You are on page 1of 15


ABASTILLAS, Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 50 Bacolod City, Respondent.


Enrique S. Chua for complainants.

A.M. No. RTJ-92-863 and AC. No. 3815. July 11, 1994


Judge Renato E. Abastillas was the presiding judge of the Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011, where
Johnson Lee and Bonny Moreno are defendants. Judge Abastillas solicited the amount of PhP50, 000.00
from Atty. Chua to secure a favorable decision on the said criminal cases, which he communicated to his
clients (Lee and Moreno). Johnson Lee then financed the PhP20, 000.00 as a down payment and was
delivered by Atty, Chua to Judge Abastillas. Lee had 3 meetings with Judge Abastillas to discuss the
merits of the case and the payment of $5, 000.00. Lee even recorded the telephone conversation he had
with the respondent judge.

On the other hand, Atty. Chua was charged administratively for allowing himself to be used as a conduit
for illegal and immoral act.


1. WON Judge Abastillas has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct?

2. WON Atty. Chua has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?


1. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge should be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence (Rule 1.01). He should administer justice impartially and without delay (Rule
1.02). He should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary (Rule 2.01).

It is peculiarly essential that the system for establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high
degree of proficiency, to gain the absolute confidence of the public in the integrity and impartiality of its
administration, because appearance is as important as reality, so much so that a judge, like Cesar’s wife,
must not only be pure but beyond suspicion. The actuations of Judge Abastillas transgressed against the
high standard of moral ethics required of judges.

2. Atty. Chua is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, canon 1, of the Code of Professional Responsibility in
view of his admission that he allegedly delivered PhP20, 000.00 as bribe money to Judge Abastillas,
thereby allowing himself to be used as a conduit for an illegal and immoral act. Rule 1.01 provides that
"A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

despite several oral and written requests and motions for its early decision made by the complainant. RULING: They found respondent JUDGE MANUEL P. 9441-P. with utmost dispatch. who is the defendant in Civil Case No. More specifically. the respondent again assured him that the decision would be released after New Year ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the judge constitute an administrative offense. On 16 December 1991. . he alleges that since eight months after the case was submitted for decision. the respondent again assured the complainant that the decision would be released before the end of the year. Andrew Inocencio of the Office of the Court Administrator told the complainant that the respondent would inform the Office about the case on the last day of October. and another Motion to Resolve Motion to Render Decision on 21 December 1990. an Ex-parte Motion to Resolve Motion to Render Decision on 14 September 1990. The respondent explained that since he heard only the last part of the case. he again inquired about the decision and the respondent personally informed him that he would resolve the case the following month since he would have to give priority first to cases involving prisoners. if he still has not done so. On 28 October 1991. Yet. DUMATOL guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. On each occasion. Madamba that the decision would be released on 15 December 1991. he had been going to the sala of the respondent to inquire about the status of the case. DUMATOL FACTS: Respondent. a certain Vida Garcia always informed him that the respondent was either busy or not yet in. He also filed with the respondent’s court an Ex-parte Motion to Render Decision on 5 May 1990. Complainant. was charged with inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties in a verified letter- complaint. 9441-P. he still needed time to study the case records. the respondent failed to decide the case. He was assured by Atty.MOISES S. the complainant went to the sala of the respondent on 25 November 1991. BENTULAN vs. Complainant further avers that in August 1991. But since by November the said Office had not received any call from the respondent. alleges in the letter-complaint that the said case was instituted on 6 February 1984 and was submitted for decision as early as 29 September 1989. On 27 December 1991. the incumbent Presiding Judge of Branch 112 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. Respondent Judge is further directed to decide Civil Case No. Atty. JUDGE MANUEL P.

