You are on page 1of 4

Canon 6

Facts: Judge Ramos was charged with gross
misconduct, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the
law, arbitrary detention, incompetence, grave
abuse of discretion, and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service allegedly for
erroneously issuing a warrant of arrest against
Bayaca. It was alleged that Bayaca was convicted
by Judge Ramos in a criminal case for arson
through reckless imprudence and imposed upon
him the penalty of imprisonment, with all the
accessory penalties imposed by law in addition
to the payment of costs and damages. On appeal,
the RTC deleted the penalty of imprisonment.
However, Judge Ramos subsequently issued a
warrant of arrest and Commitment on Final
Sentence
which
led
to
complainant’s
incarceration at the Solano District Jail from
August 8 to 28, 2006. In his comment, the judge
clarified that his issuance of the warrant of
arrest against Bacaya was a mistake done in
good faith and that the same was just a simple
negligence. Should the judge be disciplined?

Held: Yes. The judge was inexcusably negligent
when he issued a Warrant of Arrest and
Commitment to Final Sentence despite the
deletion by the appellate court of that portion of
the judgment imposing the penalty of
imprisonment. In the performance of his duties,
Judge Ramos failed to observe that diligence,
prudence and circumspection which the law
requires in the rendition of any public service. If
only Judge Ramos had exercised the requisite
thoroughness and caution, he would have noted
not only the modification of the monetary
awards by the appellate court, but also the
deletion of the penalty of imprisonment upon
which the Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to
Final Sentence that he signed was based.
(Bayaca v. Judge Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ07-1676,
Jan.
29,
2009)

SEC. 1, CANON 6

Facts: The record shows that, as of
September 30, 2006, the respondent
had not resolved seventy-one (71)
motions for reconsideration within the
prescribed ninety-day period, and he
had resolved one hundred seventy-nine
motions for reconsideration beyond the
reglementary period. As of the same
date, eighty-two cases submitted for
decision were still undecided, even after
the lapse of the twelve-month period
prescribed by the Constitution. He had
also decided four hundred nine case
beyond the one-year period.
Held: As to respondent’s other
administrative assignments, including
organizing
special
events,
the
respondent should only be reminded
that decision-making is the primordial
and most important duty of a member
of the judiciary.
The delay incurred by responent justice
in deciding or resolving the numerous
cases and matters mentioned above is,
therefore, unjustified. Even in the caseof
PNB v. NLRC and Archinas alone, the
respondent’s failure to resolve PNB’s
June
13,
2001
motion
for
reconsideration until after the lapse of
more than five years, despite Archinas’
four
motions
urging
immediate
resolution of the same, truly smacks of
gross inefficiency and serious dereliction
of duty. Worse, it invites suspicion of
malice, and casts doubt on the justice’s
fairness andintegrity. (Atty. Roberto
C. Padilla vs Assoc. Justice
Asuncion, Court of appeals A.M.
NO. 06-44-CA-J)

Facts: Judge Limsiaco was charged with gross
ignorance of the law and procedure and
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct when
it was established by the records and by his own
admission that he decided an ejectment case
before his sala more than two (2) years after it

Since the proper and efficient management of the court is the responsibility of the judge. Retired Judge Carteciano. if not contempt of the judicial system. the OCA issued an order for him to file a comment for the administrative complaint. Judge Go informed the OCA that during a physical inventory of records in her court. A number of months passed and still Judge Carteciano failed to comply with Judge Go's order. undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the court dockets is still the bane of . Why should delay be avoided in the administration of justice? Held: Delay results in undermining the people's faith in the judiciary and from whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and expected. Should the judge return court records upon retirement? Held: Yes.was declared submitted for resolution.. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character. Limsiaco. she discovered that there were records of cases which remained in the possession of former Judge Carteciano who had already compulsorily retired from the service on 29 August 2000. and may even be considered as outright disrespect for the Court. For a judge to exhibit indifference to a resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially is gross misconduct. specifically Section 5 of Canon 6? Held: Yes. Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Feb. a judge is obliged to return to the court the records of the cases filed in his sala upon his retirement. therefore. MTJ-07-1664. and reinforces in the mind of the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly. 318 entitled Dolores Imbang v.M. and more importantly of justice. but has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with. MTJ-01-1362.A. Antique with failure to decide a case within the 90-day reglementary period relative to Civil Case No. A resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. No. Despite the extension of time given however. 18. 2008) Section 5 canon 6 Facts: The instant administrative case arose when petitioner Imbang filed a sworn LetterComplaint charging Judge Del Rosario. v. he was held guilty of the said charge. PatnonganBugasong-Valderama. February. (Inoturan. a resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and should be complied with promptly and completely. A. he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of official functions. Alice Guerra for collection of sum of money with damages. In another complaint against him for Delay in the Disposition of a Case. He moved for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Acting on her inquiry. 22. Thus. The office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. Is the respondent judge administratively liable for unethical conduct and gross inefficiency under the provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.M. Certainly. the OCA directed Judge Go to issue an order directing Judge Carteciano to immediately return to the court the case records in his possession. be the first to follow the law and weave an example for the others to follow. Jr. No. A judge is the visible representation of the law. 2011) Section 2 canon 6 Facts: On 4 November 2003. Due to his delay of rendering the decision. Patnongan. Judge Limsiaco failed to file his motion for reconsideration and the required explanation thrice. Nor should it be complied with partially. he or she must. After all. (Office of the Court Administrator v.

