Hernandez, Danica

JD1-A (Legal Ethics)

Assignment No. 8

Carlitos D. Lazo vs. Judge Antonio V. Tiong

Facts:

Respondent acted as judge of a criminal case involving brothers

who were the petitioner and the then accused Danilo D. Lazo. It was
also known that the judge is the first cousin of the wife of the
accused, thus making him fourth degree relative in consanguinity
with the accused. Upon failure to reach an amicable settlement, the
judge issued a warrant of arrest and fixed a bail bond for the accused
to which the accused immediately paid.

Despite the request of the complainant for the respondent to

inhibit himself from the case after the issuance of warrant of arrest,
the judge did not do the same until 2 months later. The complainant
then filed a complaint against the Judge for abuse of authority on the
grounds of purposely calendaring the initial proceedings on a date
where of his knowledge, a non-appearance day for the prosecutor
which was a purposive delay of the proceedings and on another
ground of failure of the presiding judge to inhibit himself from the
case.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that there

are no merits on the charge of purposely calendaring in the wrong
date of the initial proceedings of the case due to the calendaring is
done with the clerk’s sole discretion in confidence with him by the
presiding judge. But still, OCA recommended that the respondent
herein be severely reprimanded for his failure to timely inhibit himself
from the case.
Issue:

Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of the

administrative charges against him.

Ruling:

Respondent judge is guilty of the second charge due to his

failure to inhibit himself in the proceeding which is in violation of
Section 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court. The said rule discusses the
disqualification of Judge, which provides that “no judge or judicial
officer shall sit in any case in which he is related to either party
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel
within the fourth degree computed according to the rules of the civil
law.”

The judge is in fact a first cousin to the wife of the accused,

thus making him a fourth-degree affinity to the accused. He cannot
sacrifice the integrity of the judicial office on the chance that
complainant might relent and agree at last to settle the matter with
his brother. A period of two months is more than enough for
respondent to make use of his good office. The purpose of the
prohibition is to prevent both conflict of interest and the arise of
doubts on the candor discretion of the judge. How good his
intentions may be, the integrity of the court and its admirable
reputation shall not be levered on empathic and other emotion-based
situations. His failure of timely inhibition of himself from the case
evidently strengthen the allegation against him, through courts
levelled decision, must be dealt with.

The Court ruled against the respondent and reprimand him with
a warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more
severely.
Roan I. Libarios vs. Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos

Facts:

Former Mayor Mariano Corvera Sr. filed a criminal case of

frustrated murder against a Pablo Macapas. Macapas is a body guard
to the current Mayor Tranquilino Calo Jr. who also acted as defense
counsel to him. After the hearing in the sala of the respondent,
Corvera Sr. was shot dead by Macapas. The said incident was
claimed to be witnessed by Corvera’s bodyguard alleging that it was
Calo Jr. who gave the gun to Macapas and pushed him to kill Corvero
Sr.

Corvera Jr. and some supporters staged a rally praying for the
issuance of warrant for the accused and respondent was talked to by
Corvera Jr. praying for the issuance of the warrant. On the same day,
respondent produced warrant for the accused: No bail for Macapas,
but bailable of Php50,000 for Calo Jr. and Alloco. Respondent judge
fixed bail for the temporary release of accused Calo, Jr. and Allocod
on the ground that they were not charged as co-principals by
cooperation or inducement, and that the evidence of guilt against
them was merely circumstantial and that their guilt is not as strong.

The Court of Appeals however, ruled to disregard the resolution

of the lower court and order them to serve new warrants against the
accused for the earlier are null and void, and ordered the court to
conduct a hearing to determine the strength of guilt of the accused.
Petitioner then filed an administrative complaint defining
respondent’s production of warrants with bail have been ordered with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
and that the actions of respondent judge in granting bail to the
accused Calo, Jr. and Allocod without a hearing, is tantamount to
gross ignorance and willful, malicious and blatant disregard of the
provisions of Sec. 5, Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Issue:

Whether or not the judge is liable for grave abuse of discretion

by issuing bailable warrants to a capital offense without conducting
any hearing.

