Canons 4-6

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062 IMELDA R. MARCOS V. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN

Complainant: IMELDA R. MARCOS Respondent: ​J​UDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN

FACTS: Marcos filed a complaint-affidavit charging Judge Pamintuan with Gross Ignorance of the
Law for reversing motu proprio the final and executory order of then Acting Presiding Judge Antonio
Reyes. Judge Reyes dismissed the case and ordered the Buddha statue to be released immediately
to the children of Roxas. Ten years later, Judge Pamintuan set the case for hearing purportedly to
formally and finally release the Golden Buddha to its rightful owner. Marcos was one of the
subpoenaed parties, being a person with interest in the case. Judge Pamintuan issued an order
awarding the buddha statue to the estate of Roxas, but that it shall be in custodia legis until the final
settlement of estate. This Court further rules that the Golden Buddha in its custody is a fake one, or
a mere replica of the original Golden Buddha which has been missing since 1971 up to the present,
or for a period of thirty five (35) years by now, and has been in unlawful possession of persons who
do not have title over it. Marcos averred that the act of Judge Pamintuan in reversing a final and
executory order constituted gross ignorance of the law. In her complaint she argued that final and
executory judgments of lower courts were not reviewable even by the Supreme Court. Judge
Pamintuan reversed a final and executory order not upon the instance of any of the parties but ​motu
proprio.​ In its report, the OCA recommended that Judge Pamintuan be ​dismissed from the service
with the additional penalty of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and disqualification from
re-employment in the government service for Gross Ignorance of the Law and for "violation of Canon
4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct."

ISSUE: W/N Judge Pamintuan violated Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

HELD: Yes. Doubtless, the 1996 Order has long become final and executory. In his assailed 2006
Order, Judge Pamintuan made express declarations that were not embodied in the earlier Orders.
He ruled that the Golden Buddha in the custody of the court was a "fake one, or a mere replica" of
the original. This may be his opinion or the litigants, but Judge Pamintuan should have realized that
the trial court did not rule on that point. Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
provides that Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association
and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such manner
as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
Judge Pamintuan indeed made a serious error in making such a pronouncement in the challenged
order. It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and
unalterable.The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose,
to wit: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the
discharge of judicial business; and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional
errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. It is
inexcusable for Judge Pamintuan to have overlooked such basic legal principle no matter how noble
his objectives were at that time. Judges owe it to the public to be well-informed, thus, they are
expected to be familiar with the statutes and procedural rules at all times. When the law is so
elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
The Court agrees with the view of OCA that Judge Pamintuan manifested gross ignorance of the
law. Verily, he failed to conform to the high standards of competence required of judges under the
Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that: Rule 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence, and Rule 3.01 - A judge shall x x x maintain professional
competence. Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge exhibits an utter lack of
know-how with the rules or with settled jurisprudence, he erodes the public’s confidence in the
competence of our courts. It is highly crucial that judges be acquainted with the law and basic legal
principles. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one - not even
judges.

Notably, this is ​not Judge Pamintuan’s first and sole administrative case. As of this time, there is
another administrative case ​yet t​ o be resolved against Judge Pamintuan filed by one Peter Cosalan
for gross ignorance of the law. Although, this is not pertinent in the resolution of this case, it is clear
from the other undisputed records that Judge Pamintuan has failed to meet the exacting standards
of judicial conduct and integrity. He has shown himself unworthy of the judicial robe and place of
honor reserved for guardians of justice.

Judge Pamintuan is hereby dismissed from the service.

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891 RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE

EDMUNDO T. ACUÑA
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891
Petitioner: Anonymous Respondent: Judge Edmundo T. Acuna

FACTS: Citizens of the lower court filed an anonymous letter to the Office of Court Administrator for
the alleged malpractices of Judge Edmundo Acuna. Among there are his regular use of expletives
and insulting language such as putangina and putris. Also it was complained that he was constantly
berating and putting to shame people in front of others. It was also stated that he conducted trials
and filed decisions for five criminal cases while on official leave.

Respondent states that these allegations are exaggerated and the only purpose of which it to be
able to harass hi,. His odd behavior according to him may seem unacceptable to his colleagues
were brought about by his mourning due to the loss of his son which was amplified by the poor
performance ratings of his staff. He did admit using the terms but stated it was not directed to
anyone in particular. He contends that while he was issued an authority to travel, he still presented
evidence on his entries in the daily time records that he was not yet on leave at the time he
conducted trials and thus had the right to come to court.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s behavior and his act of issuing decisions while on leave are
punishable under the code of judicial ethics
HELD: The court held that the use of expletive words are improper for the lauded office of a
magistrate of the law. As the public expects more from such a respectable office the same level of
expectation is also placed upon the person who holds it to uphold its respectability and honourability.
A judge is expected to be temperate, patient and courteous to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The court agrees with the investigating judge that for
overzealousness to work is not a shield from administrative liability for the dire consequences that
may effect from the result of his decisions and orders issued while he was supposed to be on official
leave. He is thus Reprimanded

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055 HEIRS OF THE LATE REV. FR. JOSE O. ASPIRAS V. JUDGE
CLIFTON U. GANAY
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055 December 17, 2009

Complainant:​HEIRS OF THE LATE Respondent: ​JUDGE CLIFTON U. GANAY

REV. FR. JOSE O. ASPIRAS

FACTS: ​An unsigned letter-complaint was filed by the heirs of the late Reverend Father Jose O.
Aspiras against respondent Judge Clifton U. Ganay for an alleged abuse of authority in connection
with Special Proceeding Case No. A-1026.The heirs alleged that respondent previously ordered to
withdraw the amount of P50,000.00 in his favor from the bank account of the late Rev. Fr. Jose O.
Aspiras for him to purchase law books. There are still other orders issued by Judge Ganay ordering
the bank to release certain amounts from the bank account of the late Rev. Fr. Jose O. Aspiras in his
favor without the written consent of the guardians.

The OCA conducted a surprise investigation and examination of the records of SP Case No.
A-1026.They found that the Order was indeed issued by respondent Judge Ganay. For the money
received from the said order, respondent Judge Ganay even issued an Acknowledgement Receipt.
The team also discovered that on several occasions, respondent Judge Ganay issued numerous
orders directing the manager of the PNB, to draw checks from the account of the late Rev. Fr.
Aspiras amounting to several thousands of pesos in the name of the Officer-in-Charge/Branch Clerk
of Court Precilla Olympia P. Eslao (OIC-Clerk of Court Eslao) for the purpose of purchasing cellular
phone prepaid cards. The investigating team also discovered two other orders issued by respondent
Judge Ganay directing the manager of PNB, Agoo to draw from the account of the late Rev. Fr.
Aspiras checks in the amount of ₱40k each for the purpose of purchasing three (3) cellular phones.
Respondent tried justifying his act of receiving cellular phones and monthly cellular phone prepaid
cards from the property guardians of the late Rev. Fr. Aspiras as necessary for the networking of
information about the ward of the court. He likewise rationalized his acceptance of the lawbooks
worth fifty thousand pesos from the property guardians as his way of showing them that he
"appreciate[d] their show of appreciation of [his] judicial work for the ward and to all other cases."
Respondent Judge Ganay explained that he did not want the property guardians "to feel resentful
(‘tampo’), frustrated or shamed (‘mapahiya’) if [he] would refuse their generosity."

OCA rejected the explanations of respondent Judge Ganay and found him guilty of violating
Sections 13 and 14 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether respondent Judge Ganay is administratively liable for violating Sections 13
and 14, as well as Section 15, of Canon 4 of the New Code of Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary

RULING: YES. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary provides that:

SEC. 13. Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him
or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties.

SEC. 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to their influence,
direction or authority, to ask for, or accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to
anything done or to be done or omitted to be done in connection with their duties or functions.

SEC. 15. Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public disclosure, judges may
receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate to the occasion on which it is made
provided that such gift, award or benefit might not reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an
appearance of partiality.

Respondent Judge Ganay clearly fell short of the exacting standards set by the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. His acts of receiving lawbooks worth fifty thousand
pesos, cellular phones and monthly cellular phone prepaid cards from the property guardians of the
late Rev. Fr. Aspiras, who was then the ward of the court, constitute impropriety which the Court
cannot allow. Respondent Judge Ganay’s act of issuing Orders directing the manager of the PNB,
La Union Branch to draw checks amounting to thousands of pesos from the account of the late Rev.
Fr. Aspiras creates the impression of impropriety and subjects the court to suspicion of irregularities
in the conduct of the proceedings. The Court also found unsatisfactory the explanations propounded
by him for his actuations in connection with Special Proceeding Case No. A-1026. a judge should
avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety in all activities, and that he should perform
his duties honestly and with impartiality and diligence. Also, a judge should so behave at all times as
to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Since respondent Judge
Ganay occupied an exalted position in the administration of justice, he should pay a high price for
the honor bestowed upon him; and his official, as well as his private, conduct must at all times be
free from the appearance of impropriety

​ .M. No. MTJ-07-1666 GERLIE M. UY V. JUDGE ERWIN B. JAVELLANA

A
​A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666 September 5, 2012
Petitioner: ​GERLIE M. UY and MA. Respondent:​ JUDGE ERWIN B. JAVELLANA
CONSOLACION T. BASCUG

Facts:

Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. He issued a
warrant of arrest after the filing of said case despite Section 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure. He did not apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and, instead, conducted a
preliminary examination and preliminary investigation.

Judge Javellana gave the impression that he was a co-agent in a surety company with a certain
Leilani "Lani" Manunag (Manunag). Judge Javellana had conveyed to the public on several
occasions that Manunag was in a special position to influence him in granting provisional liberty to
the accused.

Judge Javellana was habitually tardy. He whimsically or inconsistently implemented laws and rules
depending on stature of the parties, persons accompanying the parties, lawyers of the parties, and
his personal relations with the parties/lawyers.
Judge Javellana also adopted the mantra that the "litigants are made for the courts" instead of
"courts for the litigants."

Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug prayed that Judge Javellana be removed from the MTC of La
Castellana.

Judge Javellana stressed that the charges against him were baseless and malicious; and the acts
being complained of involved judicial discretion and, thus, judicial in nature and not the proper
subject of an administrative complaint.

Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Javellana liable for gross ignorance of the law or
procedure when he did not apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in cases appropriately
covered by said Rule; and gross misconduct when he got involved in business relations with
Manunag, implemented the law inconsistently, and mentioned his accomplishments for publicity.
Issue:
W/N Judge Javellana is guilty gross misconduct
Held:

Yes. ​Judges are enjoined by the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary ​to act and
behave, in and out of court, in a manner befitting their office.

Judge Javellana, by referring the accused who appeared before his court directly to Manunag for
processing of the bail bond of said accused, gave the impression that he favored Manunag and
Manunag’s bonding company, as well as the reasonable suspicion that he benefited financially from
such referrals. Judge Javellana should remember that he must not only avoid impropriety, but the
"appearance of impropriety" as well.

Moreover, Judge Javellana was conspicuously inconsistent in granting ​or denying ​motions for
extension of time to file pleadings which were signed only by the accused.

Judge Javellana himself admitted that he often mentioned his previous accomplishments as counsel
in big and controversial cases, claiming that he only did so to impress upon the parties that he meant
business and that he relied greatly upon God to survive the trials and threats to his life. We are not
persuaded.

Judges are proscribed from engaging in self-promotion and indulging their vanity and pride by
Canons 1 (on Integrity) and 2 (on Propriety) of the New Code. Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct says in no uncertain terms that "a judge should not seek publicity for personal
vainglory." Vainglory, in its ordinary meaning, refers to an individual’s excessive or ostentatious pride
especially in one’s own achievements. A parallel proscription, this time for lawyers in general, is
found in Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: "a lawyer shall not use or permit the
use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services." This means that lawyers and judges alike, being
limited by the exacting standards of their profession.

Judge Javellana’s actuations as described above run counter to the mandate that judges behave at
all times in such a manner as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary. “Judges are the visible representations of law and justice. They ought to be embodiments
of competence, integrity and independence. In particular, municipal judges are frontline officers in
the administration of justice. It is therefore essential that they live up to the high standards
demanded by the Code of Judicial Conduct."

WHEREFORE, Judge Erwin B. Javellana is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and gross
misconduct. He is SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for a period of three (3)
months and one (1) day.

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248 JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES V. JUDGE MARIA ELISA

SEM​PIO DIY
 A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1606-MTJ ATTY. ARTURO JUANITO T.MATURAN V. JUDGE
LIZABETH GUTIERREZ-TORRES
September 19, 2012
ATTY. ARTURO JUANITO T. JUDGE LIZABETH GUTIERREZ-TORRES
MATURAN
FACTS: ​Atty. Arturo Juanito T. Maturan (Maturan), the counsel for the private complainant in
Criminal Case No. 67659 entitled ​People v. Anicia C. Ventanilla, f​ iled a sworn complaint
against Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, the former Presiding Judge of Branch 60 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court in Mandaluyong City, charging her with unjustifiably delaying the
rendition of the decision in his client's criminal case. Atty. Maturan averred that the criminal
case had remained pending and unresolved despite its having been submitted for decision
since June 2002. Atty. Maturan stated that Judge Gutierrez-Torres' failure to render the
judgment within the 90-day period from submission of the case for decision violated Canon
3, Rule 3.05 of the ​Code of Judicial Conduct a ​ nd the Constitution​, and constituted gross
inefficiency.

ISSUE: ​Whether or not respondent is guilty of insubordination, gross inefficiency, grave and serious
misconduct.
RULING: ​Yes, ​Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987 Constitution requires that all cases or
matters filed after the effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or resolved within
twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by
the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all
other lower courts. Thereby, the Constitution mandates all justices and judges to be efficient
and speedy in the disposition of the cases or matters pending in their courts.
Reiterating the mandate, the ​New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
requires judges to "devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include . . . the
performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions . .
.," and to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently,
fairly and with reasonable promptness."Likewise, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the ​Code of Judicial
Conduct ​imposes on all judges the duty to dispose of their courts' business promptly and to
decide cases within the required periods.
A judge like Judge Gutierrez-Torres should be imbued with a high sense of duty and
responsibility in the discharge of the obligation to promptly administer justice. She must
cultivate a capacity for promptly rendering her decisions. Should she anticipate that she
would need a period longer than what the Constitution and the issuances of the Court
prescribe within which to render her decision or resolution, she should request a proper
extension of the period from the Court, through the OCA, and lay out in the request the
justification for her inability. Yet, she did not at all do so in Criminal Case No. 67659 entitled
People v. Anicia C. Ventanilla. She was clearly guilty of gross inefficiency, especially
because her inability to decide the case within the required period became absolutely devoid
of excuse after she did not bother to proffer any explanation for her inability.​ |||
 A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III ROHERMIA J.
JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ V. JUSTICES GREGORY S. ONG, JOSE R. HERNANDEZ,
and RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA
A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J August 24, 2010
ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR JUSTICES GREGORY S. ONG, JOSE R. HERNANDEZ,
III ROHERMIA J. and RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA, SANDIGANBAYAN,
JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ, Complainant Respondents
FACTS:
Complainant, then an Assistant Special Prosecutor III in the Office of the Special Prosecutor, filed an
affidavit-complaint dated October 23, 2008 charging Justice Ong, Justice Hernandez and Justice
Ponferrada of the Sandiganbayan with the following:
(a) grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming a Justice, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the interest
of the service (grounded on their failing to hear cases as a collegial body during the scheduled
sessions of the Fourth Division held in Davao City on April 24-28, 2006, with Justice Ong hearing
cases by himself and Justice Hernandez and Justice Ponferrada hearing other cases together; and
on their having unreasonably flexed their judicial muscle when she objected to the procedure);
(b) falsification of public documents (grounded on their issuance of orders relative to the hearings in
Davao City, signed by all three of them, that made it appear as if all of them had been present during
the particular hearing acting as a collegial body, when in truth they were not); (c) improprieties in the
hearing of cases that amounted to gross abuse of judicial authority and grave misconduct .
(d) manifest partiality and gross ignorance of the law (grounded on the fact that Criminal Case No.
25801, entitled People v. Puno, was dismissed upon a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused
upon a finding that the assailed contracts subject of the criminal case had never been perfected
contrary to the evidence of the Prosecution, the dismissal order being signed by all three
respondents).
OCA - recommended the dismissal of the charges for lack of merit

ISSUE: Are the respondents guilty of the charges against them?

HELD: The Court partly adopts the findings and recommendations of the Court Administrator.

Respondents’ Violation of the provisions of PD 1606and Revised Internal Rules of the

Sandiganbayan

The SC held that the procedure adopted by respondent Justices for their provincial hearings was in
blatant disregard of PD 1606, as amended, the Rules of Court, and the Revised Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan. Even worse, their adoption of the procedure arbitrarily denied the benefit of a
hearing before a duly constituted Division of the Sandiganbayan to all the affected litigants, including
the State, thereby rendering the integrity and efficacy of their proceedings open to serious challenge
on the ground that a hearing before a duly constituted Division of the Sandiganbayan was of the very
essence of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law.
Judges are not common individuals whose gross errors men forgive and time forgets.They are
expected to have more than just a modicum acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules.For
this reason alone, respondent Justices’ adoption of the irregular procedure cannot be dismissed as a
mere deficiency in prudence or as a lapse in judgment on their part, but should be treated as simple
misconduct, which is to be distinguished from either gross misconduct or gross ignorance of the law.

Unbecoming Conduct of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez

Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez admitted randomly asking the counsels appearing before them
from which law schools they had graduated, and their engaging during the hearings in casual
conversation about their respective law schools. They thereby publicized their professional
qualifications and manifested a lack of the requisite humility demanded of public magistrates. Their
doing so reflected a vice of self-conceit. We view their acts as bespeaking their lack of judicial
temperament and decorum, which no judge worthy of the judicial robes should avoid especially
during their performance of judicial functions. They should not exchange banter or engage in playful
teasing of each other during trial proceedings (no matter how good-natured or even if meant to ease
tension, as they want us to believe). Judicial decorum demands that they behave with dignity and act
with courtesy towards all who appear before their court.
Indeed, Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary clearly
enjoins that:
Section 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be
patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the
judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court
staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control.
We point out that publicizing professional qualifications or boasting of having studied in and
graduated from certain law schools, no matter how prestigious, might have even revealed, on the
part of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez, their bias for or against some lawyers. Their conduct
was impermissible, consequently, for Section 3, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary, demands that judges avoid situations that may reasonably give rise to the
suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality in their personal relations with individual members
of the legal profession who practice regularly in their courts.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES as follows:

1. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG is ordered to pay a fine of ₱15,000.00, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely;

2. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOSE R. HERNANDEZ is admonished with a warning that a repetition of

the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely; and

3. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA is warned to be more cautious about the

proper procedure to be taken in proceedings before his court.