CONCERNED BOHOLANOS FOR LAW AND ORDER vs.

 JUDGE
DIONISIO R. CALIBO, JR., RTC, BRANCH 50, LOAY, BOHOL

FACTS:
Judge Dionisio R. Calibo, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50,
Loay, Bohol, is charged with conduct unbecoming a judge and highly
unethical act for publicly speaking on radio and in public fora regarding his
bias and parochial views on certain controversial issues against public
personalities and public officials. Respondent claimed that the complaint
was initiated by the "alter ego" of the provincial governor because of his
objection to the sale of the performing assets of the provincial government
of Bohol disadvantageous to the latter. The Provincial Governor of Bohol
plans to sell the two major assets of the province, the electric and water
system, without consulting its customers. The residents vigorously protested
against the projected sale and consequently filed a petition for injunction
before the sala of Judge Melicor to stop the same.

One of those who objected to the sale is Judge Calibo, herein respondent,
who aired his oppositions by publicly speaking on radio and in public fora.
He admitted of having taken a stand for the affected customers. During the
pendency of the petition for injunction, Judge Calibo made two (2)
telephone calls to Judge Melicor. Because of said act, the former was
accused of attempting to influence the latter, in violation of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct. Hence, this instant administrative case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Calibo violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING:
Judge Calibo violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Section 3 of
Canon I of said Code states that, “Judges shall refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another
court or administrative agency.” By making the inappropriate
telephone calls to Judge Melicor who was presiding the Court where the
injunction case was being heard and considering his stand regarding the
issue in the case, Judge Calibo has clearly committed what is proscribed by
the above-quoted provision.

Accordingly, Judge Calibo is declared guilty of serious misconduct and is

ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.

JUDGE NAPOLEON INOTURAN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133,

Makati City v. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal

1
Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental

FACTS:
These are two (2) consolidated cases filed against respondent. The first case
involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to comply with the directives of the
Court. Respondent Judge was directed to explain why he should not be
administratively charged for approving the applications for bail of the
accused and ordering their release in the other criminal cases filed with other
courts. Judge Limsiaco twice moved for an extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration of the above decision and to comply with the
Court’s directive requiring him to submit an explanation due to his poor
health condition. Despite the extension of time given however, Judge
Limsiaco failed to file his motion for reconsideration and the required
explanation.

The second case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to decide a case
within the 90-day reglementary period. Guinanao claimed that Judge
Limsiaco failed to seasonably decide the ejectment case he filed which had
been submitted for resolution. Under the pain of a show cause order for
contempt for failure to heed the OCA directives to file a comment, Judge
Limsiaco informed the court that he had already decided the case on
February 4, 2008. Subsequently, the court resolved to declare Judge
Limsiaco in contempt and to impose a fine of P1,000.00 for his continued
failure to file the required comment to the administrative complaint. The
records show that Judge Limsiaco paid the P1,000.00 fine but did not submit
the required comment.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s failure to comply with the rules,

directives and circulars issued by the Supreme Court violates Canon 1 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING: The Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court emphasized that
compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one
of the foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This
duty is verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:

Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by Judge Limsiaco

constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Court’s authority.
His conduct also reveals his deliberate disrespect and indifference to the
authority of the Court, shown by his failure to heed its warnings and
directives. Moreover, his conduct failed to provide a good example for other
court personnel, and the public as well, in placing significance to the Court’s
directives and the importance of complying with them. This behavior is

2
unacceptable to the Court. Public confidence in the judiciary can only be
achieved when the court personnel conduct themselves in a dignified
manner befitting the public office they are holding. They should avoid
conduct or any demeanor that may tarnish or diminish the authority of the
Supreme Court.  

Considering that he respondent judge has already retired from service, the
Court declared all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits,
forfeited. Furthermore, he is barred from re-employment in any branch or
service of the government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.