Ruling:

Yes, the judge is liable for grave abuse of discretion by issuing

bailable warrants to a capital offense without conducting any hearing.

Sec. 5, Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure requires

the court to conduct a hearing before an accused charged with a
capital offense can be granted bail, based on the strength of his guilt
to be determined by the evidences presented by the prosecution in
the said hearing. The respondent’s impartiality has been questioned
due to his close association with the accused and evidently seen on
his omission of a vital criminal procedure.

It may be obvious to a common human judgement that the

case at bar has something evidently strong against the accused.
However, the court finds such judgement inferior to what it shall
judge, because such is not established by neutrality and facts and
mostly governed by emotions and that every litigation must strictly
be followed in order to preserve such neutrality while the real truth is
being sought for. On the other hand, the court doesn’t tolerate such
use of power to advance someone’s interests. The court, should only
abide by the book and not disregard it in the expense of someone’s
comfort.
 However, a judge cannot be held liable to account or answer
criminally, civilly or administratively, for an erroneous judgment or
decision rendered by him in good faith. However, good faith is
negated by the circumstances on record. With this, the court
imposed a fine of Php20,000 against the respondent and warned him
to exercise more care and diligence in the performance of his duties
as a judge.

Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Judge Adriano R. Villamor

Facts:

The petitioner filed an administrative case against Justice

Villamor on the grounds of falsification of his monthly Certificates of
Service by making it appear that he had resolved all cases submitted
for decision within the ninety-day period required by the Judiciary Act
of 1948, Section 5. It was found that there were in fact eighty-seven
(87) pending cases still unresolved even though most of them
already have a complete transcript that the judge may look into to
decide upon them.

The investigation also revealed six total missing cases from the
Sala of the judge, though the latter contended that it was in
possession of the court. The complainant added a total of more 12
unresolved cases by this court and furnished the Court with an
affidavit from Judge Pitao of the MCTC, saying that the respondent-
judge intervened on a case at a lower court where he attached a
handwritten letter by the respondent delivered to Pitao through the
wife of the accused.

Although, the letter contained no direct wish to acquit the

accused, it has the tone for it and was strengthen by respondent’s
own words to Pitao in one meeting with him saying “Pitao better
acquit the accused.” After Pitao convicted the accused, he then
requested the case to be raised to the court and then decided guilt
for the accused despite no notice had been sent yet by the branch
clerk of court to the parties of the receipt of the entire record.

The respondent refuted the accusation of falsification of his

Certificates of Service. Regarding his comments against the alleged
intervention of him on a case handled by the lower court, he claimed
that it contained nothing more than a denial of the charge of
falsification and an attribution of ill motive to the complainant as
vengeance.

Issues:

Whether or not the judge is guilty of gross negligence in not

resolving the cases in his court prior to the ninety-day requirement of
the Judiciary Act of 1948 and falsifying his Certificates of Services to
cover such failures and;

Whether or not the judge is guilty of serious misconduct for

undue interest in a pending criminal case before a lower court.

Ruling:

Yes. Respondent is guilty of both gross negligence and serious

misconduct.

As stated in Canon 2, Rule 2.04 of the Judicial Code, “a Judge

shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation
or dispute pending before another Court. It is a cardinal rule that a
judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all activities.  Although in his letters, he did not expressly write the
acquittal of the accused, it was colored when he personally advised
the presiding judge of acquittal and when the said judge convicted
the accused, he wished elevation of the case and acquitted him
himself.

Moreover, Rule 3.08, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,

provides that “a judge should diligently discharge administrative
responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court
management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative
functions of other judges and court personnel. After investigating the
facts and evidence, it was found that respondent was guilty of the
following offenses: falsifying his Certificates of Service, gross
inefficiency in connection with missing records in his Sala, and of
utter indifferences to the directives of this Court, and of serious
misconduct for undue interest in a pending criminal case before a
lower Court.

Therefore, the Court dismissed respondent Judge Adriano R.