ISSUE: WON Article 40 of the Family Code is applicable to the case at bar. Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3. Atienza for Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety against Judge Francisco Brillantes. .” This is particularly true with Article 40. neither party applied for a marriage license. BRILLANTES. Complainant alleged that he has two children with Yolanda De Castro with whom respondent Judge was cohabiting with. the same was not a valid marriage for lack of a marriage license. 1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage. Respondent claims that when he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles. he believed in all good faith and for all legal intents and purposes that he was single because his first marriage was solemnized without a license. which is a rule of procedure.ATIENZA v. Jr. California in 1991. while the second marriage took place in 1991 and governed by the Family Code. Respondent also argues that the provision of Article 40 of the Family Code does not apply to him considering that his first marriage took place in 1965 and was governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines. said Article is given “retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Besides. HELD: Yes. Jr. respondent went through another marriage ceremony with her in Manila. Again. Respondent alleges that while he and Ongkiko went through a marriage ceremony (1965) before a Nueva Ecija town Mayor. Complainant claimed that respondent is married to one Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has 5 children. Respondent has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case. FACTS: This is a complaint by Lupo A. Upon request of the parents of Ongkiko. under Article 256 of the Family Code.

took this as an opportunity to secure employment for his son.” .” Despite the cordial gesture. ISSUES/HELD (1) WON Judge Caoibes deliberately inflicted fistic blows to complainant Judge Alumbres .YES RATIO (1) Judge Caoibes threw two punches at Judge Alumbres. Halika. not only on the bench and in the performance of judicial duties. Incensed at the fierce reaction of Alumbres. Alumbres lent an executive table to Caoibes for his temporary use. He had the privilege of recommending to the Supreme Court the appointment of his own choice. the size of a pinhead similar to a mosquito bite. he must be studiously careful himself to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law. One of the deputy sheriffs place placed himself between the two. lest it be demoralizing example of others. Alumbres swung at Caoibes while the latter was being led away but the blow missed. should be beyond reproach. extended his right hand to shake that latter’s right hand. a newly created branch of RTC Pasay City.” FACTS Judge Caoibes was appointed presiding judge of Branch 253. who was then the executive judge of the court. saying “Huwag naman. Being the visible representation of the law and the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice. the first hitting his right temple and the second. Caoibes shouted “Tarantado ito. Caoibes greeted Alumbres “Hoy. Caoibes also delivered a right hook. Akin naman iyun. BUT this does not detract from the gravity of the offense committed. eh. Caoibes withdrew his earlier recommendation of Alumbres’ son and instead. Judge Alumbres. Alumbres then went to Caoibes’ chambers to take back his table. The judges had lunch together and both agreed to the appointment of Alumbres’ son as process server of Branch 253. Alumbres held Caoibes’ right wrist and forcefully jerked it. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Caoibes put his left arm around Alumbres’ shoulder.” In response. hitting him on the right temple. Alumbres sent his deputy sheriff to take back his table from Caiobes but he refused to return the table until his office furniture was delivered by the SC. ano ba ang atin?” The latter replied in an angry tone “Joey. pagusapan natin dine. the punches of Caoibes were not severe as the injuries sustained by Alumbres were mere superficial. the left side of his jaw. Later on. ah” and swung his left arm towards Alumbres. but also in his everyday life.ALUMBRES v CAOIBES DOCTRINE Canon of Judicial Ethics: “A judge’s official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety and his personal behavior. recommended someone else. grazing Alumbres’ lower jaw. Contrary to the claim of Alumbres. kukunin ko na ang table ko.

they have failed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. RULING: Yes. relative to the issuance of a warrant of arrest of the respondent judge against the accused Tranquilino Calo Jr.M. A judge should not only render a just. . not only to observe proper decorum expected of member of the judiciary. It has been an established legal principle or rule that in cases where a person is accused of a capital offense. Misbehavior within and around their vicinity diminishes their sanctity and dignity. DECISION Judge Caoibes is guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.Rule 2.000. before resolving the issue of bail for the temporary release of the accused. impartiality and integrity. for grave ignorance of the law. DABALOS A. which is contrary to established principles of law. against respondent Judge Rosarito F. He should not have allowed himself to be swayed into issuing an order fixing bail for the temporary release of the accused charged with murder.01 provides that “A judge should behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. By fighting within the court premises. public opinion or fear of criticism. and Belarmino Alloco for the crime of murder fixing their bail without any prior hearing. Libarios for and on behalf of his client Mariano Corvera. NO. to allow the prosecution an opportunity to present. with the fine of P20. A judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan or personal interests. Dabalos. correct and impartial decision but should do so in a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness. LIBARIOS VS JUDGE ROSARITO F. ROAN I.00) and WARNED to exercise more care and diligence in the performance of his duties as a judge. Dabalos violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. and that the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severally. the trial court must conduct a hearing in a summary proceeding. gross misconduct and partiality. 1991 Topic: CANON 1 SECTION 4 FACTS: An administrative complaint was filed by Roan I. More contemptible. the parties have failed. RTJ-89-286 July 11. grave abuse of discretion. the altercation arose out of a squabble involving a mere table. Jr. Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect and are regarded sacred places. without a hearing.00 with a warning that a repetition in the future will be dealt with more severely. The respondent judge is imposed of a FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20.000. within a reasonable time. all evidence it may desire to produce to prove that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. ISSUE: W/N Judge Rosarito F.

