gives ground for suspicion that she is utilizing the power or prestige of her office to promote the interest of others. 1997. with a note to facilitate the registration. including their private life. 26. respondent judge's note to the register of deeds. accepting pleadings of the other party even after deadline. Mar. No. His at all times must be characterized with propriety and must be above suspicion. Hence. 00-07-09-CA. In this case. 2001. The Chief State Prosecutor had received a phone call from Demetria asking him for the withdrawal of several motions filed with the RTC. RTJ-97-1395. at all times. Hilario de Guzman vs.M. who went in and out of prison to play in a Manila casino. but also his behavior outside the courtroom and as a private individual. Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes a judge’s appearance. Mar. 2001 Per Curiam FACTS: Several newspaper articles collectively reported that CA Associate Justice Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese drug Queen Yu Yuk Lai. Lore V. San Juan v. Pedro A. Elementary is the rule that when laws or rules are clear. Respondent Judge is DISMISSED from service. it is incumbent upon judges to apply them regardless of personal belief or predilections. RTJ-01-1629. the clerk of the register of deeds thought it was respondent judge who was the one who was causing the transfer of the emancipation patent. It is improper for a judge to meet with the accused without the presence of counsel. not only with respect to the performance of his judicial duties. conferring personally with the adverse party. HELD: The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Per Curiam FACTS: A complaint was filed charging respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the law and irregularities in connection with an Election Case. 27. scaring complainant’s witnesses and stopping counsel from asking questions. A judge must not only be impartial. Respondent judge also applied laws applicable only to barangay officials. No. HELD: Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety. and regard the study of law as a never-ending and ceaseless process. maintain the appearance of fairness and impartiality. without which the faith of the people in the Judiciary so indispensable in an orderly society cannot be preserved. No. M. His must be free of even a whiff of impropriety. June 5. High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained. the judge must. Judge Deodoro Sison A. Bagalasca A. must be guarded and measured lest the best of intentions be misconstrued. The DOJ was also receiving pressure from Demetria to “go slow in prosecuting Yu Yuk Lai”. Propriety of Conduct/Taking Interest in Matter Before his Court (Impartiality) IN RE: Derogatory News Items Charging CA Justice Demetrio Demetria with Interference on Behalf of a Suspected Drug Queen A. Indeed. Pontillas in turn sold the land to the Newreach Corporation. Complainant alleges that respondent judge showed interest in the sale of property that is subject of litigation in her sala by presenting for registration the deed of sale executed in favor of Newreach Corp. They must conduct themselves in such a manner that they give no ground for reproach. This is true not only in the performance of their judicial duties but in all their activities. 283 SCRA 416 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS:One of the properties involved in the intestate proceedings before Judge Bagalacsa’s sala was a parcel of land which the administrator of the intestate estate sold under an emancipation patent to Pontillas over the objection of the oppositors. Page 27 of 43 . His language.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS 10. and nullifying votes in complainant’s favor. HELD: Judges should be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence.M. he must also appear to be impartial. There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. both written and spoken. The mere mention of his name as allegedly lawyering for a suspected drug queen and interfering with her prosecution seriously undermined the integrity of the entire Judiciary.

He is of serious misconduct. partiality. and (3) continuously mailing orders and notices despite oral manifestation of the counsel of codefendant of the death of his client. How could he then be expected to decide with objectivity and fairness the cases in which he has acted as a lawyer for the plaintiff or complainant? Respondent's misconduct in this case is further compounded by the fact that he rendered the legal services in question using government facilities during office hours. Estrella’s obvious bias was also evident in other instances: he did not set the NBI report for hearing. 16. the judge having supervision over the clerk of court must see to it that the records are in order. indicating he had prior knowledge of the favorable decision. A judge must promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. fined P20. Jan. and inexcusable negligence. 16. Carlito D. The judge cannot be faulted for continuously sending the deceased orders and notices. Osmundo Villanueva A. Judge Antonio V. the SC also found that respondent Villanueva prepared the affidavit of Biboso’s father-in-law.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS 11. 15. the Rules on Civil Procedure provide that it is the attorney of the deceased who shall notify the judge of the death of the party on the assumption that the attorney is in a better position to notify the court of the death of the party. Dec.M.000. Biboso allegedly went to see Villanueva to “follow up” the civil case she had pending in Villanueva’s court and consult Villanueva regarding a complaint for estafa she wanted to file against Navarra. and despite the resulting margin of only 169 votes. No. 01-1608 RTJ. 2001. Papa’s Motion for Execution Pending Appeal was dated one day before the day of promulgation. However. Estella based his decision solely on the conclusions of the NBI without examining the ballots in court-contrary to Section 255 of the Election Code. 16. No. 1998. HELD: Respondent should be held liable for his conduct in the Criminal case. without examining the questioned ballots despite the mistakes in the NBI Report. Ang Kek Chen vs. Estrella ruled in favor of Papa. (2) “shabby record keeping” as the complainant found the record of his case in disheveled/dilapidated condition. Sangguniang Bayan vs. HELD: Although the clerk of court is tasked to maintain the records. MTJ-01-1356. By acting as counsel for complainant and the latter's father-in-law in a case filed in his court. MTJ-98-1173. he did not allow Garcia to see the report only until immediately before the promulgation of judgement. Amalia Andrade A. Lazo v. HELD Notwithstanding the errors in the NBI report and the resulting margin of 169 votes. 2001. However. Judge Estrella A. 318 SCRA 11 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Ang Kek Chen filed administrative cases against Judge Andrade for (1) extreme bias and hostility when an order denying his motion for disqualification was not mailed to defendant. The foregoing have also raised the suspicion of partiality on the part of Estrella. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Biboso filed an administrative case for sexual harassment against Judge Villanueva.M.000 ballots.M. pursuant to the election protest of Papa against winning candidate Garcia. RTJ-99-1504. 300 SCRA 214 PONENTE: Mendoza Page 28 of 43 . The SC found that because of material inconsistencies between Biboso’s affidavit and her statements during the cross-examination. based solely on the conclusions of the NBI. Nov. Tiong A. 1999. These stringent standards are intended to assure parties of just and equitable decisions and of a judiciary that is capable of dispensing impartial justice in every issue in every trial. such affidavit was used in the case against Navarra. No. No. 349 SCRA 46 PONENTE: Melo FACTS: RTC Judge Estrella sought the help of NBI handwriting experts to examine around 16. Quantum of Proof in Showing Impartiality of Judge Lucita Biboso vs. Apr. respondent compromised his neutrality and independence. Respondent acted as a lawyer for complainant and her father-in-law when he drafted complainant's affidavit that became the basis of a complaint for estafa filed against Heidi Navarra. the charges for sexual harassment were uncorroborated. M.