Judges are expected to observe utmost diligence and dedication in the performance of their judicial functions and the discharge of their duties. However. A. should be regarded as mandatory. Judge Regencia rendered judgment only more than 2 years later. Judge del Rosario. (Imbang v. considering that it was her first infraction due to inadvertence.the judiciary.00. Judge Angeles alleged that she was the private complainant in the abovementioned cases which by order of respondent judge were submitted for decision and set for promulgation. 2004) SEC. 5. In this case. the delay could only be due to inadvertence. undue delay in rendering a decision or order constitutes a less serious charge punishable by either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three months or a fine of not more than P10. Sec. No. MTJ-03-1515.M. The former counters that she decided subject cases in due time and within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court. However. she immediately ordered its submission for resolution. In the case at bar. it is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure which clearly sets a period of 30 days from the submission of the last affidavit or position paper within which a decision must be issued.00 but not exceeding P20. efficiently. In fact. Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. If judges do not possess those traits. as such. from the time it was submitted for resolution to the time it was promulgated. said rendering of decision and promulgation of judgment incur delay after a lapse of 90 days and six (6) months.M. 3. fairly and with reasonable promptness. While rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases and. Held: Canon 6. thus. the civil case was already submitted for resolution.000.000. Angeles v. Under Section 9.2010) Facts: An administrative complaint was filed against MCTC Judge Regencia. Judge Regencia . CANON 6 Facts: Judge Angeles filed an administrative complaint for disbarment and dismissal from judiciary service against Judge Sempio Diy which stemmed from a consolidated criminal case. Respondent judge belies to the accusations hurled at her by complainant. (Judge Adoracion G. respectively. Despite this. Held: The Supreme Court held that prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. has allowed extensions of time due to justifiable reasons. RTJ-10-2248 September 29. the court believed that admonition would suffice. 5 of the NCJC states that judges shall perform all judicial duties including the delivery of reserved decisions. delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of the litigants. there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive that could have compelled respondent to delay the resolution of the subject motion. However. Being an ejectment case. Feb. the Court has nevertheless been mindful of the plight of judges and has been understanding of circumstances that may hinder them from promptly disposing of their businesses and. when respondent found out about the unresolved subject motion in the consolidated cases. Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy A. No. In the absence of malice.

and signing of the Roll of Attorneys.M. It was alleged that when the judge learned that the lawyer was an alumnus of MCQU and not of UP.M. a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this. (Gershon N. Judge Mary Jocylen G. 2014) Section 6 canon 6 Facts: Judge Belen was charged with conduct unbecoming of a judge allegedly for humiliating. MCTC. taking of the Lawyer’s oath. 2008) . demeaning and berating a young lawyer who appeared in his sala. Regencia. June 30.” Should the judge be disciplined? Held: Yes. threatening and boastful remarks to a young lawyer are improper. humiliating. Cebu. June 2.failed to proffer any acceptable reason in delaying the disposition of the ejectment case. (Atty. A. The judge’s sarcastic. MTJ-14-1841. not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being stated that we all are created equal in His form and substance. not all law students are created equal. irrespective of where he obtained his law degree. A. Judge Belen. Judges must be that even on the face of boorish behavior from those they deal with. Mane v. he must address the merits of the case and not on the person of the counsel. the judge made the following statement “you’re not from UP”. inter alia. As a judge. A judge must be aware that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentumad hominem. No. Dulang v. not all law schools are created equal. an officer of the court. Asturias-Balamban. No. they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court. making her administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision. RTJ-082119. thus. By hurdling the Bar Examinations.