The trial court granted the request. only to watch and decide the results of a game. Each of the four pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. rape and physical injuries before the RTC of Malolos. trial proceeded against the rest. however. the infirmity was corrected by the trial court itself when it subsequently issued a full-blown Judgment — dated 21 August 1989 — which contains a summary of the evidence for the parties. In criminal cases. Bulacan. and of promulgating a judgment "right in the hearing when the defense presented its case and within seconds after both sides rested their cases" HELD The questions propounded by the trial judge merely sought to clarify important matters. directing them to ask questions that would elicit the facts on the issues involved. personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which the judgment is based. 90626 August 18. sought leave of court to change their plea to guilty. Such a promulgation was necessary considering that the sentence dictated by the trial judge on 21 August 1989 is not similar in all respects to the dispositive portion of the full-blown decision. Villena filed a motion to withdraw her appeal with the SC. Thereupon. It is true that as earlier adverted to. however. Rule 120 of the Rules of Court requires that a "judgment must be written in the official language. it is logical to presume that the same was properly promulgated. 1989." Be that as it may. upon orders of the Presiding Judge thereof. ISSUE Whether appellant Palangoy was denied due process averring that the trial judge displayed manifest bias and prejudice against him by asking questions which led witnesses to a preconceived notion of what the facts are. It must. they should have as much interest as counsel in the orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence. yield any proof that this full-blown Judgment was promulgated. The trial court directed the assistant public prosecutor to amend the information by including another co-accused. clarifying ambiguous remarks by witnesses and so on. be stressed here that the "verbal" judgment promulgated by the trial court was incomplete as it does not contain findings of fact and is not signed by the Judge. Section 2. In view of the fact that in the Notice of Appeal.PEOPLE VS LASCUNA GR No. The records do not. The Constitution provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. calling the attention of such counsel to points at issue that are overlooked. findings of fact and the signature of the Judge. After the principal prosecution witness had completed her testimony on direct examination.Rosita Villena and Placido Palangoy. re-arraigned them and issued an order convicting them of the crimes charged. Judges are not mere referees like those of a boxing bout. properly transmitted the same to the SC. 2 of the accused . 1993 FACTS Accused were charged with robbery with homicide. the trial court orally "promulgated" its judgment by dictating the same to the stenographer on 21 August 1989 after the completion of the testimonies of both Rosita Villena and the appellant and the prosecutor's manifestation that no rebuttal evidence was to be presented. . Villena and Palangoy filed their notice of appeal but the records of the cases were erroneously forwarded to the CA which. the appellant explicitly refers to the Judgment dated 21 August. This appeal concerns only Palangoy.

