You are on page 1of 7

177. Haw Tay vs.

Singayao
Facts: In a sworn Administrative Complaint filed with this Court on 4 April 1986, Mr.
Juanito L. Haw Tay charged Judge Eduardo Singayao of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, Cotabato City, with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(Republic Act No. 3019, as amended) and with gross ignorance of the law.
The respondent Judge filed his Answer, denying the allegations of the complaint and
claiming instead that complainant had subjected him to systematic harassment. By a
Resolution dated 20 January 1987, this Court referred this matter to Associate
Justice Eduardo R. Bengzon of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and
recommendations, and at the same time, suspended respondent Judge from office
pending the investigation and until further orders from the Court.
Issues: Whether or not respondent judge is liable.
Held: Yes. The acts of respondent Judge in demanding and receiving money from a
party-litigant before his court constitute serious misconduct in office. This Court
condemns in the strongest possible terms the misconduct of respondent Judge. It is
this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on the part of those who are charged with
the responsibility of administering the law and rendering justice that so quickly and
surely corrodes the respect for law and the courts without which government cannot
continue and that tears apart the very bonds of our polity. The respondent's
ignorance of the requirements of the Rules of Court and of elementary rules of
Commercial Law, is equally conspicuous. Respondent Judge combines in himself the
twin evils of corruption and ignorance of the law and thus constitutes a deseased
member which must be decisively severed from the body of the judiciary and cast
aside.
178. Lecaroz v. Garcia
Facts: Without going through the propriety of making representations with the office
of the Mayor and/or office of the Municipal Treasurer in order that the donated
equipments (sic) can be issued for the use of his office, Judge Garcia took it upon
himself to accept delivery of the equipments (sic) from Atty. Teodulo Gabor, Jr., a
Marcopper lawyer, and placed said equipments (sic) inside his office where they are
situated up to the present.
Issue: Whether respondent judge violated the code of judicial conduct.
Held: Yes. The act of respondent Judge discloses a deficiency in the prudence,
discretion and judgment that a member of the judiciary must exercise in the
performance of his functions, if the bench is to command the respect due thereto. In
his effort to furnish and equip well his office, respondent Judge should not lose sight
of the proper judicial norm.
179. Balagot vs. Opinion
Facts: In a sworn letter complaint dated July 13, 1990, Ruben Balagot complained
against respondent Municipal Judge Emilio Opinion due to alleged frequent

but recommended that respondent be reprimanded for his laxity in granting postponements in Civil Case No. regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property. 180. In affording this remedy. 4256 of the Municipal Trial Court. Manifestly. grave abuse of authority. 2. is that the party in peaceable and quiet possession should not be turned out by strong hand. as well as in Charges II and III. we have already ruled that with or without the transcribed stenographic notes. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is liable. 296. those who believe themselves entitled to the possession of property would resort to force to regain its possession. Legaspi City. judges are directed to take down notes of salient portions of the hearing and proceed in the preparation of decisions without waiting for the transcript of stenographic notes. 318 which resulted in the undue delay in the termination of said case. the 90-day period for deciding cases should be adhered to. Neither can his designation as Acting Judge of Branch 55 relieve him of his duty to decide the case within the reglementary period considering that he was designated only in May. Specifications 1. violence or terror.A.postponements of the trial of Criminal Case No. violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. 1986 and the rendition of judgment thereon only on February 1. Araza and Wilfredo F. 1138-85 which resulted in the termination of the said case in July. Held: District Judge Segundo M. Its purpose. conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. entitled "Salvacion B. Araza v. Garcia and Nicolas A. gross ignorance of the law. the peculiar nature of this action of forcible entry or unlawful detainer under Rule 70 of the Rules is to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. defendant" for a sum of money. Agu. Held: Yes. Lilia S. The period within which to decide a case should be reckoned from the date a case was submitted for decision. A delay in the transcription of stenographic notes cannot be considered a valid reason for the delay in rendering judgment in a case. Araza charging sheriffs Marlon M. Issue: Whether the respondent judge violated the code of judical conduct. gross inefficiency and incompetence." Respondent Judge is found guilty of neglect of duty for deciding the aforesaid criminal case beyond the ninety-day period as required by the Constitution and Section 5. relative to the implementation of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 1997 filed by Wilfredo F. the object of the law is to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder which would otherwise ensue if such remedy is withdrawn because then. In re: Paulin . 181. and 3. Reyes Facts: This administrative case arose from a letter-complaint dated July 2. 1990. recommended the exoneration of respondent Judge in Charge I. vs. plaintiffs. gross neglect of duty. Tonga with grave misconduct. 1987 or seven months after the due date of the decision on October 21. Zosa. 1986. R. Araza. Precisely. oppression. Furthermore. who investigated the case.