Villamor, Jr. from service, with forfeiture of all his accrued retirement
benefits, leave and other privileges, if any.

Mayor Roger S. Padilla vs. Hon. Roberto V. Zantua, Jr

Facts:

The petitioner filed administrative cases against the respondent

on grounds of failure to decide cases within the prescribed period,
unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases which have been
prejudicial to litigants, his manifest partiality in favor of a litigant and
fraternizing with lawyers who have pending cases in his sala.

It was always seen in the municipality the companionship of

the Judge and an Atty. Schneider who the respondent claims to be
the only one lawyer in the municipality, which isn’t true because it is
of no time that the latter is the only lawyer in the municipality.
However, the latter denied these allegations against him. He said that
the delay in cases was not of his fault because it was either the
prosecution and the defendant parties who aren’t present in the
litigation, cause for extension of such case in his sala. He also refuted
accusations that he is a partial magistrate to an Atty. Schneider
because the attorney has lost three cases in his sala, proving that he
is not inclined to this lawyer. He justified that he is not fraternizing
and it is just natural for him to be friendly with Atty. Schneider but
maintains that their friendship has never been a hindrance to the
proper disposition of the cases in his sala.

The complaint was sent to OCA to which recommended to

absolve all charges against the judge for lack of merit.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent’s friendly acquaintance with a

lawyer practicing in his sala is a violation of his duties as a Judge.

Ruling:

Yes, the respondent’s friendly acquaintance with a lawyer

practicing in his sala is a violation of his duties as a Judge.

As per Rule 2.01 and Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, “a judge should behave at all times as to inspire public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” and that
“the prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”
Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy and
camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be asked from
respondent judge which he may find hard to resist.

There is nothing wrong with such honest friendship but it is

also a judge’s responsibility to maintain and cultivate public
confidence in the court and more exclusively in its discretion. Such
friendship, in the view of judging people is a by-product of malice
and advantageous attempts to bypass justice. Such spread of a
proverbial termite cannot be allowed in such courts, for it will tear
down the foundation of candor that the same court sworn to uphold.
A judge, as a manifestation of the court must avoid all impropriety
and the appearance thereof. 
 Respondent Judge is hereby reprimanded with a warning that a
repetition of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

Lucila Tan vs. Judge Maxwel S. Rosete

Facts:

The complainant filed an administrative case against the

respondent judge, who dismissed her two cases in court. The judge’s
clerk told her to call the Mayor’s office to help her in this case, to
which called was answered by her secretary and after meeting with
her, persuaded her to pay Php50,000.00 to speed things up in her
favor. Complainant then negotiated the payment and it was agreed
at Php20,000.00 which was sent to judge. The complainant claims
that after the payment the judge tried to extort more money
amounting to Php150,000.00 to her through one of respondent’s
employee. He said that the employee showed him copies of the
unsigned promulgation to persuade her to accede to judge’s wish.
Having given Php20,000.00 already and believing her evidences are
strong, she then denied the offer.

She then met the judge sometime in April 2001 at a night life
restaurant in QC. Judge was with some Buboy and Fernan while the
Complainant is with the Prosecutor and Prosecutor’s sister. When she
is waiting in her car, for her to leave, a man came over and asked if
he could have advance, to which she understood as payment, which
she didn’t acceded to. The man went back inside the restaurant.
Subsequently, the respondent called her home and told her not to go
to the promulgation because she already knows his decision.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated of Rule 140 of the Revised

Rules of Court and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic
Act No. 3019).

Ruling:

Yes, the respondent violated of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules

of Court and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019 provides for the corrupt practices of

public officers. The second paragraph states that a corrupt practice of
directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between the Government
and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law.

Though there are more testimonies against the petitioner, the

petitioner’s testimony sounds more meritorious than the ones against
her. She laid the context clear and without conflict on the facts of the
case while the opposing testimonies are inconsistent with one
another. Plus, the evidences presented by prosecution is stronger. If
what the complainant claims is false, she couldn’t’ve acquired such
copy of an undersigned promulgation. These are confidential and in
no way acquired if not through one of the respondent’s employees.
 Justices must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence. The exacting standards of conduct demanded from
judges by the court are to promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary because the knowledge of the law is
inadequate for a judge but also his candor and moral upholding of
the position. It is paramount that a judge’s attitude and behavior be
free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.