Sulu Islamic Association of Masjid Lambayong vs. Issues: 1. Judge Malik violated Rep. Judge Malik had a second wife. social. Malik A. Whether an appointing authority (gov’t official/employee) is obliged to disclose his relatives also working in the government? Ruling: 1. . Also. 2. under section 8(b) Republic Act 6713 (Code of Cunduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) states that: “It shall be the duty of every public official or employee to identify and disclose. No. Sulu of which Sulu Islamic Association of Masjid Lambayong filed an administrative complaint with charges of nepotism. otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Laws of the Philippines. Judge Nabdar Malik recommended the appointment of his nephew. named Lourdes. graft and corruption. Yes. No. being a Tausug. while his first marriage with Marina Malik existed. under the Muslim Law and the Holy Qua’an. marrying more than one wife is allowed provided the man can afford financially and can give equity and justice to the wives. with Marina’s knowledge. his relatives in the government in the form. 2. MTJ-92-691 226 SCRA 193 September 10. provides that the penal laws relative to the crime of bigamy “shall not apply to a person married x x x under the Muslim Law. Act 6714 by falsifying certifications as to their relationship with Omar Kalim. article 180 of PD No. 1993 Facts: Judge Malik was a muslim judge and presides at the Municipal Trial Court in Jolo. manner. and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission. Omar Kalim.” Judge Malik also violated the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires that “a judge shall not allow family.” Judge Malik. is engaging in a polygamous relationship by Islam belief. to the position of Janitor in his court of which he made a false certification that his nephew (Omar Kalim) is not related to him (Judge Nabdar Malik) within the third degree either by affinity or consanguinity. 1083. to the best of his knowledge and information. and immorality against the former. He continued to make false certification until his nephew was made the process server. or other relationship to influence his judicial conduct or judgement” of which he failed to commit as he is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and falsification of a public document. The latter was in fact the son of Judge Malik’s elder sister therefore established an act of nepotism as they are related “within the third degree of consanguinity. Whether bigamy applies to all individuals who engage into marriage x times while a previous marriage exists.M. the son of his older sister.

the purported "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" cannot be considered to be effective. Thus Fortunato. The circumstances of this case show that the signatories to the waiver document did not have the clear and convincing intention to relinquish their rights. therefore. and Amelia Borromeo filed a pleading entitled "Compliance" wherein they submitted a proposal for the amicable settlement of the case. because the heirs acquire a right to succession from the moment of the death of the deceased. and (3) an intention to relinquish such right. BORROMEO 152 SCRA 172 FACTS: Vito Borromeo. In this case. . Fortunato Borromeo. The probate court held that the document presented as the will was a forgery. Several parties came before the court filing claims.BORROMEO-HERRERA vs. HELD: No. a widower died without forced heirs but leaving extensive properties in the province of Cebu. The testate proceeding was converted into an intestate proceeding. Tomas. Nor do such properties have the character of future property. could waive their hereditary rights in 1967 even if the order to partition the estate was issued only in 1969. Jose Junquera filed a petition for the probate of a one-page document as the last will and testament left by the said deceased. three elements are essential: (1) the existence of a right. ISSUE: Whether or not the waiver of hereditary right is valid. The petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the trial court's order declaring respondent Fortunato Borromeo entitled to 5/9 of the estate of Vito Borromeo. The prevailing jurisprudence on waiver of hereditary rights is that "the properties included in an existing inheritance cannot be considered as belonging to third persons with respect to the heirs. The heirs. He asserted and incorporated a Waiver of Hereditary Rights. (2) the knowledge of the existence thereof. who by fiction of law continue the personality of the former. filed a motion before the trial court praying that he be declared as one of the heirs. This shows that the "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" was never meant to be what the respondent now purports it to be. In the waiver. For a waiver to exist. five of the nine heirs relinquished to Fortunato their shares in the disputed estate. however.

necessity to determine the exact amount and confusion of court records due to the resignation of his key staff are very flimsy. There is no dispute that the decision of respondent had already become final & executory. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge’s refusal to issue a Writ of Execution was an act unbecoming of a judge. however. promulgated a decision in favor of herein complainants Spouses Adriano and Hilda Monterola in a civil case. While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgments. He made it clear that he would issue the order for the issuance of the Writ of Execution but there was a necessity to determine first the exact amount due the complainants. In failing to issue the Writ of Execution in compliance with the clear mandate of the said rule. His justification for his admitted delay in the issuance of the writ. in accordance with sec. In his comment. According to him. Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Caoibes. Jr. respondent all the more manifest a lack of familiarity on the harmonious interplay of the provisions of procedural law.MONTEROLA VS.5. it is highly imperative that they should be conversant with fundamental and basic legal principles in order to merit the confidence of the citizenry. Execution of the said decision should have issued as a matter of right. and proof of service. as it lacked notice of hearing. 1. pro forma character of the motion for execution. since the defendant Spouses Mario & Mavis Delagado did not appeal the decision and the period of appeal had already lapsed. respondent either deliberately disregarded the rule or demonstrated ignorance thereof. . respondent judge denied the allegations in the complaint. Caoibes. namely. the spouse filed a Motion for Execution. HELD: Yes. Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge CAOIBES Jr FACTS: Respondent Judge Jose F. this delay could not be considered as dereliction of duty because it was basically due to the sudden resignation of his personnel which gave rise to confusion that affected the disposition of pending matters. Due to said decision. refused to grant the motion for the issuance of the Writ of Execution.. Additionally. the Motion for Execution filed by the complainants was a pro forma motion for failing to comply with the requirements of sec. In attempting to hide his ignorance by anchoring his “inaction” on other provisions of the Rules of Court.