182. the matter hinges on Surban and Lacida cases. counsel for Cornelio Surban. 1970 with the municipal court of Roxas. 1970 to District Judge Guillermo Romero of Isabela. to Primitivo Betona. this was the basis for Cornelio Surban filing an action for damages in Court — Civil Case No. Mabbayad Facts: Complainant Felizardo Soriano of Roxas. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge should be disciplined. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is grossly ignorant of the law. charged respondent municipal judge Alfredo C. an error which he repeats in his first indorsement of September 29. V-243 against Judge Pompeyo Palarca which was dismissed by this Court for lack of cause of action and which dismissal was appealed to the Court of Appeals by the complainant. convicted of serious physical injuries punishable under article 263 (4) of the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum with a range of four months and one day to two years and four months. Cornelio Surban was convicted to an imprisonment of one month and one day and served 28 days imprisonment. Atty. instead of four months and one day to one year. imposing the penalty of three (3) months and twentyeight (28) days as minimum to six (6) months as maximum. Paulin of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte. one Melencio Aban alias Inciong was charged with murder for the death of Pablo Soriano in Criminal Case No. in a letter dated December 20. Soriano vs. 1970. In fact. Isabela. 1072 filed on May 5. Mabbayad of Roxas with "grave abuse of discretion and/or gross incompetence and inefficiency amounting to ignorance of the law. Held: The court ruled that a judge who resolved a motion to dismiss a criminal case only after 18 months and who failed to file the same and serve a copy thereof on the prosecution. Isabela. is unfit to continue in office for thereby he "disregards deliberately or is ignorant of the basic fundamentals of law and justice. 183. Monsanto. Monsanta vs. In the Surban case. Held: In his explanation as to why he imposed that sentence.Facts: The Deputy Court Administrator called the Court’s attention to the decision of Honorable Judge Jose C. censured or reprimanded him. The Supreme Court finding Judge Paulin’s knowledge of the duration and graduation of penalties and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law deficient. Judge Paulin erroneously stated that the penalty provided by article 263(4) is arresto mayor to prision correccional minimum with a range of "six months as minimum to two years and four months as maximum". 1980. or who repeatedly without reason absented himself from his station. From the records." The complainant is the brother of the deceased Pablo Soriano who was killed on or about May 5. Palarca Facts: Upon going over the evidence presented by the Complainant and the Respondent. .