besides the basic equipment of learning in the law. Maramba . Page 29 of 43 . Kaw vs. No.D. should be beyond reproach. However. Although the initiative for the settlement came from the complainant. Complainant's right sleeve was torn and her gold necklace was damaged as a result of the force used by the judge. Thus. is related to either party within the sixth degree pf consanguinity or affinity. 12. 254 SCRA 652 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: To satisfy judgments in two cases in favor of Gonzales. Bersamin A. However. in the first place. traits which. Rule 137. A. 1529 requires this notice. et al. Anunciacion. 1996. the same land was sold to Chan prior to levy. 242 SCRA 249 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Kaw complains that IMC's "Ex Parte Motion for Execution" was granted by respondent judge on the same day that it was filed without notice to her and her husband. Elma T. MTJ-93-795. Her acts constitutes grave misconduct and amounts to serious violation of the canons of Judicial Ethics that require that a Judge's acts while in office should be free from the appearance of impropriety and her personal behavior while in office and also in her everyday life. two notices of levy were presented on real property of Cruz. M. Respondent judge ordered the cancellation. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough. Judge Lucas P. Nor is there any showing that respondent judge knowingly rendered an unjust interlocutory orders and an unjust judgment. respondent judge went out of her way to insure its success. Alicia T. She also claims that Sheriff Aribuabo was not authorized to enforce the writ of execution because he was not the deputy or branch sheriff nor was he duly designated or appointed sheriff by respondent judge. Chan claims that such annotations pertaining to the levy be cancelled since Cruz no longer owned the land. are indispensable qualities of every judge. No proof of partiality has been shown by complainant. HELD: Judge reprimanded. M. May 14. 290 SCRA 44 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complainant alleged that respondent judge forced her to sign an affidavit of desistance as basis for the dismissal of the criminal complaint for grave oral defamation against PO3 Eden. in the second place. or to counsel within the fourth degree computed according to the rules of the civil law. HELD: There is no evidence on record to prove the charge that respondent judge unduly favored spouses Chan. inter alia. Mar. the judge is admonished. M. and. as exemplars of law and justice. judges must avoid not only impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety in all their actions. 1. The judge claims he did so in the hopes that his presence would allow the parties to settle amicably. She showed a predisposition to use physical violence and intemperate language in public which reveals a marked lack of judicial temperament and self-restraint. Judge Casiano P. No. A. Rules of Court. Veronica Gonzales vs. No. she severely compromised the integrity and impartiality of her office. Failure to Give Due Notice Before an Order of Execution. Indeed. He cannot exercise his discretion whether to inhibit himself or not. and dragged her from the Regional Office of the Department of Agriculture to respondent’s chambers to settle her differences with PO3 Eden. which was preliminarily attached while the case was pending and subsequently provisionally registered in the Register of Deeds.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS 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. it has not been shown. 13. In taking undue interest in the settlement of the case. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Ferrer v. MTJ-93-811. Under this provision. the Presiding Judge is mandated to disqualify himself from sitting in a case. Jr. Also. respondent judge should have ordered notice to be given to complainant and petitioner to implead complainant since it appears that she had an adverse interest annotated on the back of their certificate title. 1998. She failed to observe prudence so necessary if judges are to be perceived to be impartial. 1995. that it was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. Genoveva C. Section 108 of P. that the judgment is unjust or that it is contrary to law or not supported by evidence. provides that no judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he. RTJ-96-1344 Mar. No. HELD: Slapping is a sign of contempt and not self-defense.

Due Process. The Secretary of Justice calls attention to the fact that the order in question is contrary to Circular No. Twice she appeared with new lawyers who had asked for postponement on the ground that their services had just been engaged and they needed time to study the case. there was no absolute reason why counsel could not have been required to confer with the accused within a shorter period to prepare her for the arraignment. Sept. MTJ-99-1209. The postponement was therefore granted without sufficient basis. unlawfully and feloniously demand and receive P250. The process of learning law is a never ending and ceaseless one. Calilung vs.000 from spouses Calilung for the purpose of mediating. Flaviano Arquero vs. There was also no documentary evidence presented to support the claim that accused was too ill to attend the arraignment. 315 SCRA 9 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: A hold-departure order was issued by MTC Judge Adaoag in a Criminal Case. Full Control of the Proceedings in his Sala and Should Adopt a Firm Policy Against Improvident Postponements. 15. HELD: The judge failed to take the proper measures when the accused did not appear for arraignment without notifying the trial court. 1999. No. that he found out that said orders could only be issued by the RTCs. Sept. Judge Adaoag was reprimanded with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. A judge should so behave at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Said circular limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to the RTC in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction. 14. explaining that he had no copy of the circular and it was only later on. Faithful to the Law and Maintain Professional Competence Issuance of Hold Departure order of Judge Luisito T. Bribery.M. 99-8-126-MTC.00 each on respondent Judge Sheriff III Samuel A. As she was out on bail. No. MTC.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS HELD: Judge is liable for issuing an order of execution when no prior notice of the motion for execution had been given to complainant's husband. 1999.000. she was bound to appear before the trial court whenever so required. Court hereby imposes a FINE of P10. Tarlac A. Camiling. Suriaga A. 2000. MTJ-99-1191. It is evident from the Page 30 of 43 . The complainant claims that the judge has “liberally tolerated the series of postponements” and the Office of the Court Administrator recommends a fine of P5. 339 SCRA 340 PER CURIAM FACTS: NBI conducted an entrapment operation which led to the filing of an information alleging that Judge Suriaga willfully. However.M. 31. after research. HELD: The culpability of respondent judge for serious misconduct has been established not just by substantial evidence but by an overwhelming preponderance thereof.” They can live up to their duties only by diligent effort to keep themselves abreast of developments in our legal system. She also failed to appear because of an alleged illness. Sheriff is also liable for not giving due notice to complainants. Misconduct. 22. inducing and influencing Judge Ituralde into rendering a favorable decision for said spouses. Adaoag. Jurisdiction. Misconduct a. the judge tolerated the unexplained absences of the accused. Aug. Tertulo Mendoza A. 13. Her failure to do so justified the forfeiture of her bond. 315 SCRA 503 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Arraignment of the accused was postponed nine times before it was finally held. 30. HELD: The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be “faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. No. Aribuabo and WARNS them that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. As regards the postponement because of the hiring of new lawyers.M. The accused failed to appear three times without notifying the trial court. 39-97 of the SC. Judge Adaoag admits his mistake and pleads ignorance of the circular.000 for the unreasonable delay in the arraignment.

