G.R. No.

132223            June 19, 2001

BONIFACIA P. VANCIL, petitioner, 
vs.
HELEN G. BELMES, respondent.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Facts:

Petitioner, Bonifacia Vancil, is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a Navy serviceman of the
United States of America who died in the said country. During his lifetime, Reeder had two (2)
children named Valerie and Vincent by his common-law wife, Helen G. Belmes. Petitioner
commenced a guardianship proceedings over the children and the properties of both the minors
and was later appointed as the guardian.

On August 13, 1987, the natural mother of the minors submitted an opposition to the
subject guardianship proceedings asseverating that she had already filed a similar petition for
guardianship. Thereafter, Helen followed her opposition with a motion for the Removal of
Guardian and Appointment of a New One, asserting that she is the natural mother in actual
custody of and exercising parental authority over the subject minors and that there was an
improper venue. However, after due proceedings, the trial court ordered petitioner to enter the
office and perform her duties as such guardian upon the posting of a bond of P50,000.00.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and held that the designation of the
parents as ipso facto guardian of their minor children without need of a court appointment and
only for good reason may another person be named and that there is nothing on record of any
reason at all why Helen, the biological mother, should be deprived of her legal rights as natural
guardian of her minor children. Thus, petitioner filed a certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is the proper guardian of the minors.

Ruling:

No. the supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in holding that the natural mother of
the minor, has the preferential right over that of petitioner to be his guardian. This ruling finds
support in Article 211 of the Family Code which provides:

"Art. 211. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the
persons of their common children. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall
prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary. xxx."

Indeed, being the natural mother of minor Vincent, respondent has the corresponding natural
and legal right to his custody. Petitioner’s claim to be the guardian of said minor can only be
realized by way of substitute parental authority pursuant to Article 214 to which she could only
exercise in case of death, absence or unsuitability of respondent. Considering that respondent
is very much alive and has exercised continuously parental authority over Vincent, petitioner
has to prove, in asserting her right to be the minor’s guardian, respondent’s unsuitability.
Petitioner, however, has not proffered convincing evidence showing that respondent is not
suited to be the guardian of Vincent. Petitioner merely insists that respondent is morally unfit as
guardian of Valerie considering that her (respondent’s) live-in partner raped Valerie several
times. But Valerie, being now of major age, is no longer a subject of this guardianship
proceeding.

A.M. No. 08-41-SC

August 9, 2010

The Court En Banc, in a Resolution dated June 3, 2008, in A.M. No. 08-41-SC, resolved to
amend Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, to include the disqualification of clerks of
court, to wit:

"Sec. 1. Disqualification of Judges. - No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any

case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or 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, or in which he has been
executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has
presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of the
review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them
and agreed upon the record. The above disqualification shall likewise apply to
all clerks of court, assistant clerks of court, deputy clerks of court and branch
clerks of court in all court levels insofar as relevant to them in the performance
of their respective functions and duties. A judge may, in the exercise of his
sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned above."

To implement the aforequoted amendment, the Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona has
approved the guidelines for the temporary replacements of clerks of court in the handling of the
particular case/s from which they are disqualified under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court, as amended. These guidelines are as follows:

(1) The clerks of court in all the branches of the first and second level courts shall
conduct a screening of cases now pending before their respective courts to verify
and report in writing to their respective presiding judges, if there are grounds for
their disqualification in regard to the performance of their functions and duties,
under the first paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. If such
disqualification exists, the Presiding Judge of the court insofar as the particular
case/s is concerned until its termination.

(2) For newly filed/raffled case/s in a particular branch of the court, before any
pleading can be accepted, the counsel of the respective party-litigants shall be
directed to file written manifestations, under oath, declaring as to whether or not
they, or their respective clients are related to the clerk of court of the branch
where the case/s has been filed/raffled, stating therein their degree of
relationship by affinity or consanguinity.

Where there exists a relationship between the branch clerk of court and one of
the parties involved in the subject case/s or a counsel of any of the parties to the
case/s such that the branch clerk of court is disqualified in accordance with
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court as amended, the Presiding Judge of
the court shall issue an order relieving the clerk of court from handling the
particular case/s, and thereafter, shall designate an employee within the branch
to take over the functions of the branch clerk of court insofar as the particular
case/s is/are concerned until its termination.