Finding the respondent guilty of gross misconduct which is

punishable under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court
suspends the respondent rom office without salary and other benefits
for four months.

Office of The Court Administrator vs. Judge Salvador P. De

Guzman, Jr.

Facts:

 The investigation of the alleged irregularities in service of some

judges in Makati are conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee. Former
Judge Cosico filed a complaint before Ad Hoc, against Judge De
Guzman for serious misconduct in connection with the lifting of the
notice of lis pendens in the civil case formerly handled by Cosico prior
to his retirement. The petitioner on the said civil case was a relative
to the wife of the respondent and a friend by the Judge.

While the said case was still on the sala of former judge,
respondent allegedly walked two times to wish for lifting of the lis
pendens which the former judge didn’t entertained. When Judge
Cosico retired, the case was obtained by the respondent through a
raffle by petitioner’s motion, to which the respondent tried to inhibit
himself because of his acquaintance to one party. Through the
consent of both parties, he stayed as judge of the case and lifted lis
pendens. Eventually, parties came into an accord and filed a joint
motion to dismiss.

Respondent denied having approached Judge Cosico asking him

to take any action in connection with the said case. He alleged that
he became aware of the case only when he was informed through
telephone by the President one of the parties involved who was his
former classmate in Ateneo de Manila, that said case was re-raffled
to his sala. He alleged also that although he and Judge Cosico have
been talking during the pendency of the case, he has no knowledge
of it and the focus of conversation was merely law.

The First Division of this court recommended that respondent

be reprimanded, with a warning of a more severe penalty in case of
repetition.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is liable of serious misconduct.

Ruling:

Yes, the respondent is liable of serious misconduct. Rule 2.04,

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that, “a judge shall
refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or judge.” The court finds merit
on the testimony of Judge Cosico against respondent on grounds that
there is no motive for Judge to lie especially in Ad Hoc before the
Chief Justice and prestige members of the bench. It is also illogical
for someone to bring down with lies a person who apparently did
nothing bad to him. However, in lifting the lis pendens as a presiding
judge of the case was not off his duty. He manifested his duty to the
full extent of truth and the lifting has nothing to do with respondent’s
personal interests. But going back to testimony of Judge Cosico, he
clearly violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

An exacting image of a magistrate is one that has personally

and professionally pursued candor and integrity of the justice as
bestowed upon them by the privilege of magistracy to promote public
confidence and respect to judicial system. These efforts of influencing
the outcome of a case with cheap corrupt diplomacies scratches and
tarnishes the very silver that the Judicial Conduct tries to shine. Being
the dispensers of justice, judges should not act in a way that would
cast suspicion in order to preserve faith in the administration of
justice.

 The court therefore finds the respondent guilty of misconduct

for influencing the course of litigation and a fine of ten thousand
pesos (Php10,000) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

ROLAND ERNEST MARIE SPELMANS vs. JUDGE GAYDIFREDO

OCAMPO

Facts:

Former wife of the respondent, Villan filed a case against a

caretaker Rencio and his wife of theft to frame them and use it as an
excuse to steal her husband’s, Spelman’s, personal belongings. The
case fell on respondent’s sala. In the course of investigation, Judge
Ocampo held an ocular inspection on the subject house and on the
other one, where Spelmans keep items of his late mother and the
respondent took some items with him. Spelman then filed a
complaint against Judge Ocampo at the office of the Ombudsman
which referred his case to OCA. In the respondent’s comments, he
denied holding the items for personal interest but according to him
was entrusted to him by Villan for safekeeping. However, after the
preliminary investigation on the case, the respondent dismissed the
complaint.