M. 1998. 2000. No. Thus. Subsequently. He also ordered the release of Cauilan. Isabela. MTJ-00-1320. He not only failed to live up to his duties under the law. respondent immediately took cognizance of the case. if proven. Jimmy Butacan A. Considering that the prayer for the TRO was one of extreme urgency. RTJ-99-1488. No. It is also a gross violation of Rule 3. 9 to Dec 1998 because he was still undergoing orientation and immersion. The incidents were just left unnoticed by the other lawyers lest they would lose their cases pending before respondent Judge. respondent is fined for his failure to observe proper court procedure in the issuance of the order of injunction. Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct Antonio Bangayan vs. HELD: While it is true that Judge Ong formally assumed office on Nov. respondent still had the authority to take cognizance of old and newly filed cases in the Echague court during that period. However. Inasmuch as what is imputed against the respondent judge connotes a misconduct so grave that. 2000. b. however complainant failed to appear. Respondent argues that he exercised his discretion under the rules in granting a reduction of bail and prays that the complaint against him be dismissed. Nov. it would entail dismissal from the bench. Apr. despite his failure to post bail. Despite Judge Ong’s having already assumed office as presiding judge thereof. Sr. he has also acted in bad faith for trying to cover up what he did – ordering the release of persons lawfully arrested even before they had posted bail. 6. respondent in ex parte proceedings temporarily enjoined complainant. but the bond was submitted only after the approval of the reduction of bail. the accused were arrested. Salvador Ruiz vs. 330 SCRA 62 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Judge Bringas was charged with serious misconduct and inefficiency for allegedly using intemperate language against lawyers appearing before his court by being fond of insulting and maligning both young and old lawyers including the prosecutors who appear before him in the presence of party litigants and lawyers. They must conduct themselves in such a manner that they give no ground for reproach.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS provision that both reality and appearance must concur. Respondent’s action is highly irregular.M. Later however. MTJ-00-1266. Judge Ong did not hear and/or try cases from Nov.M. Complainant avers that respondent approved the Order of Release without the submission of the required bond which was supposed to precede the order of release.01. the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial. in addition to his regular duties. Canon 3 of the code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to “be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence”. the duty of members of hte bench to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary. Agelio Bringas A. Both were subsequently ordered released by respondent Judge. complainant’s allegation is supported only by the affidavit and testimony of a witness to the effect that she delivered an envelope containing money to respondent. Calimag. It is thus. giving rise to the suspicion that the judge is partial to one of the parties in the case pending before him. No. This is grave misconduct which cannot be allowed to go unpunished. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety. notwithstanding the appointment of a new judge to said sala.2000. Co v. Respondent thereafter set the summary hearing of the application for the TRO for the next day. June 20. Jr. Judge Ong took over as the regular judge of the latter court. 9. A. 345 SCRA 301 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: By virtue of 2 warrants of arrest. 334 SCRA 20 PONENTE: Melo FACTS: The Court designated respondent RTC judge of Santiago City as Acting Presiding RTC Judge of Echague. thus the operation of the TRO was extended. 22. a complaint for legal separation was filed by Co with a prayer for a TRO with the Echague court against her husband. which he has to pay for accepting and occupying an exalted position in the administration of justice. Case law repeatedly teaches that judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a number of restrictions thereon. Page 31 of 43 . HELD: Respondent Judge granted the motion for reduction of bail without giving prosecution the chance to be heard. As to the issue of extortion.

The spouses were then held in contempt. RTJ-00-1534. public ridicule. had used her cash collections to encash personal checks. and the public without being petty. Above all. . MTJ-01-1342. Failure to Supervise Court Personnel Report on the Financial Audit A. Thereafter. and that she did so without authority of Judge Castigador. It should be stressed that the spouses paid the fine at 5:00PM on the date the judgment was rendered. Enrique Pascua A. The spouses Gorospe paid the fine imposed on the same day the penalty was imposed. 337 SCRA 347 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: It was found that Court Interpreter Deseo. the OIC Clerk of Court still ordered their commitment. or regulation?" In answering the question. . HELD: The Supreme Court held that Judge Sandoval and Pacheco did not commit grave abuse of authority. their clients. As stated in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. HELD: Judge Castigador cannot entirely wash his hands of responsibility by disclaiming knowledge of Deseo’s activities. Lauro Sandoval A. The spouses manifested to the Executive Judge that they were not absent during the previous hearings. Judge Sandoval was on leave. former OIC of the MTC. No. A warrant of arrest had been issued for repeated absence during the hearing. it was correct for Pacheco to order their commitment. as already stated. decree. 7. However.M. or regulation when the fact is that. HELD: The question was: "Have you ever been charged . 17. a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. She admitted the allegations and claims that she did so in good faith and that she had seen to it that the amounts she had taken from her collections were equal to the amounts of checks she deposited in the savings account of the MTC. 2000. or tyrannical. arbitrary. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Spouses Gorospe filed a complaint against respondent Judge Sandoval and OIC Clerk of Court Pacheco because they sustained ‘irreparable damage. he Page 32 of 43 . and humiliation’ as a result of their imprisonment for contempt of court. Perjury Bishop Crisologo Yalung vs. he stated that he had not been charged with any criminal and/or administrative case or complaint when in fact he had been charged with bribery/extortion and with administrative offenses in the SC. A judge should be courteous both in his conduct and in his language especially to those appearing before him. Aug. 50-95. No. ordinance. respondent made it appear that he had never been charged with any violation of law.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS HELD: The duty to maintain respect for the dignity of the court applies to members of the bar and bench alike. He should remain from conduct that demeans his office and remember always that courtesy begets courtesy. As Deseo’s superior he should have exercised direct and immediate supervision over her to ensure that she observed the provisions of Circ No. June 21. Judge Sandoval ordered the spouses to explain in writing why they should not be cited for contempt for misrepresenting facts to the Executive Judge. The issue is whether or not Sandoval and Pacheco committed grave abuse of authority. Meanwhile. M. for violating any law. ordinance. 16. OCA recommended among others that Judge Castigador be admonished for failure to closely monitor the handling of cash collections. 15. No. Geronimo Gorospe vs. the spouses accepted the decision by not appealing. overbearing. When the hearings were subsequently reset. 2000.M. decree. 2001. He can hold counsels to a proper appreciation of their duties to the court. records will show that the spouses were indeed absent on the disputed date. As for the judge. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: A complaint was filed against respondent Judge alleging that in his application for transfer/promotion with the JBC. hence the warrant of arrest was cancelled. Feb. As for the OIC Clerk of Court. there is truth to Pacheco’s claim that he was merely performing a ministerial function. Furthermore. 99-11-157-MTC. It was but proper for Pacheco to wait for the order of release from the judge. he must conduct himself in such manner that he gives no reason for reproach.