(3) In the designation of the employee who will take over the functions of the
branch clerk of court, the Presiding Judge shall observe the provisions of Civil
Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 6, series of 2005, re: Guidelines
on Designation in the civil service, quoted hereunder:

"A. Employees to be designated should hold permanent appointments to career

positions. B. Designees can only be designated to positions within the level they
are currently occupying, xxx First level personnel cannot be designated to
perform the duties of second level positions."
AM No. 03-06-13-SC
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL
Cannon III

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SECTION 1. Court personnel shall avoid conflicts of interest in performing official

duties. Every court personnel is required to exercise utmost diligence in being
aware of conflicts of interest, disclosing conflicts of interest to the designated
authority, and terminating them as they arise.
(a) A conflict of interest exist when:
(i) the court personnel’s objective ability or independence of judgment
in performing official duties is impaired or may reasonably appear to
be impaired; or
(ii) the court personnel, the personnel’s immediate family, or the
personnel’s business or other financial interest would derive financial
gain because of the personnel’s official act.

(b) No conflict of interest exists if any benefit accrues to the court

personnel as a member of a profession, business, or group to the same
extent as any other member of such profession, business, or group who
does not hold a position in the Judiciary.

(c) The term “immediate family” shall include the following whether related
by blood, marriage or adoption: (a) spouse, (b) children, (c) brother, (d)
sister, (e) parent, (f) grandparent, (g) grandchildren, (h) father-in-law, (i)
mother-in-law, (j) sister-in-law, (k) brother-in-law, (l) son-in-law, (m)
daughter-in-law, (n) stepfather, (o) stepmother, (p) stepson, (q)
stepdaughter, (r) stepbrother, (s) stepsister, (f) half-brother, (u) half-
sister.

SECTION 2. Court personnel shall not:

(a) Enter into any contract with the Judiciary for services, lease or sale of
property apart from the employment contract relating to the
personnel’s position; nor use that position to assist any member of the
personnel’s immediate family in securing a contract with the Judiciary
in a manner not available to any other interested party.
(b) Receive tips or other remunerations for assisting or attending to
parties engaged in transactions or involved in actions or proceedings
with the Judiciary.
(c) Participate in any official action involving a party with whom either the
court personnel or any member of the personnel’s immediate family is
negotiating for future employment.
(d) Knowingly employ or recommend for employment any member of the
court personnel’s immediate family.
(e) Solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality or
service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be
inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court
personnel in performing official duties.

SECTION 3. Nothing in Section 2 above shall prohibit court personnel from

 (a) accepting a public award presented in recognition of public services;
(b) receiving a commercially reasonable loan made as part of the ordinary
transaction of the lender’s business;
(c)donating to the Judiciary for the benefit of a group of court personnel
(e.g. all the personnel of an office or unit of the
Judiciary):Provided,that the value and circumstances of the donation
are such that it could not be reasonably inferred that the donation
would influence the recipient in performing official duties in favor of
the donor or some other party or that such influence was the purpose
of the donor.

Finally, nothing in Section 2 above shall prohibit any person, group or entity from
donating cash or property of significant or historical value for the benefit of the
Judiciary: Provided, that, such donation is received on behalf of the Judiciary by
the designated authority.

SECTION 4. To insure compliance with the provisions of this canon on Conflict of

Interest, court personnel who have authority to enter into or approve contacts for
the Judiciary shall file a financial disclosure statement with the designated
authority at the beginning and upon termination of employment in such position,
and annually while so employed. The disclosure shall follow the guidelines
established by the designated authority, and shall include all sources of personal
and business income, including investments in personal or real property, as well
as all income received by their spouses or dependent children.

SECTION 5. The full-time position in the Judiciary of every court personnel shall
be the personnel’s primary employment. For purposes of this code, “primary
employment” means the position that consumes the entire normal working hours
of the court personnel and requires the personnel’s exclusive attention in
performing official duties. Outside employment may be allowed by the head of
office provided it complies with all of the following requirements:
(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices
law before the courts or conducts business with the Judiciary;
(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working
hours and is not incompatible with the performance of the court
personnel’s duties and responsibilities;
(c) The outside employment does not require the practice of law;
Provided, however, that court personnel may render services as
professor, lecturer, or resource person in law schools, review or
continuing education centers or similar institutions;
(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court
personnel to disclose confidential information acquired while
performing official duties; and
(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive
branch of government, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme
Court. Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to
exist, or where the outside employment reflects adversely on the
integrity of the Judiciary, the court personnel shall not accept the
outside employment.