citing that the public officers cannot partake in any business in connection with this office. The project of partition of lots was not signed by the parties themselves but only by the respective counsel of plaintiffs and petitioner Bernardita R. spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interest inn Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing & Fishing Industries Inc. 1966 up to its incorporation on January 9. appears to have been abrogated because whenever there is a change in the sovereignty. In the case at bar. The said property was no longer the subject of litigation. Judge Asuncion did not violate the mentioned provisions constituting of "Acts unbecoming a Judge" but was reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities Respondent Judge did not buy the lot 1184-E directly on the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Galapon after the finality of the decision which he rendered on June 8. 2338 of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City. The Asuncions and Galapons were also the stockholder of the corporation Respondent Macariola charged Judge Asuncion with "Acts unbecoming a Judge" for violating the following provisions: Article 1491. respondent Judge Elias Asuncion rendered a decision in Civil Case 3010 final for lack of an appeal. 1963. One of the lots in the project of partition was Lot 1184. 1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two orders dated October and November. 1965 from Dr. Macariola. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77 Facts: On June 8. 3 of RA 3019. Upon the sovereignty from the Spain to the US and to the Republic of the Philippines. The Judge realized early that their interest in the corporation contravenes against Canon 25. 1966. Ruling: No. The Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January 31. On October 16. 12. 3 par H of RA 3019 also known as the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practice Act. Judge Asuncion was the President and his wife Victoria was the Secretary. Galapon who earlier purchased the lot from 3 of the plaintiffs. 1967. 1964. 1965. Arcadio Galapon bought Lot 1184-E on July 31. Article 14.. Article 14 of Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent. 1 & 5 of the Code of Commerce. 3010 but from Dr. Dr. Sec. par. Galapon sold a portion of the lot to Judge Asuncion and his wife. 14 of this Code of Commerce. Nepomuceno dismissed the complaints filed against Asuncion Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge violated the mentioned provisions. who was issued transfer of certificate of Title No. 5 of the New Civil Code. H. Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. On August 31. unless they are reenacted by Affirmative Act of the New Sovereign. When the Asuncion bought the lot on March 6. Art. On November 2. political laws of the former sovereign are automatically abrogated. par. 1963. 1963. 1963. a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion. 1967 from the corporation and sold their respective shares to 3rd parties. . Sec. Asuncion cannot also be held liable under the par. which was subdivided into 5 lots denominated as Lot 1184 A – E. or intervened or take part in his official capacity.Macariola Vs. On March 6. The Judge approved it in his order dated October 23. 1970 a certain Judge Jose D. which sourced from the Spanish Code of Commerce. and it appears that the corporation did not benefit in any case filed by or against it in court as there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance from the time of the drafting of the Articles of Incorporation of the corporation on March 12. Sec.