2001. PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago FACTS: In a resolution. He may criticize the pooints he feels are incorrect but he may not do so in an insulting manner. RTJ 00-1576. Judge Labayan A. Bersamira A. HELD: Respondent judge's charges of dishonesty and distortion of facts against an associate justice of the second highest court in the land. Requisites for an MTC Judge to perform Notarial Functions Regino Barbarona vs. taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public. His explanation that he saw no need to indicate this fact in his personal data sheet because a certain congressman had allegedly already informed the JBC of his case before the Ombudsman is flimsy. They presented as evidence a Deed of Sale notarized by Canda. Respondent declared the defendants in default and consequently rendered judgment against them. RTJ-00-1567. he must evaluate the report and the supporting documents which will assist him to make his determination of probable cause. ignorance of the law. to still err thereon amounts to ignorance of the law. 2001 PONENTE: Gonzaga-Reyes HELD: Judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous and equally alert to the possibility that the prosecutor could be in error. C.M. June 28. a judge must not rely solely on the report or resolution of the prosecutor. 20. It is not enough that there be diligence on the part of the trial court as well as acquaintance with the applicable law and jurisprudence. 19. Dela Cruz vs. perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public. Duty to Practice Discretion of Judge Simplicio Alib vs. He filed a motion for reconsideration. No. HELD: The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties. Apr. No. It calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. One of the issues raised therein was that respondent was performing notarial functions. 19. Complainants filed an administrative complaint against him for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. When the issues are so simple and the facts are so evident as to be beyond permissible margins of error. Motion for Reconsideration. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complainants were the defendants in a civil case pending before respondent MTC Judge Canda. respondent ought to know better. provided that: (1) all Page 33 of 43 .L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS was. judge was fined and was given a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts complained of will be dealt with more severely. insisting on his innocence and arguing at length that the recital of the "Magtolis Report" of the "factual millieu" of the administrative complaint at hand. A firm and temperate remonstrance is all he should ever allow himself.M. in the capacity as notaries public ex oficio. but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law. Alejandro Canda A. ring hollow in the absence of any evidence whatsoever showing that the investigator harbored any ill-feelings or malice toward him. etc. who was tasked to look into the administrative indictments for wrongdoing against him. 18. MTJ-01-1355. The Court. No. A judge without being offensive in speech may endeavor to call attention to what he perceives to be erroneous findings against him. it also betrays a character flaw which leaves the court even more convinced that he deserves the administrative sanctions imposed on him. Jan. Intemperate speech detracts from the equanimity and judisciousness that should be the constant hallmarks of a dispenser of justice. Notary Public 1. As a judge. Duch charges not only reveal a deplorable deficiency in that degree of courteousness respondent is supposed to observe and extend towards other magistrates like him. rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may. Intemperate Speech. Before issuing a warrant of arrest. Issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial function of the court. was dishonest and distorted. 2001. The respondent admitted notarizing the said document but raised as his defense the absence of any other notary public in the area.M.

2611. 349 SCRA 417 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: MTC Judge Aglugub filed a complaint against Clerk of Court Perlez for failing to submit transcripts and stenographic notes in some of the Judge’s cases which resulted in the failure of Judge to decide 19 cases assigned to her within the prescribed time. it is clear that the acknowledgment was made in violation of the notarial law. As administrative officer. If indeed Lancion did not submit the notes. As such. 2. Delay Office of the Court Administrator vs. Notarization is not an empty routine – it converts a private document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. 4751. Jan.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer and (2) certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit. It could not prosper without adequate proof. Pugeda with gross misconduct. HELD: Nothing in the law prohibits a notary public from acting at the same time as witness in the document he notarized. Clerk a. Perlez should have reported the matter to the Judge and recommended the imposition of administrative sanctions. Felongco violated the notarial law HELD: The party acknowledging must appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents. Esteva died on Sept. Even if in truth there was no notary public in the municipality. 6. 2001. the duty of the Clerk of Court is to ensure that stenographers comply with their duty to submit the transcripts not later than 20 days from the time the notes were taken. PONENTE: Quisumbing FACTS: Solarte charged Atty. hence. including the stenographers. Notaries as Witnesses Solarte vs. P-00-1428.C. Respondent claims that since the Judge could not control stenographer. 1982. but only mere allegations. 336 SCRA 561.M. Instead. 2000.C. It is alleged that Atty. she is charged with the control and supervision of all subordinate personnel of the court. Respondent countered that nothing in the law prohibits the notary public from signing as witness the same documents he notarized. Complainant offered no proof. Supervision is not a meaningless thing. D. No. Solarte claimed an interest in the lots sold. if not indifference. In the case at bar. Perlez has shown passivity. Coronado v. to the failure of those under her supervision to perform their duties well. No. 344 SCRA 565 PONENTE: Puno FACTS: Coronado alleged that Atty. how could she? the the the the the HELD: Perlez is the administrative officer of the court. Nov. respondent judge failed to remit the fees he received to the municipal treasurer as required by Circular No. Imelda S. 18. Pugeda allegedly notarized certain documents involving the sale of land. It is incumbent upon her to ensure that they perform their duties well. he remitted the money to the Judiciary Development Fund. Such a grave charge against a member of the bar and former municipal judge needs concrete substantiation to gain credence. July 31. Perlez answered that it was fault of stenographer Lancion. Pugeda A. Felongco A. Complainant avers that respondent could not have legally notarized a document to which he also acted as witness and alleges in particular that respondent participated in the fraudulent paartition and sale of the property. 15. Page 34 of 43 . The only exception is if the document is a will. Felongco notarized a deed of promise to sell purportedly signed by her deceased mother. who refused to deliver the records transcribed despite orders of Judge and reminders from Perlez. the acknowledgment of the th Deed stated that on the 10 of September. Court Personnel 1. 1-90. Perlez A. Moreover. respondent judge failed to certify this fact in the document itself. 2000. 1982 at South Cotabato personally appeared: FE ESTEVA and FLORENDA FARAON before the respondent.