The Judge after receiving the complaint, contends that it was

only then he knew the separation of Villan and Spelmans and that
instead of hurling malicious accusations against him, Spelmans
should have thanked him for safekeeping of his items. He then
returned items to Spelmans. In a supplemental complaint Spelmans
further alleged that respondent requested him to sign an affidavit
which cleared his and prayed for the dismissal of the administrative
complaint.

OCA then found that the judge violated Canons 1 and 4 of the
Judicial Code of Conduct and recommended the imposition of a fine
of ₱5,000.00 on Judge Ocampo with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent’s taking and keeping of the

personal items belonging to Spelmans constitute a violation of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:

Yes, respondent’s taking and keeping of the personal items

belonging to Spelmans constitute a violation of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct.

Section 6, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that

“judges shall be independent in relation to society in general and in
relation to the particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.” The respondent’s arguments are unmeritorious and are
obviously unsatisfactory. The ocular was not needed in the first place
because the complaint filed was of ‘theft’ and not robbery. Oculars
are justifiable only if he needs to see angles from a forced break-in or
any other information significant for the determination of commission
of stealing.

Also, questions arise as to why would Villan, the wife of the

accused entrust the items to the judge of the complaint she had been
filed. Odd as it seems, respondent’s duty was to determine the right
judgement for the complaint and not act as a warehouseman. If
indeed, the request of the wife for him to keep items for safekeeping
is true, it does sound mighty obvious that the two have existing
affinity to which respondent should’ve been inhibited himself from
the case from the very beginning. And if he indeed safekept the said
items, the course of four years is oddly a long time.

By one’s common sense, these facts constitute to an act lazed

with malice and covet.  Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge. The Court
finds respondent guilty of gross misconduct and suspends him from
office without salary and other benefits for six (6) months. He is
warned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.

Apolinario Muñez vs. Judge Ciriaco Ariño

Facts:

Petitioner was involved in a land dispute. Mayor Irisari, acting

as mediator summoned petitioner and his opposing party to his
office. However, when petitioner failed to appear before the mayor,
Mayor Irisari then produced a warrant of arrest for the arrest of the
petitioner. It was then served to the petitioner and he was brought to
the mayor’s presence, but no investigation was later conducted.
Petitioner filed a complaint against Irisari to the Office of
Ombudsman for grave misconduct and usurpation of judicial function,
subsequently, he filed an administrative case on Sangguniang
Panlalawigan on this matter.
 The Ombudsman upon investigation then filed a criminal case
to the MCTC of Agusan, assigned to the respondent Judge Arino. The
mayor filed a motion to quash but the respondent judge denied the
motion on the ground that the power to issue warrants by mayors
was repealed when the 1987 Constitution took effect. On the parallel
case on the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, they ruled that the mayor be
suspended for eight months without pay for abuse of power and
misconduct, but DILG reversed the decision on basis that what the
mayor issued was not a warrant of arrest but a mere summon.

Mayor Irisari filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of

denial of respondent judge, invoking the resolution of the DILG to
which, the respondent adopted in granting the motion for
reconsideration. He reversed his own decision saying in confidence of
the findings of DILG. Upon receipt of the resolution, the petitioner
sent letters to PACC charging respondent of knowingly rendering
unjust judgement for dismissing the case against Mayor Irisari. The
Office of the Ombudsman recognized that while respondent judge
may have acted in good faith, he should nevertheless be
administratively held liable.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent judge committed gross

negligence in knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

Ruling:

Yes, the respondent judge committed gross negligence in

knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

As per Rule 1.01 of Code of Judicial Conduct, “a judge should

be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.”
Although respondent’s actions were probably in good faith, he
committed gross negligence in rendering unjust judgement and
ignorance of the basic legal concepts. He absolutely acted not in full
competence and without independence, even though he would not
admit it, that he based his discretion in the ruling of DILG, saying
that the decision “must be respected,” and without integrity due to
the fact that he reversed his own decision by a mere result of a
parallel investigation.