Marcos A. Cantano. Branch VII. After the usual raffle it was assigned to Judge Norito Torres. After having carefully examined the records in this case. In receiving P5. (Quiz vs. As the ejectment case progressed Judge Norito Torres had been pestering my client Mr. R-26374 for ejectment entitled. the Investigating Judge refrained from making a recommendation on the appropriate administrative penalty for respondent. OMPOC vs. JUDGE NORITO E. Charlie Taguiam with request for loans which he never acknowledged by means of a receipt and he was given by my client sums of money totalling Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25. defendant. They see in him an intermediary of justice between two conflicting interests. Judge Torres called my client and pressured him to enter into an amicable settlement with the plaintiff by paying the back rentals amounting to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200.000. and in refusing or failing to pay for an airconditioner installed in his wife's automobile van by a shop owned by a party litigant before him. 107 SCRA 196. respondent Judge is guilty of serious misconduct in office and of acts unbecoming a member of the judiciary. xerox copy is hereto attached Annex A. My client refused to enter into any kind of settlement because he believed in the justness of his cause3 Ruling: While he found the charges against respondent Judge to have been proven. Charlie Taguiam.000.000. the Court is convinced that respondent Judge did commit the acts with which he was charged. TORRES Facts: A civil case no.000. Montemayor vs. From him. In that meeting Judge Torres requested Mr. the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law.00 and P3. Mr. more importantly of justice.DAVID G. at one time he invited me to see him at his residence at Banawa. as loans which he never paid back and which to all appearances he never intended to pay back. who is engage (sic) in the business of Car Decor to install a brand new airconditioner on his Toyota Hi-Ace and said airconditioner was installed without Judge Norito Torres paying for it. proprietor of Deco Sales along with me. . Members of the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion.00 from a party to a litigation before him. Escobar. Inutan (64 SCRA 540) that 'the judge is the visible representation of the law and. Before he penned (sic) his decision on May 2. 107 SCRA 258) The Court had likewise stressed in De la Paz vs. 1986. Cebu City and he instructed me to bring my client. to the end of time because Judge Norito Torres is smart enough not to sign anything. Charlie Taguiam. was filed sometime in 1984 with the City Court of Cebu.00) because he may have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in the division of the spoils just in case my client would accede to it. While the case was being tried on the merits. 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 politly. Collado. plaintiff versus Deco Sales.00) in various amounts and on different dates. These loans have never been paid up to now and this certainly will not be paid.

Municipal Judge of Magsaysay. in complete disregard of the Decision of this Court in his own case. De Los Reyes. Number & Date: 3048. ISSUE: WON Judge Pallugna should be disbarred? FALLO: WHEREFORE. et al. and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics on "avoidance of appearance of impropriety. is hereby FINED Ten Thousand (P10. vs Pacana. same province. Jr. complainants pray that Judge Pallugna be disbarred or dismissed from the service for: (1) unauthorized practice of law. HELD: NO. et al. Macias on his own behalf and that of his co-complainants. Jr: Complaint filed against him was baseless in fact and in law.00) Pesos. Branch V.. (3) Judge Eulalio Rosete of the same Court. Respondent Judge Alejandro B. and (6) some private parties.000. and (3) Perjury. (2) Judge Severo Malvar. (5) Respondent lawyers.147 GG Case Title: Macias. Facts:  The Court dismissed the complaint against three of the Judges (Judge Malvar.  In this administrative case. June 3. Pallugna. Branch VIII. Misamis Oriental. G. Judge Rosete & former CA Justice Alfonso) for having become moot and academic.  Chief Attorney recommended that respondent Judge Pallugna be suspended for 6 months for unauthorized notarization of private documents and that the complaint against respondent lawyers including movant Atty. Delos Reyes. with a stern WARNING that the commission of similar acts in the future will warrant a severer sanction. District Judge of the then Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. (2) unauthorized notarization of private documents. (4) former Judge Federico Alfonso. the Tanodbayan and this Court. implicated: (1) Judge Alejandro B.R. Pallugna. Cagayan de Oro City. namely. supra. 1991 Nature of the Case: The original Complaint filed by petitioner Jose C. Jr be dismissed. Respondent’s Arguments: Atty. later Court of Appeals Justice. for having submitted two inconsistent comments to the investigating bodies. . and later City Judge of Gingoog City. for unauthorized notarization of three (3) private documents." which resulted in their having been cheated of their inheritance.