HELD: Perusal of the subpoena she issued to complainant shows that the form used was the one used in criminal cases.M. P-99-1302. The presiding judge. After repeated inquiries with the CA. Sr. 2001. has no power to order either the commitment or the release on bail of person charged with penal offenses. Teresita Bravo A.000. 95-12-P. This duty could not be excused simply because copies of the stenographic notes has not been made by the stenographers. Yet neither had a complaint been commenced to support the issuance of said subpoena. for delay in the transmittal of the record of a criminal case to the Court of Appeals. she merely wanted to act as mediator between 2 disputing parties upon the request of one party. Aug. ordered respondent branch clerk of court to forward "the complete records" of the case to the CA.I. and without the cash bond for the release. No. Complainant. as vice president of URC.P.M. Batoon signed and issued the duplicate original of the order aware that the judge was on leave and could not sign the original order of release. HELD: The approval of the bail of an accused person and the authority to order the release of a detained person is a purely judicial function. respondent Clerk of Court caused the preparation of an Order of Release in connection with a then-pending Criminal Case. Judge Demetrio B. 10. The reason given by respondent for his failure to transmit the records of the case are insubstantial. Pollentes OCA I. URC filed a notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court. TC judgment was rendered against it. P-97-1242. Atty. What is required to be transmitted within five (5) days from the filing of a notice of appeal is the complete record. Rodolfo B. Pollentes. M. Strict compliance with the duty to transmit the record of cases within five (5) days from the filing of a notice of appeal was especially required because the case is a criminal case. Usurpation of Judicial Function Lorena Collado vs. Villanueva vs. Yolanda Lopez VDA de Batoon A. 247 SCRA 24 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: This relates to an administrative complaint filed by against Atty. Feb. 1995. b. not the TSN. Apr. 28. URC's counsel was informed that the records were not yet with the Court. giving the complainant the impression that her failure to appear would subject her to the penalty of law.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS Magleo vs. HELD: The respondent be fined P5. Mariles I. 2001 PONENTE: Quisumbing FACTS: Respondent Clerk of Court’s act of issuing subpoena to complainant was evidently not directly or remotely connected with respondent’s judicial or administrative duties. Clerk of Court of the RTC of Iloilo City. The Administrative functions of the Branch Clerks of Court are vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. some element of state coercion against complainant who was understandably compelled to heed the contents of the subpoena resulting in her humiliation. 3. HELD: Pollentes is guilty of "some degree of negligence" in failing to transmit the record of the case on time. Macapagal. June 19. On the basis of said duplicate order. 274 SCRA 26 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Union Refinery Corporation (URC) was plaintiff in Civil Case 550-M-87 of the RTC in Malolos. 1997. No. 01-1-01-SC. the accused was released from custody. The Clerk of Court may release an order “upon the order of the Judge” or “by authority of the Judge” Page 35 of 43 . PONENTE: Quisumbing FACTS: Judge Vallarta alleged that while he was on leave.00 and warned that repetition of this infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely. then filed the instant complaint. Judge Placido Vallarta vs. The respondent was using. No. It is the duty of the Branch Clerk of Court to deliver the complete record of the case to the Clerk of Court so that it could be transmitted to the appellate court within five (5) days after the accused gave notice of his appeal. Tayag A. No. unlike a judicial authority. without authority.

2001 Per Curiam FACTS: Jamero was convicted for slight physical injuries from which an appeal was made in open court. Monterola is guilty of grave misconduct and usurpation of judicial function. the court’s order granting its issuance should first be amended. No. Hence. and the seals and furniture belonging to their office. PONENTE: Mendoza Page 36 of 43 . 305 SCRA 128 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Cruz filed a notice of appeal. papers. However. 1999. Under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. was detained for 3 days. 349 SCRA 426. Feb. Complainants now question the act of Clerk of Court Soriano in expanding the coverage of the demotion order which resulted in the destruction of their properties even if they were not the defendants in the case. No. No. this administrative complaint against both Branch Clerk of Court and Staff Assistant for gross negligence. Negligence in Keeping Court Records by Court Personnel Daniel Cruz v. M. Duties. et al. Clerk of Court Monterola A. Soriano admitted inserting the words “third parties” in the demolition order. Monterola unduly usurped the judicial prerogative of the judge. Before he can amend a writ. No. exhibits and public property committed to their charge. c. and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity. such issuance must not involve the exercise of function appertaining to the court or judge only. Court Personnel (Public Officers) Act with Self-Restraint and Civility Atty. Judge Silva failed to exercise diligence in supervising the acts of his acting clerk of court. Judge Silva denies giving any authorization to cause such amendment. a. files. As officers of the Court. Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court provides the general functions and duties of Clerks of Court. Rule 136 of the Rules of Court imposes same responsibility upon the clerks of court. HELD A clerk of court should be guided by the express directive of the court or judge and refrain from exercising functions that are exclusive thereto. HELD While a clerk of court has the authority to issue writs incident to pending cases. 25. clerk of court Monterola issued a warrant of arrest against Jamero who. 18. it was found together with other records supposed to be heard on said date. In ordering the arrest and confinement of Jamero in police custody. Judge Silva A. to wit: 3. Said records was transmitted to the RTC for the purpose of appeal. P-99-1296 Mar.000. A. Judge Escanan vs. including the library of the Court. with prejudice to re-employment in the government. they are expected to discharge their duty of safekeeping court records with diligence. Roel Paras vs. the judge did not. on the basis thereof. Immediately after promulgation of sentence. Jan. 2001. PONENTE: Panganiban FACTS: Pursuant to a judgement in a case for accion publiciana. a judge should organize and supervise the Court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. efficiency and professionalism. Santos vs. Clerk of Court. RTJ-00-1579. 2001. d. Soriano usurped a judicial function-contrary to Rule 136. He is only reprimanded for failure to supervise his subordinate diligently.M. But three (3) days after exerting effort to locate said records. By amending the Writ on his own initiative.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS but under no circumstance should the clerk make it appear that the judge signed the order when in fact. 6. Myrna Lofranco A. P-01-1469. He is fined P5. Moreover. — The Clerks of Court shall safely keep all records. 26. dismissed from the service with forfeiture of benefits. HELD: The Court ordered that the clerk and staff assistant be reprimanded with stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. Judge Silva issued a writ of demolition. Mar. The issuance of a warrant of arrest and matters relating thereto is purely a judicial function. Section4 of the Rules of Court. safekeeping of Property. one of which is the safekeeping of court records. his appeal could not be acted upon because the records of the case were allegedly missing. Section 7.M.M. P-99-1347.