the respondent. of the administrative charges filed against him by the complainant. he filed his bail bond after a warrant of arrest was issued against him and the second stage of preliminary investigation having been waived by him. that the accused in the more than thirty (30) cases cited by complainant had already served their corresponding sentences. Based on the foregoing. It was only lately that the Court have been extended the much needed relief by the assignment of two Municipal Judges to try cases in the City Court by the Honorable Supreme Court. baseless and unfounded criminal case of Qualified Trespass" against the complainant Hermogenes Anguluan and other persons as a consequence of which . Judge Palarca. Judge Pompeyo Palarca. it confounds this Court to note and understand how respondent Judge could have served twenty-four (24) years as City Judge of Iligan City and preside over the lives and liberties. The other grounds relied upon by the complainant need not be touched by the undersigned considering that the matter seem trivial and which redress to the Executive Judge. that the accused and their counsel should have appealed the erroneous decisions or could have filed habeas corpus proceedings but did not do so. are. 184.In the case of Franco Lacida. 1976. Cagayan with (1) conniving with Mayor Venture Baloran of Rizal. the fortunes and properties of party litigants coming to his court. Held: Yes. Taguba of Rizal. Suffice it to say. Taguba Facts: In a joint affidavit subscribed and sworn to at Tuguegarao."cralaw virtua1aw library Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is liable. the undersigned hereby recommend the exoneration of the respondent. Given the above poor and puerile protestation. that said accused were duly represented by counsel. Cagayan on September 10. The undersigned is aware that the City Court of Iligan City is a very congested Court with only one Judge Presiding and trying cases to the tune of from three to four thousand cases to date. Cagayan in the filing of "an imaginary. Stephen Monsanto. irresponsible. fabricated. to say the least. the case was remanded to Branch V and later on was dismissed upon motion of the Prosecution as the records will show. supra. Respondent Judge’s attempt to defend himself on the ground that he was not aware of Republic Act 5465. Judge Nathaniel Grospe. Hermogenes Anguluan and Angel Anguluan charged the respondent Municipal Judge Henry C. for the authority to examine records was granted and the other with respect to the incident between complainant and City Fiscal Jurado during the proceedings before the Respondent. have been in the service for more than 25 years as City Judge of Iligan City and have previously served as Assistant City Fiscal in Davao City. Anguluan vs. unsatisfactory and ridiculous. no sufficient and/or satisfactory evidence have been adduced by the complainant on the grounds relied upon. Atty. that he had not memorized the Revised Penal Code.

the Court cannot overlook the anomalous acts of the respondent judge." Issue: Whether or not respondent judge violated the code of judicial conduct. Sorsogon for (1) conduct unbecoming a judge. Furthermore. Esplayos vs. and (2) partiality in the administration of justice. then municipal judge of Magallanes. 1976. His excuse that he could not read without his eyeglasses asinine to say the least. and (2) advising the complainants and Aleco Anguluan. the respondent judge admitted that he did not explain the affidavit to the affiants before he administered the oath. a criminal complaint for less serious physical injuries. "A judge's official conduct should be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. alleging that on January 17. The respondent judge was either ignorant of his duty or he was impelled by an ulterior motive. Lee Facts: In a verified letter-complaint dated March 7. That impropriety generated the suspicion that the respondent was in collusion with the accused. Issue: Whether or not the respondent should be disciplined. a resident of Barrio Cambabangan. where he has an office as a municipal judge. Rizal.the persons charged were imprisoned for three (3) days at the municipal jail of Rizal on August 3." Under the established facts and circumstances. The actuations of the respondent judge seriously affected the public interest inasmuch as they involve the administration of justice. that the complainant brought the complaint to the respondent judge's house. 1977. Diosdado Gundan and Jose de la Cruz. who may. It was improper and unethical to suggest to Pareja what he should do at the arraignment. Held: Yes." 186. to sign an affidavit in the presence of Mayor Baloran on August 12. the respondent judge should be imposed a penalty of suspension from office without pay for three months. BALORAN. As stated by the Supreme Court in Vasquez versus Malvar. that he informed the judge that his injury is more serious than it appears and demonstrating to him by smoking and blowing out the smoke through his nose with the result that smoke came only through his right nose indicating that his left nose was closed. It is the sort of misbehavior which would be resented by the offended party and would make him surmise that the sentence meted to the accused was fixed or is what is known in the vernacular as lutong macao. docketed as Criminal Case No. 2044. And finally. Marcos . 1977 one Prodencio Pareja threw a piece of stone at the said complainant hitting him at the right side of his nose and as a consequence thereof the station commander of the Magallanes police department filed with the Municipal Court of Magallanes. Lapena vs. 1976 without allowing them to read the affidavit wherein the affiants admitted having entered upon "the area presently occupied and belonging to VENTURA B. for his signature. complainant Artemio Espayos charged Honorable Adelardo Lee. Cagayan. is to strip this Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the Judiciary. It is for this reason that the motion to withdraw the complaint filed by the complainants will not justify the dismissal of this administrative case against the respondent. Although the complainants have asked for the withdrawal of this complaint. for one reason or another. Held: Yes. to condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant. 185. condone a detestable act. 4 and 5.

respondent's wife filed a complaint in the case entitled. Jr. Baybayan during the existence of his legitimate marriage with Teresita Banzuela. Jr." 187. Malolos. In respect of the charge of deceitful conduct. on the other hand. In our rural areas and communities. They should be allowed to act and perform any service within the competency of a notary public. Facts: In her verified complaint. Abadilla vs. "A") and dispensed with the requirements of a marriage contract by invoking cohabitation with Baybayan for five years. Jose C. Teresita B. Atty. Crisostomo T. Roque. Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge should be disciplined. Bulacan. and Atty. Atty. Marcos of the Municipal Circuit Court of Gerona and Ramos. to have ready access to the municipal judge at his official station instead of travelling to the provincial capital or to the big towns where most lawyers practice as regular notaries. and prays for their dismissal from the service as public officials of the government and disbarment as attorneys. complainant Abadilla. 115 SCRA 451. Rule 141. Jr. 1975 and was also elected Secretary. especially the common people. The other respondent. and respondent Judge Martonino Marcos and Clerk of Court Crisostomo Roque were all former members of the Board of Directors of Tarlac Electric Cooperative. The Notarial Law as contained in the Revised Administrative Code. contends that respondent had scandalously and publicly cohabited with a certain Priscilla Q. Adding ignominy to an ignominious situation. It appears from the records that complainant Estanislao Lapena. 1977. Respondent Judge. Sections 231 to 252 and Sections 2632-2633 and the Rules of Court. with dishonesty. . Complainant claims that this was a bigamous union because of the fact that the respondent was then still very much married to Teresita Banzuela. 1976. He was dismissed from the service of TARELCO on July 18. he was elected President of the Board and on July 1.Facts: Complainant Estanislao G. in respect to the charge of gross immorality on the part of the respondent. breach of trust and gross misconduct. complainant claims that respondent caused to be registered as "legitimate". Tabiliran Jr. TARELCO Complainant was the General Manager and ex-oficio member of the Board of Directors in 1977. charges Judge Martonino R. respondent falsely represented himself as "single" in the marriage contract (Exh. On May 29. he was re-elected member thereof for another year ending July 1. respondent allegedly shamefacedly contracted marriage with the said Priscilla Baybayan on May 23. Lapena. require that "(o)fficers acting as notaries public ex oficio shall charge for their services the fees prescribed by law and account therefor as for Government funds. Of persuasive effect on the charge of immorality is the fact that. 1978. 1978. Tabiliran. Crisostomo Roque. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge violated the code of judicial ethics. there are few regular notaries and they do not keep regular office hours. CAR. Clerk of Court.. 1977. The demands of public service also justify that the authority of the municipal judge acting as notary public ex oficioshould not be limited to notarizing documents connected only with the exercise of their official duties. Tabiliran vs. Furthermore. Sections 6(h) and 9. became a member of the Board of Directors on July 2. Tarlac. Inc. earlier. was one of the incorporators when the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws were duly registered with the Office of the National Electrification Administration on January 24. It would be more convenient and less expensive for the public. Respondent stood charged therein for abandoning the family home and living with a certain Leonora Pillarion with whom he had a son. Held: Yes. 1986.

(Respondent's failure to properly account and turn over the fees collected by him as Ex-Officio notary to the municipal government as required by law raises the presumption that he had put such fund to his personal use.00 from the complainant therein. Denial. if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. It is unfortunate that respondent had failed to adhere to. . By committing the immorality in question. Amaguin. is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters (People v. With respect to the charge that respondent prepared an Affidavit of Desistance in a rape case filed before his sala for which he collected the amount of P500. 229 SCRA 166). respondent violated the trust reposed on his high office and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and strict standards of morality required of the law profession. respondent merely denied the said imputation but failed to offer any evidence to support such denial. and let this remind him once again of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.Held: Yes. to wit: Canon 2 A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.