Jr. Jr. were permitted to pursue any other occupation or calling after office hours. Tan. he was authorized to engage in private practice by the then existing law and Judge Pallugna’s acquisition of estate property transpired after the proceedings had terminated and the property adjudicated to the legal heirs. Dr. Pallugna. Agustin V. By and large. contracts and other acts of conveyances. While Municipal Judges. such authorization excluded engaging in the work of a regular notary public (In re Appointment of Judge Alejandro B. and (2) for having filed Spec. 89-11. Petitioner". therefore. on 29 February 1972. NO. 1989) More importantly. They may not. L-29321. 1089 "For Adoption of Manuel Pacana. First. 43 SCRA 446). Neither is there sufficient evidence that Judge Pallugna had perjured himself. Unauthorized practice of law: Complainants claim that Respondent Judge engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by appearing. Respondent Judge notarized the three (3) private documents after this Court had affirmed. they may engage only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. as follows: (1) Deed of Absolute Sale (2) Memorandum of Agreement and (3) Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the late Cristina E. under Section 77 of the Judiciary Act. it was no longer in litigation. precisely because of the prohibition against Municipal Judges engaging in notarial work. 3. The records. the questionable maneuvers attributed to Respondent Judge in the handling of the subject cases do not provide basis for disciplinary action. Proc. (1) for one of the oppositors in Spec. before its amendment by Rep." both before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. the cancellation of his notarial commission by the then Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental ("In Re Appointment of Judge Pallugna. as Notary Public. 29 February 1972. Proc.1. however. As Notaries Public ex-officio. Vda. which bear no relation to the performance of their functions as Judges (Adm. . When the property was acquired. as Notary Public. except only in an ex officio capacity. Act No. 2.. undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents. The charge of unauthorized practice of law is a settled matter. Matter No.1303 MTC. It is well settled that Municipal Judges may not engage in notarial work except as Notaries Public ex-officio. sometime in 1970. 6031 on 4 August 1969. as such Notaries Public ex-officio.." supra). 59-M entitled "Re Petition for Intestate Estate of Deceased Moises Villamil. No. de Villamil. sufficiently provide a clear basis for a finding of Respondent Judge's administrative liability for unauthorized notarization of three (3) private documents.

a disbarment case was filed for conflicting interests. Roberto Romanillos. and must be pronounced guilty of gross misconduct. Romanillos acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who substituted for DCI. a clear violation of Rule 5. It also included his use of “judge” although he was found guilty of grave and serious misconduct. (he was a judge before. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent judge engaged in electioneering while still an MTC judge.Vistan v Nicolas. prior to the start of the campaign period. the SJHAI’s Board terminated Romanillos’ services.10.  In spite of this. he is guilty of violating his oath.  His continued use of “judge” violated Rules 1. but he was merely reprimanded.01. (page 106)  When SJHAI’s petition over the land was denied. 23 SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS V ROMANILLOS Facts:  This is a disbarment case against Atty. without disclosing it as such. for representing conflicting interests and for using the title “Judge” despite having been found guilty of grave and serious misconduct (in Zarate v Romanillos). demeaned the statude of his office. A. MTJ-87-79.  Also. The penalty imposed on him in the Zarate case forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and privileges: including the title judge. Inc. (DCI).  The IBP handled the case. For having held himself out as a congressional candidate while still a member of the Bench. and while still an MTC judge. . of the Code of Judicial Conduct. he still continued to serve as counsel for Durano-Rodriguez. respondent Ruben Nicolas started circulating handbills/letters addressed to electoral constitutents in the second district of Bulacan indicating his intention to run for a congressional seat.  Apparently. HELD: YES.  Thus. As long as the lawyer represents 2 or more opposing clients. Issue: W/N Romanillos should be disbarred Held:  Yes. But it allowed itself to represent San Jose Homeowners Association. incumbent and retired. respondent took advantage of his position to boost his candidacy.M.  Irrelevant info: the case above was an alleged violation of DCI of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protection Act.01 and 3. Canon 5. but he resigned instead of being booted out)  The title “judge” should be reserved only to judges. Inc (SJHAI) before the human Settlements Regulation Commission in a case against the same DCI. The lack of opposition does not mean consent. an not to those who were dishonorably discharged from the service.  It is inconsequential that SJHAI never questioned the propriety of respondent’s continued representation of Durano- Rodriguez. Romanillos was previously an active board member as corporate secretary of Durano Corp. DCI sold a land designated as a school site. No. 13 Sep 1991. a second disbarment case was filed. Thus. 201 SCRA 524 (1991) FACTS: Complainant Leonila Vistan alleged that as early as 10 Feb 1987.