” The presiding judge of the court to which Ladaga is assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law. and to the best of their ability. However. while on official leave and with permission from his presiding judge. P-97-1241.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS FACTS: Paras filed an administrative complaint against respondent clerk of the RTC for discourtesy and conduct unbecoming a court employee. No. civility. 12. he failed to obtain prior permission from the head of this Department. Respondent claims that she was provoked by the complainant. in a gesture of disrespect and in a sarcastic manner told him to come back another. Zenaida Buencillo A. Jan. They. Simple Misconduct: Leaving Post Loyao. Jr. An administrative complaint was brought against Ladaga for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. It seems that he did not have all necessary documents. to respond with the highest degree of dedication often even beyond personal interest. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise prohibits employees of the superior courts from engaging in private practice as a member of the bar. 26. It would appear that the respondents left their posts because a certain Sheriff requested them to buy food at the public market for the latter’s birthday party. e. Paras tried to ask for the withdrawal of a cash bond in a case he was handling. Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules: “No officer or employee shall engage directly in any … profession…without a written permission from the head of the Department. A public office is a public trust that enjoins all public officers and employees. While pakikisama is a value deeply imbedded in our tradition and mores that often fosters harmony and good working relationships in the workplace. carrying out its observance and practice to the degree where it frustrates or prejudices the administration of justice should not be tolerated. which in this case is the Supreme Court. without the elements of custom or habituality and payment for such services. Public officials and employees are under obligation to perform the duties of their offices honestly. HELD: It is the policy of the state to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. P-99-1287. Aug. Clerk of court deposited settlement money in her personal account Dinna Castillo vs.M. f. Clerk of Court Ladaga A. appeared as pro bono counsel for a close relative in a MTC criminal case. particularly those serving in the judiciary. Prohibition on public officials from Engaging in Private Practice of Law Office of the Court Administrator vs. faithfully. P-99-1329. HELD: Ladaga’s appearance did not amount to “private practice of law. and self-restraint in their official actuation to the public at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insulting behavior. Mar. v. Although he filed leave applications corresponding to the dates he appeared in court. Their absence allegedly left the entire office undermanned. 2001 PONENTE: Melo Page 37 of 43 . 337 SCRA 47 PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago FACTS: Respondents were charged with Simple Misconduct and censured in a Report by complainant executive Judge for leaving their posts at the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC without permission for personal purposes. 20. 2001.M. 2000. Losing one’s temper and uttering unsavory remarks exhibits a failure to act with self-restraint and civility. Their explanations that they went to buy and prepare food for the birthday celebration of their officemate and that they did the same out of pakikisama is unsatisfactory and should not be countenanced. Respondent. No. No.” as it was merely an isolated court appearance. should demonstrate courtesy. he still failed to obtain written permission pursuant to Sec. HELD: The SC found that indeed respondents were remiss in their obligations as judicial employees when they went out during office hours without asking the permission of their superior.M. he is reprimanded. Misbehavior within and around its vicinity diminishes its sanctity and dignity. 350 SCRA 326 PONENTE: Kapunan FACTS: MTC Clerk of Court Ladaga. as recipients of the public trust. 1. which prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of their profession. g. The court is looked upon with high respect and is regarded as a sacred place. Armecin A.

1999. h. Respondent then demanded payment but when the complainants asked for more time. 1999. 309 SCRA 69 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Respondent Deputy Sheriff went to complainant’s house at five in the morning and showed them a writ of execution issued by stenographer Caluag. Fearful that it might be lost. His unseemly conduct gives rise to the suspicion that he has ulterior motives. Thereafter. Public officials and employees should always uphold public interest over and above personal interest. HELD: The sheriff is guilty. Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff of the MTC and Tambolero. the Deputy Sheriff instead issued a Notice of Levy indicating receipt of complainant’s Tamaraw FX. No. Villamar V A. If the office cabinet had no lock. was reluctant to receive P70. were charged with “robbery with hold-up and violation of RA 3019) for allegedly pointing a gun.M. the RTC in rendering its decision limited its adjudication to complainant’s claim of ownership and possession over the subject property vis-a-vis that of defendant spouses Cantonjos. The decision being clear. P-00-1360. The RTC granted her motion. A reading of the decision shows that Magbanua’s cause of action is based on her claim that she is the owner of the property by virtue of the Deed of Sale and Waiver of Rights executed in her favor by her co-heirs. HELD: Even if the deposit was done in good faith.000 as settlement for the civil aspect. While it was his duty to enforce the writ. Sheriff a. They are enjoined to respond to the call of their duties with the highest degree of dedication often beyond their own interest. The complainants told the sheriff that the FX was not fully paid for and instead offered another vehicle.00 with a warning that repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. he had not explained why he had enforced the writ so early in the morning when there was not even an allegation that the property he wanted to levy upon was in danger of being concealed from him. M. HELD: Upon investigation. with intent to intimidate while taking tricycles of the complainant. facts elicited reveal that the taking of the tricycles were pursuant to a lawful order of the court and that the acts alleged were not employed. respondent should have informed the judge of the circumstance so that proper arrangements could have been made. 2. it is the sheriff’s ministerial duty to implement the same despite the claim of the other heirs of Marisga that they own Page 38 of 43 . Maxino. 305 SCRA 132 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: After the decision in a case of ejectment had become final and executory. Clerk of Court Buencillo received the money.000. Thus. retaining P20. He was ordered to pay a fine of P2. Jan. June 25. 18. Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act Eliseo Soreno vs. No. Failure of Sheriff to Implement the Writ of Execution Rosanna Casalme vs.000 as payment for the civil obligation. the sheriff still failed to enforce/implement said execution when it was his ministerial duty to do so. as private complainant in a criminal case. Buencillo only remitted P50. P-99-1297. Magbanua filed a complaint against respondent Sheriff for dereliction of duty.000. Rhoderick Maxino A. Magbanua moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution and order of demolition. the accused gave Castillo postdated checks as payment. 2000. However. Ludivina Marisga-Magbanua v. HELD: The sheriff’s acts were improper. Mar. acting primarily for the benefit of the public. still it was inappropriate and without justification. Emilio T. Bunecillo deposited the amount in her personal bank account. However. 25. the RTC issued a writ of execution.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS FACTS: Castillo. Thereafter. Every public officer is bond to exercise prudence and caution in the discharge of his duties. 322 SCRA 12 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Atty. deputy sheriff of the same court. Hence. alleging that the same was necessary in view of the sheriff’s report showing that there was failure in implementing the writ of execution and also because she was in dire need of the property. the sheriff refused. Marvin Rivera AM P-99-1514.000 in her possession. including the P70.