The respondent obviously committed violation is rendering

wrong and unjust judgement because the Mayor committed a crime
under Art. 241 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime of usurpation of
judicial authority is considered when it meets criteria such that the
offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government; and
that he assumes judicial powers, or obstructs the execution of any
order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction

A fine of P5,000.00 is imposed upon the respondent and he is

reminded of the diligent care in the performance of his duties as a
judge.

Concerned Boholanos For Law and Order vs. Judge Dionisio

R. Calibo, Jr.

Facts:

The complainants filed a charge against the respondent judge

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. The 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
government of Bohol. He further alleged that a very questionable and
controversial project was being pursued by the Provincial Governor
which was to sell the two major performing assets of the Province of
Bohol, without consulting its customers in Tagbilaran and Dauis.

The respondent added that although he is one of the

consumers affected by the projected sale, he kept silent. However,
when it became apparent that the Governor was ignoring the
legitimate issues presented by the people, he decided to take part in
the debate. However, the petitioners claimed that the respondent’s
two phone calls to Judge Achilles L. Melicor who was presiding the
court where the petition to stop the governor was pending definitely
violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Issue:

Whether or not, the respondent Judge violated the Code of

Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:

Yes, the respondent Judge violated the Code of Judicial

Conduct.

Section 3, Canon I of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that

"judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of
litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative
agency." The respondents’ two telephone calls to Judge Achilles L.
Melicor who was presiding the court where the petition to stop the
governor was pending, definitely violated the Code of Judicial
Conduct. As regards going on the air to express one’s opinion over a
matter of public concern, the undersigned believes that respondent
Judge cannot be held to answer administratively simply because he
was only exercising his constitutional right to be heard in a petition
for the redress of grievances. As a consumer and as a member of the
body politic, it was his right, nay his duty to air what he honestly
believed to be an incipient irregularity.

The Court declared the respondent judge guilty of serious

misconduct and is ordered to pay a FINE of Php20,000.00.

Judge Napoleon Inoturan vs. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco

Facts:

Mario Balucero was charged with two counts of violation of

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. During arraignment, Balucero failed to
appear despite notice, prompting Judge Inoturan to issue a bench
warrant against him. Subsequently, the arraignment of Balucero was
set several times but he failed to appear. Judge Inoturan ordered
that the property bond be cancelled and forfeited in favor of the
government and that an alias warrant of arrest be issued against
him.

Judge Inoturan then ordered Ignacio Denila, the Clerk of Court

of the MCTC of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, to forward to his
sala the property bond posted for Balucero. But Denila did not
comply with the said order. Consequently, Judge Inotutan cited him
in contempt of court and ordered him detained until he shall have
complied with the said directive. Denila voluntarily surrendered to the
police but was ordered released on the same day by Judge Limsiaco.

Respondent judge explained that Balucero appeared before him

and filed his bail bond hence, he issued the Order of Release. He
claimed that he gave the land title to Balucero so he could ask the
Register of Deeds to annotate the bail. However, Balucero failed to
return to him the title and other documents. However, upon
investigation, the Office of Court Administrator found that Judge
Limsiaco ordered the release of the some other accused although
they did not post bail. Limsiaco was administratively charged for
gross ignorance of the law and negligence in the performance of his
duties.

Issue:

Whether or not, respondent judge is liable for ignorance of the

law and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:

Yes, respondent is liable for ignorance of the law and violation

of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides

that a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence. By his actuations, respondent judge has shown his
incompetence and lack of integrity which obviously blemish the image
of the judiciary. Respondent judge failed to give a satisfactory
explanation why he issued the Release Order although accused
Balucero did not post bail and was not under detention. Likewise, as
stated by Judge Garvilles in his investigation, respondent judge acted
without authority in approving Balucero's alleged application for bail.

Clearly, respondent judge blatantly disregarded the Rules and

settled jurisprudence tantamount to gross ignorance of the law. To
constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must
not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but were
motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption. The facts
obtaining in this case speak of suspicious circumstances affecting
respondent judge's integrity and competence too glaring to ignore.

The Court found respondent guilty of ignorance of the law and

procedure and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A fine of
Php40,000.00 is imposed against him.