CRISELDA C. GACAD, Complainant, vs. JUDGE HILARION P.
The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not
CLAPIS, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Nabunturan,
Compostela Valley,Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257 July 17, 2012
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a Verified Complaint against Judge
Clapis for Grave Misconduct and Corrupt Practices, Grave
Abuse of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and
violations of Canon 1 (Rule 1.01, 1.02), Canon 2 (Rule 2.01),
and Canon 3 (Rule 3.05) of the Code of Judicial Conduct
relative to a criminal case.
Petitioner alleged that she met Judge Clapis at the
Golden Palace Hotel in Tagum City to talk about the case of
her brother. The prosecutor of the said case, Graciano Arafol,
informed the petitioner that the Judge will do everything for
her favor but on the pretext that in return she has to give
P50,000.00 to the Judge. During the meeting, the Judge, after
being satisfied of the promise of the petitioner for that
amount, told her "Sige, kay ako na bahala, gamuson nato ni
sila." (Okay, leave it all to me, we shall crush them.)
When the case was set on hearing, the Notices of
Hearings were mailed to the petitioner only after the date of
hearing. Judge Clapis started conducting the bail hearings
without an application for bail and granting the same without
affording the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the
guilt of the accused is strong. He set a preliminary conference
seven months from the date it was set, patently contrary to
his declaration of speedy trial for the case. However, the
judge claimed that notices were made verbally because of
time constraints. Nevertheless, he stressed that both sides
were given the opportunity to be heard since in almost all
proceedings, petitioner was in court and the orders were
done in open court. He admitted that his personnel
inadvertently scheduled the preliminary conference of the
case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty of the
charges.
HELD: YES.
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate
violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior in
connection with one’s performance of official functions and
duties. For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the judicial act
complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention
to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of well-known
rules.
a mere error of judgment.
The acts of Judge Clapis in meeting the petitioner, a
litigant in a case pending before his sala and telling those
words, constitute gross misconduct. Judge Clapis’ wrongful
intention and lack of judicial reasoning are made overt by the
circumstances on record. Judge Clapis cannot escape liability
by shifting the blame to his court personnel. He ought to
know that judges are ultimately responsible for order and
efficiency in their courts, and the subordinates are not the
guardians of the judge’s responsibility.
The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken
together, give doubt as to his impartiality, integrity and
propriety. His acts amount to gross misconduct constituting
violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly:
Canon 2, Section 1 and 2; Canon 3, Section 2 and 4; and
Canon 4, Section 1.
We also find Judge Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the
law for conducting bail hearings without a petition for bail
being filed by the accused and without affording the
prosecution an opportunity to prove that the guilt of the
accused is strong. Here, the act of Judge Clapis is not a mere
deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment but a patent
disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and
patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making
the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. If judges are
allowed to wantonly misuse the powers vested in them by
the law, there will not only be confusion in the administration
of justice but also oppressive disregard of the basic
requirements of due process.
In Re: Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos
A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC July 6, 2001
Complainant: Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos and Her Children
Respondent: Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos
FACTS: In 1996, complainant, the wife of respondent Judge
Ferdinand J. Marcos, and their children filed a complaint
against respondent for his failure to sufficiently support the
family and for having an illicit relationship with a law student.
Complainants prayed that all remuneration due respondent
be directly released to them but the complaint was later
withdrawn and dismissed.
In 2000, Chief Justice Hilario Davide recommended for the
suspension of respondent after a scandalous incident during
an exclusive Fun Run sponsored by the Philippine Judges
Association where respondent brought along a woman.
When Chief Justice pulled respondent aside to validate the
facts about the latter's illicit relationship with the woman,
respondent candidly admitted that he had been living with
the woman named Mae Tacaldo, for three (3) years already.

During investigation, respondent denied all the allegations.

However, the evidences including a phone bill addressed to
the respondent not to their conjugal dwelling but to the
address of the alleged mistress, a birthday card which read
“MT cares a lot, you know” and a vehicle and its insurance
policy under the name of both the respondent and his alleged
mistress, among others, proved respondent’s infidelity. The
matter of the illicit relationship was even published in the
newspapers.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the Code of

Judicial Conduct

HELD: YES. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff
of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his
judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as
a private individual. The Code dictates that a judge, in order
to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times.
Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should
freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might
be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

Keeping a mistress is certainly not an act one would expect of

a judge who is expected to possess the highest standard of
morality and decency. If a judge fails to have
high ethical standards, the confidence and high respect for
the judiciary diminishes as he represents the judiciary.

Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos has demonstrated himself to be

wanting of moral integrity. He has violated the code of
Judicial Conduct, which requires every judge to be the
embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence
and to avoid the appearance of impropriety in all activities as
to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary.

Having tarnished the image of the Judiciary, respondent was

ordered dismissed from service.