M. who shall then disburse the same to the sheriff assigned to implement the writ. The amount was not part of the approved estimate of expenses and was not deposited with the clerk of court. They could have sealed or placed the vault under guard and asked the prevailing party to obtain a “break open” or appropriate judicial order. It further directs that the approved estimate be deposited with the clerk of court and ex oficio sheriff. The Sheriff reasons out that one of the parties. No. HELD: Gross inefficiency in the performance of official duties cannot be tolerated. In compliance with nd the WOA in the 2 case. any unspent amount shall then be refunded to the party making the deposit.M. P-00-1399.000 on the lands and wanted to consult his lawyer first. both st assigned to respondent Sheriff for implementation. It is the contention of complainants that before implementing the writ. Canlas v. fined P5. but came directly from complainants for the use of respondent. all of which were returned unsatisfied. HELD: Respondent’s duty in the present case is prescribed in § 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Respondent denies allegations and blames complainant for not informing him of Quejada’s failure to turn over possession. No. b. c. 2000. Three alias writs of execution were issued. Feb. It requires that the sheriff’s estimate of the expenses to be incurred in the execution of a writ should be approved by the judge. Both complainants aver that although they were able to pinpoint to respondent the whereabouts of the two cars owned by defendant. PBCom alleged that Cachero employed irregular means in enforcing the writ by torching the vault despite being informed that a TRO had been issued. respondent levied on attachment real and personal properties of the defendant. P-99-1317. the use of force by respondents and the resulting damage to bank property was clearly unjustified and is unacceptable. observing the high degree of diligence and professionalism expected of them as agents of the law. and that a copy was on its way from the main office. P-00-1409. he still failed to take possession of them. 338 SCRA 150 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Respondent Sheriff Valena was charged for failure to enforce a writ of execution. Respondent’s failure to carry out what is a purely ministerial duty cannot be justified. 2000. for the recovery of money which the bank unlawfully withdrew from the account of its own depositor. prudent and orderly manner. he must do so in a lawful.M. 1. Aug. refused to deliver possession of properties because he had invested P200. Sheriff Cachero A. In this case. 2001. Partiality Tantamount to Gross Inefficiency Christopher Valencia vs. Grave Abuse of Authority of Sheriff in Enforcement of Writ of Execution PBCOM v. Balasbas A. respondent asked for money for the latter’s expenses. Cachero is guilty of gross misconduct for irregularly enforcing the writ of execution in a high-handed manner and with the use of unnecessary and unwarranted force. 19. Quejada. 16.000. PONENTE: Kapunan FACTS: Sheriff Cachero was appointed to enforce a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal against PBCom-Buendia bank. Moreover. FALCON corporation. he levied on attachment the real properties of the defendant. In compliance with the WOA issued in the 1 case. Such a claim in any case is still under litigation in another proceeding. instead of being employing extreme measures by summarily destroying the vault in order to seize the cash kept therein. Aug. 337 SCRA 41 PONENTE: Panganiban FACTS: The RTC of Angeles City issued 2 writs of attachment (WOA) in 2 separate Civil cases.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS the subject property in common with complainant. His only duty was to eject Page 39 of 43 . The investigating judge found that respondent violated § 9 of Rule 41 because he has accepted sums of money from complainants purportedly to cover his expenses in the execution of the WOA. and it does not appear that the other Marisgas have obtained and judicial writ of process to stay execution of the decision. Thus. Complainants allege that respondent failed to execute the decision because he readily accepted Quejada’s excuses and suspects that Valena is secretly favoring Quejada. Rodolfo Valena A. respondent admits that he did ask for and receive certain amounts from the complainants for gasoline and other expenses necessary to implement the 2 WOA. No. HELD While a sheriff is bound to serve a writ of execution with dispatch.

M. 2001. therefore. Despite Castro’s insistence that Bague issue a certificate of sale. and by reason of his highest qualification. A. Victor Elipe vs. making it appear that it was issued within the period. he could have chosen to stop the carting away of the valuable properties of judgment debtor for the very purpose of levying it and for the purpose of complying with the Order. Castilo. respondent issued the purported resolution after the period for redemption has lapsed. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Complainant Castro was the highest bidder in a foreclosure sale conducted by Sheriff Bague. HELD: The judicial power vested in a judge and its exercise is strictly personal to the judge because of. 3-92 but the charges for malversation and insubordination is dismissed for lack of merit. insubordination. 1995. grave misconduct and violation of SC Circular 3-92.C. Circular No. 241 SCRA 249 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Fabre was charged with nonfeasance and incompetence in the performance of his duties as Deputy Sheriff. Accordingly. P-94-1068 Feb. As an officer of the court. despite the fact that he had been told by complainant of the judgment debtors' activities. f. act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. sheriffs perform a very sensitive function in the dispensation of justice. With respect to the charge that he made only grudging compliance with the directive of the complainant for him to remove the coop in which he kept five turkeys. a period too long a time for the writ of execution not to be enforced. but also subversive of public order and policy. P-99-1346. June 20. Nor is there any showing that he appropriated fruits taken from coconut trees found in the court grounds. Margarito C. Honesto Fabre A. The sheriff. and can never be subject of agency. Respondent issued a ‘resolution’ declaring that redemptioner’s stand holds more weight. must be circumspect and proper in his behavior. Jr. M. By the very-nature of their functions. caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. A period of 9 years has lapsed. Sheriff’s Conduct Above Reproach or Partiality Restituto Castro vs. thereby granting redemptioner the right to repurchase property. Bague failed to comply with such duty. Instead. There is no evidence to show that respondent used scrap materials taken from the former P. the record shows that he did comply with the directive. No. 28. Nonfeasance. Quejada asked for some time to consult with his lawyer. barrack. but after reasonable opportunity to do so he may no longer be allowed to remain in possession of the subject properties without raising suspicion that respondent was favoring him. an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends. This Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct. no basis Page 40 of 43 .L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS Quejada from the subject properties. P-94-1043. d. There is. Complainant is entitled to realize the law’s promise that his right to possession would be vindicated as speedily as possible to preserve peace and order. e. Feb. Jr. Bague allowed the redemptioner to redeem the property even after the lapse of 18 months from the date of sale. Furthermore. with malversation. He was bound to discharge his duties with prudence. which prohibits the use of Halls of Justice for residential or commercial purposes. HELD: We find him liable for violation of Adm. their conduct must at all times be above suspicion. Malversation and Insubordination Arturo Q. That would not only be contrary to law. 13. No. 1996. Fabre allegedly did not make any effort to prevent the judgment debtors from removing leviable properties to implement the writ. 254 SCRA 148 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: An administrative complaint was filed by clerk of court Bautista charging deputy sheriff Costelo. HELD: If Fabre was dedicated in his work. Carlos Bague A. respondent was tasked to enable the prevailing party to benefit from the judgment. M. Bautista vs.

Nov. the person named Maravillas is a non-existent person. Nelia B. the other 11 were never transcribed. June 21. Catalan claims that Umali could not have served the summons since the address indicated therein was not the address of NEGA. HELD The facts show that the address in the summons was not the address of NEGA. which must be done within twenty (20) days after the notes have been taken. Summons Officer Falsified Return of Summons Gilbert Catalan vs. 245 SCRA 227 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Charge is that court stenographer Cosca brought home with her the stenographic notes which she had taken in certain cases pending before the MTC and failed to submit the corresponding transcript and her notes despite demand by the judge of the MTC. Reynaldo Umali A. prompted only by the thought of helping more effectively in the speedy administration of justice. No. 2000.C. Villegas A. Leyte. SS14 and 17. MTC Judge Santos filed administrative complaints for failure to transcribe 66 stenographic notes within the prescribed period. The crossexamination of Umali also shows inconsistencies with what he stated in his summons report. 1990.M. June 23. Cosca violated Rule 136. Laranang transcribed only 55 but submitted them out of time. suspended for 6 months. Moreover.M. Cosca had brought home the notes in good faith and without any ulterior motive. As executive secretary of NEGA. the requirements to deliver the notes to the clerk of court immediately at the close of the session so that they can be attached to the record must be understood to have been pro tanto modified in the sense that stenographers are required to deliver their notes only after transcribing them. Assuming her excuse of illness. 326 SCRA 373 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Unsatisfied by court stenographer Laranang’s excuses of illness. 345 SCRA 42 PONENTE: Panganiban Page 41 of 43 . Falsification by Apprentice Utility Worker Pizarro v. records show her tardiness 35 times within a span of 3 months. Falsification of the return is a grave misconduct punishable by dismissal. With the requirement in Administrative Circular No.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS for finding him guilty of insubordination. In fact. of the Rules of Court. She is guilty of gross neglect of duty and habitual tardiness. however. Aurora Laranang A. 24-90 on July 12. Feb. b.M. 2000. Other Officers a. Company in Calubian. we can accord to the presumption of good faith. P-93-799. P-00-1368. However. 20. P-97-1243. the records show that he did not stay in the courthouse which formerly served as enlisted men's barrack of the 354th P. 4. it does not appear that the falsification was dons to favor the plaintiffs in the case or deprive NEGA of the right to be heard. Cosca A. 3. a competent person found in charge of the given address. a lesser penalty is imposed. suspended for 6 months. 1995. The transcription of notes must be done in office. HELD: With the promulgation of Administrative Circular No. M. 28. 334 SCRA 247 PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS: Umali was designated by the court to serve summons to NEGA. 2000. P-99-1300. No. Considering that this is respondent’s first administrative case. Stenographer Abelardo Santos vs. The summons was served by substituted service to Maravillas. 24-90 to transcribe notes within a short time. and for repeated tardiness. Thus. As to the allegation that respondent used a room of the courthouse for his living quarters. an association. Juvy N. Esmeralda-Baroy vs. Laranang should have asked for an extension. No. HELD Administrative Circular 24-90 enjoins stenographers to transcribe all notes not later than 20 days from their taking.

in view of an en banc Resolution of the SC detailing him to the RTC of Quezon City. 342 SCRA 389. c. personnel are mandated to act with justice and sincerity by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. PONENTE: Puno FACTS: Executive Judge Ligaya issued a Directive placing Alfonso on AWOL status. 94-1-061-SC. he should have borne in mind that his arrogant and insolent attitude in refusing to help locate and find the missing record of a case is violative of the norms of public accountability. the SC reduced the recommended penalty because it was a first offense) d. 243 SCRA 19 PONENTE: Mendoza Facts: This complaint was filed by Atty. 29. Complainant learned later from his former personnel that respondent had been appointed utility worker and was already reporting for work in his former sala. The new Executive Judge recommended dismissal. Due Diligence Over Court Paraphernalia by Legal Researcher Mutia-Hagad vs. then assigned to RTC of Ilocus Sur. 1995. Ligaya wrote to the Office of the Court Administrator a letter reporting that Alfonso had returned and was regularly reporting for work and diligently performing his duties. it felt it proper to teach Alfonso a lesson by suspending him for 6 months without pay plus the usual ‘stern warning’. Mar.M. Habitual absence without approval is inimical to public service and deserves to be meted a disciplinary sanction. the SC took notice of Alfonso’s frequent absences without official leave even before the present case.M. Suppressing Facts. When asked by respondent to indorse his appointment as utility worker. Page 42 of 43 . In this case. complainant declined. 3. Before Alfonso could be formally fired however. No. Repeated Absences Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Edelito Alfonso A. 341 SCRA 382. (Also notable in this case. Denila A. Indeed.L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS FACTS: In 1996. The latter claims he was absent because he underwent medical treatment for peptic ulcer (which was true). in order to determine the latter’s fitness and aptitude for possible employment in said court. HELD: The appointment of the respondent is cancelled. Judge Pizarro. Making False Statements. Oct. 2000. 2000. No. were it not for the letter and the illness. Oct. and Destroying Evidence. The latter thought that he no longer had any authority to recommend an application for employment in the former RTC. engaged the services of respondent as an apprentice for 2 weeks. Yuseco and Gercia against Deputy Court Administrator Bernad. Joaquin Yuseco vs. HELD: By the very nature of his duties and responsibilities as legal researcher. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. Juanito Bernad A. His argument that it is no longer his job to recover the record is unwarranted and a clear showing of his ‘supercilious comportment’. should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice. No. e. P-00-1430. M. 10. charging him with suppressing facts and making false statements in his report to the Court in the disbarment case against Gercia. Atty. all gov’t. PONENTE: Melo FACTS: The complainant charged the defendant for gross malfeasance for losing certain records of a case that was entrusted to him and not caring whether they were recovered. Again. from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk. Alfonso would have been probably dismissed. Complainant thereafter charged respondent with falsifying his signature in order to secure from the SC his appointment as court aide. 00-2-27 MTCC. that he was a ‘reformed’ man and he was really absent because of illness. HELD: Although Ligaya’s letter might have seemed to have saved the day for Alfonso. So even though the SC granted the lifting of the AWOL status for humanitarian considerations.

L E G A L E T H I C S DIGESTS Held: Bernad had no duty to furnish him a copy of his report in the disbarment case. It was the decision of the Court that Gercia as respondent was entitled to receive. Page 43 of 43 . What complainants charge as suppression in the report are omissions of facts which in the exercise of sound judgment were found to be immaterial. That report was submitted to the court solely for its use.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful