Case Digests-BLE
Set 5- No. 12 Dizon vs. Cabucana A. C. No. 10185
March 12, 2014
Facts: Complainant Licerio Dizon filed a disbarment
case against respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucaba
Jr., before the IBP for falsification of public
document.
Complainant stated that he was one of the would-
be-buyers of a parcel of land owned by heirs of late
Florentino Callangan that on November 6, 2003 a
compromise agreement was made and notarized
before Atty. Cabucana and it was signed at the MTCC
Branch 1 of Stgo City; that on December 11, 2003 on
the said hearing for the execution the complainant
further alleged that he did not signed the
compromise agreement in the presence of Atty.
Cabucana at the court room of MTCC; that because
of the said incident there was damage and injury to
complainant; that respondent violated Notarial Law
in notarizing the document in the absence of most of
the signatories/affiants.
On the other hand respondent alleged that
complainant has no cause of action as his right was
not violated because he was just a “would be” buyer
and not a party to the compromise agreement and
the complainant would not suffer any damage.
Issue: WON the action of Atty. Cabucana was
violative in the Notarial Law.
Ruling: Yes. Respondent was guilty for violating Rule
1.01 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a
document unless the person who signs it is the same
person executing it and personally appearing before
him to attest to the truth of its content. It should be
noted that notarization is not an empty, meaningless
routinary act but one invested with substantive
public interest.
Hence, respondent was suspended in the practice
for 3 months and his incumbent notarial
commissioned was revoked, he is also prohibited
from being commissioned as a notary public for 2
years with Stern Warning.
Set 5-No. 6 Espinosa and Glindo vs. Atty. Omana
A.C. No. 9081 October 12, 2011
Facts: Complainants Espinosa and Glindo filed a
disbarment case against respondent Atty. Omana on
the ground of violating the lawyer’s oath,
malpractice and gross misconduct.
Espinosa alleged that respondent made a document
entitled “Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay” when he and
his wife went to the office of latter to seek for legal
advice on whether they could legally live separately
and dissolve their marriage. The document was also
notarized on the respondent’s office.
However when Espinosa sought the advice of his
fellow employee, complainant Glindo a law graduate
informed him that the said document was not valid,
Hence because of the incident Espinosa and Glindo
filed a complaint before the IBP.
On the other hand, Omana admitted that she knows
Glindo but stated that she does not know Espinosa
personally. She denied that she prepared the
contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her
and requested for the notarization of the contract
but she refused and told him that it was illegal. She
further alleged that one of her staff named Arlene
Dela Pena admitted was the one who notarized said
document without her knowledge.
Issue: WON respondent violated the Canon in the
CPR in the notarization of said document.
Ruling: Yes. Respondent is guilt for violating the Rule
1.01 Canon 1 of the CPR which provides that “a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.”
Respondent’s allegation that it was her staff who
notarized the contract was negligence on her part.
The court reiterated that a “notary public is
personally responsible for the entries in his notarial
register and he could not relieve himself of this
responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries
or any member of his staff.”
Hence, respondent was suspended in the practice of
law for 1 year and her notarial commission was
revoked and suspend her notary public for 2 years.
Set 5- No. 10 Jandoquille vs. Atty. Revilla, Jr. AC.
No. 9614 April 10, 2013
Facts: Complainant Bernard Jandoquile filed a
disbarment case against respondent Atty. Quirino
Revilla Jr., for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice.
Complainant alleged that a complainant-affidavit
against him was notarized by respondent wherein it
was prohibited by the law as per Section 3 © Rule 4
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice wherein
lawyers are prohibited to notarized document when
the affiants are related within the 4 th civil degree
either affinity or consanguinity. Also the former
further stated that the three affiants did not show
their valid identification cards to the respondent
upon notarizing the said document.
On the other hand, respondent contention was he
acted as counsel of the three affiants; thus he should
be considered more as counsel than as a notary
public when he notarized their complaint-affidavit
also he did not require the identification cards of the
3 affiants since he knows them personally.
Issue: WON the action of respondent was enough
ground for his disbarment.
1
Case Digests-BLE
Ruling: No. His violation is not sufficient ground for
disbarment.
However the court cannot agree to his contention
that he should be consider more as counsel not as a
notary public. Given the clear provision of the
disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla
Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the
document.
While on his second charge for not requiring valid
identification cards were valid since under the rule
an identification card is not needed as long as
personally known to the notary public or identified
by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity.
Since only one of the charges were committed by
Atty. Revilla he was reprimanded and was
disqualified from being commissioned as a notary
public or performing any notarial act for 3 months.
Set 5- No. 13- Mariano vs. Atty. Echanez A.C. No.
10373 May 31, 2016
Facts: Complainant Flora Mariano filed a complaint
affidavit against respondent Atty. Anselmo Echanez
for violation of the Notarial Law by performing
notarial acts on documents without a notarial
commission.
Complainant attached several documents to show
proof that respondent has indeed performed
notarial acts without a notarial commission. When
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on
Bar Discipline ordered respondent for his answer the
latter moved for extension but despite giving
extension Atty. Echanez did not file his answer which
the IBP-CBD deemed him in default.
Issue: WON the action of the respondent was
against the Notarial Practice Law.
Ruling: Yes. The court concur to the finding of IBP-
CBD that is Atty. Echanez was liable for malpractice
for notarizing documents without notarial
commission.
It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by
a notary public converts a private document into a
public document making that a document admissible
in evidence without further proof of authenticity.
Hence, respondent was suspended in the practice of
law for 2 years and he was barred permanently from
being commissioned as Notary Public.
Set 6- No. 1 Paras vs. Atty. Paras A.C. No. 4947 June
7, 2007
Facts: Petitioner-movant Rosa Yap-Paras filed a
verified Petition praying for the disbarment of her
estranged husband respondent Atty. Justo J. Paras
alleging acts of deceit, malpractice, grave
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct and violation
of oath as a lawyer. The court issued a resolution
finding respondent guilty of the crime charged. Upon
receiving said resolution the respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration.
During the pendency of said motion for
reconsideration, complainant-movant filed instant
Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment alleging
that respondent violated the suspension order
earlier issued by the Court with his continued
practice of law.
The court issued a resolution denying the motion of
the respondent for lack of merit and requiring him to
comment on the petitioner-movant’s Motion for
Contempt and/or Disbarment but no comment was
filed.
Issue: WON the action of respondent for not
commenting in the Motion is proper.
Ruling: No. It should be noted that a court orders are
to be respected not because the justices or judges
who issue them should be respected, but because of
the respect and consideration that should be
extended to the judicial branch of the government.
Hence, the motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment
was DENIED and respondent however reprimanded
with warning for his failure in complying Court’s
resolution.
Set 6 No. 2 Lingan vs. Atty. Calubaquib and Atty.
Baliga A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014
Facts: Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed a letter to
the court alleging that respondent Atty. Baliga
despite the latter’s suspension continues his practice
of law and discharge his function as the regional
director of Commission of Human Rights.
The former alleged that he received a copy of CHR
En Banc’s resolution suspending the latter but he did
not received the motion for reconsideration filed in
the CHR. Complainant further claimed that CHR
allowed respondent to perform his functions as a
Regional Director.
On the other hand respondent filed a manifestation
arguing that his suspension from the practice of law
did not include his suspension from public office and
filed a motion praying for the lifting of his
suspension since he already serve his suspension
Issue: WON the contention of respondent is proper.
Ruling: No. Respondent violated the court’s order of
his suspension. It should be noted that work in the
government that requires the use of legal knowledge
is considered a practice of law. The exercise of the
powers and functions of a Commission on Human
Rights Regional Director constitutes practice of law.
2
Case Digests-BLE
Hence, respondent was further suspended for
additional 6 months covering a 1 yr and 6 months
suspension from the practice of law.
Set 6 No. 3 SPS. Wilfredo Boyboy and Lydia Boyboy
vs. Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. A.C. No. 5225 April
29, 2003
Facts: Complainants filed an administrative case
against respondent Atty. Victoriano Yabut Jr.
accusing the latter for blackmail and extortion, and
seeking his disbarment from the practice of law.
Respondent however denied the charges filed
against him as it was unfounded, baseless and
groundless that complainants are harassing and
make even with him as filed criminal cases against
the complaining spouses and an administrative case
against Dr. Lydia Boyboy. Atty. Yabut further alleged
that he came to know the complainants because of
his client when one Ms. Arlene Sto. Tomas sought his
professional services. That according to Ms. Sto.
Tomas she was a member of CHAMPUS, an Centity
handling Medicare benefits of U.S. that she later
discovered that complainants filed a fictitious
medical claims under her name receiving a total
amount of 90k USD.
Issue: WON the contention of the respondent in the
instant case considered a harassing suit against him.
Ruling: Yes. It should be noted that a mere charge or
allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice that
accusation is not synonymous to guilt. Hence in the
instant case was dismissed.
Set 6 No. 4 Felipe el. al., vs. Atty. Ciriaco A.
Macapagal A.C. No. 4549 December 2, 2013
Facts: Complainants alleged that they are the co-
plaintiff of the civil case filed before the RTC Branch
216 of Quezon City wherein the respondent was the
counsel of the defendants of the said case. That
according to the complainants despite having
knowledge by the respondent that his clients are
related to the co-plaintiffs they denied it in open
court construing them to file a perjury case against
the latter and even submit an alleged falsified
marriage certificate as evidence of the said civil case.
The former further alleged that respondent
knowingly filed a totally baseless pleading captioned
as Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of the
Writ of Preliminary Injunction that said filing delayed
the proceedings of the said case.
However, despite receipt of the directive,
respondent did not file his comment. Neither did he
file his position paper as ordered by the IBP.
Issue: WON respondent’s action is sufficient ground
for his sanction.
Ruling: No. Since there is a pending case against the
respondent it is proper that petition filed by the
complainants must be dismissed without prejudice
to the filing of another one, depending on the final
outcome of the civil case.
Hence, the case was DISMISSED.
Set 6 No. 5 Cristino Calub vs. Atty. Abraham Suller
A.C. No. 1474 January 28, 2000
Facts: Complainant Cristino Calub was the husband
of the victim wherein according to him it was
January 29, 1975 when he was away respondent
Atty. Abraham Suller went to their house to borrow
a blade. Since respondent was a friend of the family
and neighbor his wife let him in. Thereafter,
respondent try to have a carnal knowledge with his
wife. He saw his wife and respondent having sexual
intercourse on the bed. His wife was kicking
respondent with one foot while respondent pressed
on her arms and other leg preventing her from
defending herself.
Because of the said incident the complainant filed an
administrative case and a criminal case against the
respondent, however the on criminal case he was
acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt but such acquittal is
not determinative of this administrative case.
Issue: WON respondent can be disbarred based from
preponderance of evidence.
Ruling: Yes. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended
for misconduct, whether in his professional or
private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of
the court. Hence the testimonies of witnesses in the
criminal complaint, that respondent acted in a
grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal
knowledge of his neighbor’s wife without her
consent in her very home enough for his disbarment.
Set 8
1.
SONIA C. DECENA and REY C. DECENA, Petitioners,
vs.
JUDGE NILO A. MALANYAON, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217 April 8, 2013
Facts:
The complainants averred that
complainant Rey C. Decena had brought an
administrative case against Judge
Malanyaon’s wife, Dr. Amelita, then the
Assistant Provincial Health Officer of the
Province of Camarines Sur; that during the
hearing of the administrative case on May
4, 2006, Judge Malanyaon sat beside his
daughter, Atty. Ma. Kristina C. Malanyaon,
the counsel of Dr. Amelita in the case; and
that the events that then transpired were as
3
Case Digests-BLE
recounted in the joint complaint-affidavit,
Judge Malanyaon coached her daughter in
making manifestations/motions before the
hearing officer thus prompting her daughter
to rise from her seat and/or ask permission
from the officer to speak, and then make
some manifestations while reading or
glancing on the paper given by Judge
Malanyaon. Judge Malanyaon then proudly
introduced himself and manifested that he
was the "counsel of the respondent’s
counsel. However upon raising the
propriety of Judge Malanyaon, He insisted
that he was merely "assisting" her
daughter, who "just passed the bar",
defend the respondent, and was likewise
helping the latter defend herself. Judge
Malayaon refute the allegation stating that
he did not speak nor enter his appearance
for his wife but only as a lending hand to a
neophyte lawyer. He further explain that it
is his filial duty to lend his wife and
daughter, and legal support to them in time
of need.
Issue:
Whether or not the actuations of
Judge Malanyaon complained of
constituted conduct unbecoming of a judge
Ruling:
Yes, The Code of Judicial Ethics
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.
There is no dichotomy of morality; a public
official is also judged by his private morals.
Judge Malanyaon’s occupying a seat beside
his daughter that was reserved for the
lawyers during the hearing. Such act
displayed his presumptuousness, and
probably even his clear intention to thereby
exert his influence as a judge of the
Regional Trial Court on the hearing officer in
order for the latter to favor his wife’s cause.
Section 3527 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court expressly prohibits sitting judges like
Judge Malanyaon from engaging in the
private practice of law or giving professional
advice to clients. Section 11,28 Canon 4
(Propriety), 29 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct and Rule 5.0730 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct reiterate the prohibition
from engaging in the private practice of law
or giving professional advice to clients.
2.
RODRIGO "JING" N. VIDAL, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE JAIME L. DOJILLO, JR, Respondents.
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591. July 14, 2005
Facts:
Mr. Vidal alleged that during the 29 and 30
July 2003 hearings of the Election Protest, Judge
Dojillo "sat beside the counsel of his brother" and
"actively coached, aided, assisted, and guided said
counsel by now and then saying something, handing
piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the
counsel from manifesting something to the court,
and other similar acts." Complainant continued that
herein respondent’s "assertive presence and display
of partisan activities in full public view could not
have been ignored or unnoticed by the court a quo
and would give the impression and suspicion of
partiality of the said court in favor of respondent’s
brother. Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present
during the mentioned hearings but explained that he
did not sit beside his brother’s lawyer but in the area
reserved for the public; and that the main reason
why he was there was to observe how election
protests are conducted as he has never conducted
one. His other reason was to give moral support to
his brother.
Issue:
Whether or not the presence of Judge
Dojillo constitutes misconduct.
Ruling:
Yes, the respondent, being a judge, should
bear in mind that he is also called upon to serve the
higher interest of preserving the integrity of the
entire judiciary. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct requires a judge to avoid not only
impropriety but also the mere appearance of
impropriety in all activities. Even if respondent did
not intend to use his position as a judge to influence
the outcome of his brother’s election protest, it
cannot be denied that his presence in the courtroom
during the hearing of his brother’s case would
immediately give cause for the community to
suspect that his being a colleague in the judiciary
would influence the judge trying the case to favor his
brother. The fact that neither complainant nor his
counsel objected to the presence of respondent
during the hearing is immaterial.
3.
FLORENDA V. TOBIAS, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Respondent
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734 January 19, 2011
Facts:
Complainant alleged that respondent Judge
Limsiaco, Jr. offers "package deals" for cases filed in
4
Case Digests-BLE
the court where he presides. She stated that
sometime in June 2006, she requested her sister,
Lorna V. Vollmer, to inquire from the Fourth MCTC
of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental about the requirements needed in filing
an ejectment case. Court Stenographer Salvacion
Fegidero2 allegedly proposed to Vollmer that for the
sum of ₱30,000.00, respondent would provide the
lawyer, prepare the necessary pleadings, and ensure
a favorable decision in the ejectment case which
they contemplated to file against the spouses
Raymundo and Francisca Batalla. Fegidero allegedly
required them to pay the initial amount of
₱10,000.00 and the remaining balance would be
paid in the course of the proceedings. It was made
clear that they would not get any judicial relief from
their squatter problem unless they accepted the
package deal. Complainant alleged that on June 23,
2006, Lorna Vollmer, accompanied by Salvacion
Fegidero, delivered the amount of ₱10,000.00 to
respondent at his residence. Respondent denounced
the allegation that he offers "package deals" to
prospective litigants as malicious, baseless and a lie.
He denied that he demanded from complainant the
additional payment of ₱10,000.00. He alleged that
he does not know complainant and she is a total
stranger to him.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Limsiaco guilty of
violation of Canon 2, 3, and 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
Ruling:
Yes, respondent committed acts
unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to a
prospective litigant in his court, recommending a
lawyer to the litigant, and preparing the Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo, which
pleading was filed in his court and was acted upon
by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond
reproach and reflective of the integrity of his office.
Indeed, as stated by the OCA, the said acts of
respondent violate Section 1 of Canon 2 (Integrity),
Section 2 of Canon 3 (Impartiality), and Section 1 of
Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, thus
respondent’s action constitute gross misconduct.
5. MARISSA R. MONDALA, Complainant,vs.JUDGE
REBECCA R. MARIANO, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2010 January 25, 2007
Facts:
Mondala charged respondent judge with
misrepresenting in her "Report of Pending Cases for
January 2005" that she had already decided Civil
Case No. 00-564 when in fact the case was still with
Mondala for research and drafting of the decision.
Judge Mariano denied Mondala’s allegations and
insisted that at the time she prepared the monthly
report, a decision had actually been prepared in the
Amanet case and it was mere "oversight" on her
part, not misrepresentation, when she reported the
status of the subject case as decided.
Notwithstanding this, Judge Mariano subsequently
prepared and signed "another decision" on the same
case. To support her allegations, Judge Mariano
attached a certification dated October 25, 2005
issued by Atty. Teodorico L. Diaz, present Branch 136
Clerk of Court, as well as the affidavits executed by
Prosecutor Teodoro Rey S. Riel, Jr., former Branch
136 Clerk of Court; Elvira L. Tablate, Clerk-in-Charge
of Civil Cases; and Ma. Theresa M. Belando, a Clerk
detailed to Branch 136.
Issue:
Whether Judge Mariano is liable for
misrepresentation when she included in the January
2005 monthly report the case of "Amanet Inc. v.
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc." as
among the decided cases.
Ruling:
Yes, a decision in a civil case is rendered
only upon the signing by the judge who penned the
same and upon filing with the clerk of court. A
judgment or final order determining the merits of
the case shall be in writing personally and directly
prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by
him, and filed with the clerk of court. What
constitutes rendition of judgment is not the mere
pronouncement of the judgment in open court but
the filing of the decision signed by the judge with the
Clerk of Court. The fact that Judge Mariano had not
yet decided the Amanet case in January 2005, is
likewise pointed out in the affidavit of Tablate, Clerk-
in-Charge for Civil Cases. The records, on the other
hand, show that Judge Mariano submitted the
January 2005 monthly report only on March 7, 2005,
which means that it was only then when RTC-Branch
136 initiated the printing of the decision in the
Amanet case. Thus, Judge Mariano misrepresented
herself regarding the date of the promulgation of the
decision in the Amanet case. While the January 2005
monthly report of Branch 136 was submitted on
March 7, 2005, the subject decision in the Amanet
case had not yet been printed. Amanet had
obviously not yet been decided in January 2005.
6. SILAS Y. CAÑADA, Complainant, vs.ILDEFONSO B.
SUERTE, Respondent. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1884
February 22, 2008
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he and
respondent were neighbors in Badian, Cebu.
Sometime in early 2002, respondent volunteered to
5
Case Digests-BLE
act as an agent-broker to sell complainant's beach
lot in Barangay Bato, Badian, Cebu. They agreed that
the selling price would be P1,600,000 and that
respondent would receive P600,000 as commission.
In July 2002, respondent informed complainant that
he had a foreign buyer but insisted on a commission
of P1,000,000 with the balance of P600,000 for the
complainant. Despite the fact that the sale did not
proceed, respondent demanded P200,000 from
complainant for his effort in finding a buyer.
Complainant was forced to give him P100,000.
Complainant further alleged that before this incident
or sometime in 1998, he had refused the respondent
who was trying to sell him a dilapidated cargo pick-
up truck and Daewoo car. Respondent maintained
that complainant had never been his neighbor as he
lived three kilometres away and they had not seen
each other for 20 years. He denied having acted as
an agent broker for complainant or anybody else. He
likewise denied offering to sell complainant a
dilapidated truck or a Daewoo car since he never
owned a dilapidated cargo pick-up nor could he
recall if he had a Daewoo car in 1998.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violates the
fundamental tenets of judicial conduct
Ruling:
Yes, In his defense, respondent claimed that
he never owned a dilapidated cargo pick-up truck
and could not recall if he had a Daewoo car in 1998.
But his Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the
years 1998 to 2001 on file in the Court prove
otherwise. They show that among his personal
properties were a Daewoo car acquired in 1996 and
an L-200 double cab acquired in 1998. Dishonesty is
defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or
defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of
fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to Whether or not the respondent violates the
defraud, deceive or betray. Respondent showed his Canon 2 of the Code of the Judicial Conduct
capacity to lie and evade the truth. His dishonesty
not only tended to mislead the Court but also Ruling:
tarnished the image of the judiciary. It will warrant Yes, for judicial officers to enjoy the trust
the maximum penalty of dismissal, if not for the fact and respect of the people, it is necessary that they
that he has already been dismissed from the service live up to the exacting standards of conduct
in another administrative case. demanded by the profession and by the Code of
7. Judicial Conduct. This is especially true in the case of
Judges who, on a daily basis, interact with the public.
VICTORIA R. NABHAN, complainant,
Their official conduct, as well as personal behavior,
vs.
should always be beyond reproach. Respondent
JUDGE ERIC CALDERON, respondent
admitted having gone to a restaurant with
A.M. No. MTJ-98-1164 February 4, 2000
complainant, although he denied he did anything
malicious to complainant. If it were true, however,
Facts:
that respondent was eager to go to Pulilan to attend
Nabhan was private complainant in a case
the memorial mass for his father, he would not have
pending before respondent judge, involving a
stayed with complainant for two hours just eating
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22).
and drinking. He could have, after a short while,
According to complainant, respondent asked her to
asked to be brought to Pulilan in time for the mass.
go to his office on March 30, 1998 at 5:00 in the
Apparently, respondent was more inclined to be
afternoon to discuss her case. While in his office,
with complainant than to attend the mass for his
respondent allegedly told complainant bluntly to buy
father.
him and a certain Ernie Calderon some drinks if she
8. ELADIO D. PERFECTO, Complainant, vs.
wanted her case to prosper. While on a jeepney on
JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA,
their way on Baliuag, Bulacan, Respondent touched
Respondent
complainant's breasts and told her not to resist or
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270 January 31, 2011
else nothing would come out of her case.
Complainant could only shield her breasts with her
Facts:
bag as she was afraid that respondent would make
Complainant charges Judge Esidera for
good his threat. He continued touching
soliciting and receiving at the Prosecutor’s Office the
complainant's private parts while inside the bar and
amount of One Thousand from practitioner Atty.
even on their way to Pulilan, Bulacan, as requested
Yruma and the same amount from Public Prosecutor
by the respondent, after drinking. Complainant tried
Diaz, purportedly to defray expenses for a religious
to leave but respondent would not let her, again
celebration and barangay fiesta. Complainant also
threatening her that nothing would happen with her
questions the conduct of respondent in Special
case. In his counter-affidavit, respondent
Proceedings in which she issued a January 5, 2010
vehemently denied complainant's accusations.
Order directing the therein petitioner to publish said
Order in a newspaper of general circulation, instead
Issue:
of in the Catarman Weekly Tribune (of which
6
Case Digests-BLE
complainant is the publisher), the only accredited
newspaper in the province. Furthermore,
complainant charges respondent with acts of
impropriety ─ scolding her staff in open court and
treating in an "inhuman and hostile" manner
practitioners "who are not her friends." He adds that
respondent even arrogantly treats public
prosecutors assigned to her sala, citing instances of
this charge in his complaint. Respondent denies the
instances thereof cited by complainant in his
complaint.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon
2 of the Code of Judicial Ethics
Ruling:
Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the
conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of
impropriety not only with respect to his
performance of his official duties, but also to his
behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.
Respondent’s act of proceeding to the Prosecutor’s
Office under the guise of soliciting for a religious
cause betrays not only her lack of maturity as a
judge but also a lack of understanding of her vital
role as an impartial dispenser of justice, held in high
esteem and respect by the local community, which
must be preserved at all times. It spawns the
impression that she was using her office to unduly
influence or pressure Atty. Yruma, a private lawyer
appearing before her sala, and Prosecutor Diaz into
donating money through her charismatic group for
religious purposes.
9. ATTY. ANTONIO D. SELUDO, complainant, vs.
JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA, respondent.A.M. No.
RTJ-04-1864 December 16, 2004
Facts:
Atty. Antonio D. Seludo alleged inter alia
that on June 28, 2003, respondent judge filed with
the same court (Branch 128), a complaint for
revocation of notarial commission against him
(complainant), docketed as Revocation of
Commission No. C-001-(2003). During the hearing on
July 8, 2003, respondent judge uttered "vulgar and
insulting words" against complainant. In his
comment dated September 8, 2003, respondent
judge admitted that he uttered derogatory words
during the proceeding held on July 8, 2003. He,
however, explained that he has been suffering from
a heart ailment and diabetes since November, 2002,
causing him considerable anxiety and pain. This must
be the reason why he could not control his outburst.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the
Canon 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Ruling:
Yes, a magistrate must exhibit that hallmark
judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-
restraint which are indispensable qualities of every
judge. A judge should be the last person to be
perceived as petty, sharp-tongued tyrant. Sadly,
respondent judge failed to live up to such standards
of judicial conduct. In ascribing the words "moronic
attitude," "stupid", "if he knows how to read English"
and "putang ina mo" to complainant during the
proceeding before the Executive Judge, respondent
displayed a conduct so unbecoming of a magistrate.
The remarks uttered are patently defamatory and
outrageous.
10. ANA MAY M. SIMBAJON, complainant, vs.JUDGE
ROGELIO M. ESTEBAN, respondent. A.M. No. MTJ-
98-1162 August 11, 1999
Facts:
Simbajon alleged that when the local
position of book binder in Branch I of the said Court
became vacant, complainant applied for it, but the
papers requiring the signature of Judge Esteban
remained unacted upon for some time. Complainant
decided to approach the Respondent about the
matter inside his chamber. During the conversation,
respondent uttered that in returned for his signature
the complainant will be the respondent’s girlfriend.
As he signed the papers, respondent suddenly kissed
the complainant. Respondent continues his sexual
advance towards the complainant thus this
administrative case. Respondent judge denied the
allegations
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violates Canon
2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Ruling:
Yes, a judge's official conduct should be free
from the appearance of impropriety, and his
personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in
the performance of judicial duties, but also in his
everyday life, should be beyond reproach. The
conduct of the respondent falls short of this
standard. According to complainant Ana May
Simbajon, respondent told her that in exchange for
his signature on her employment application, she
would become his girlfriend.
Thereafter, he went on to kiss her against her will.
Respondent's conduct violated the Code of Judicial
Conduct. Not only did he fail to live up to the high
moral standards of the judiciary; he even
transgressed the ordinary norms of decency
expected of every person. As the
Court has often stressed, the conduct of a judge,
whether official or private, must be beyond reproach
and above suspicion. A member of the bench must
not only be a good judge; he or she must also be a
good person. This is necessary so as not to erode the
faith and confidence of the public in the judiciary.
11. BERNABE L. CARRIAGA, complainant, vs.
Judge ISMAEL O. BALDADO, respondent
7
Case Digests-BLE
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1810 October 21, 2004
Facts:
Complainant alleges that Judge Romeo L.
Anasario, Acting Presiding Judge, MCTC, Manjuyod-
Bindoy- Ayungan, Negros Oriental issued an Order
inhibiting himself from hearing Criminal Cases on the
ground that the filing of an administrative case
against him by accused Bernabe L. Carriaga has
already affected his "emotions and cold neutrality"
as a judge. Judge Ismael O. Baldado, as Executive
Judge, issued an Order dated 1 August 2002 revoking
Judge Anasario’s Order of Inhibition. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed but respondent judge
insisted that Judge Anasario should hear the cases.
The private complainant in Criminal Case No. B-55-
2000, Edna Baldado Iso, is a second cousin of Judge
Baldado, while an eye witness is a nephew of Edna
Baldado Iso. Judge Baldado denied the allegations in
the complaint.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent guilty in
violation of Canon 3 of Code of Judicial Conduct
Ruling:
Yes, Administrative Circular No. 1 dated
January 28, 1988, provides that "inhibitions and
disqualifications [of judges] are judicial actions which
do not require prior administrative approval.
Administrative intervention is necessary only when
the inhibition is by a judge of a single sala court, and
the case has to be transferred to another judge of
another station." Respondent judge’s lack of
awareness of the Circular and the decisions
concerning inhibitions of judges indicates a failure to
live up to the Code of Judicial Conduct that enjoins
judges "to be faithful to the law and to maintain
professional competence." Being the visible
representation of the law, judges must be familiar
with the circulars and issuances of this Court and
must diligently keep themselves abreast with
developments in our legal system. Only in doing so
can they live up to their sacred judicial duties.
Hence, they are called upon to exhibit more than
just cursory acquaintance with the statutes and
procedural rules, lest public confidence in the
judiciary be eroded.
12. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
complainant, vs. JUDGE AUGUSTO SUMILANG,
INTERPRETER FELICIDAD MALLA, STENO-REPORTER
EDELITA LAGMAY and STENO-REPORTER NIEVA
MERCADO, respondents. A.M. No. MTJ-94-989
April 18, 1997
Facts:
This case arose as an aftermath of an on-
the-spot audit examination of the official cashbook
and other documents of the lower court. It appears
from the evidence that court interpreter Malla who
was the officer-in-charge from July 1, 1992 to
November 15, 1992, took a maternity leave for one
(1) month (November 16, 1992 to December 15,
1992) and reassumed her position on December 16,
1992, until her resignation on August 31, 1993.
When asked to explain where the P240,000.00 was,
Malla, explained that she deposited it at the Sta.
Cruz, Laguna branch of the Philippine National Bank
but she and Judge Sumilang later withdrew it
allegedly under the belief that the defendant, Dizon,
would demand the delivery of the money upon the
termination of the case. Upon further questioning by
the examining team, however, Malla admitted that
she lent the amount of P87,000.00 to stenoreporter
Lagmay, P40,000.00 to steno-reporter Mercado, and
P81,000.00 to Mrs. Sumilang, wife of Judge
Sumilang. She spent P32,000.00 for the
hospitalization of her husband and the remaining
balance for personal purposes.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent guilty of gross
negligence
Ruling:
A judge must always remember that as the
administrator of his court, he is responsible for the
conduct and management thereof. He has the duty
to supervise his court personnel to ensure prompt
and efficient dispatch of business in his court. The
ignorance of respondent Judge as to the
irregularities occurring in his own backyard
constitutes serious breach of judicial ethics. The
evidence against Judge Sumilang adequately proves
his gross negligence in this matter. In his proffered
explanation, he averred that his wife did not borrow
any money from Malla and that he had no
knowledge of the irregularities involving members of
his own staff.
His admission that he had no knowledge regarding
the anomalies going on in his court underscores his
inefficiency and incompetence. It clearly
demonstrates a lack of control expected of a judge
exercising proper office management.
13. ATTY. JESSIE TULDAGUE and ATTY. ALFREDO
BALAJO JR., Complainants, vs. JUDGE MOISES
PARDO and JAIME CALPATURA Legal Researcher
and Officer-In-Charge, Respondents.
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1962 October 17,
2013
Facts:
Tuldague and Balajo allege that Judge Pardo
allegedly asked and received sum amount of money,
and doing drinking spree from persons in cases
raffled in his sala, in exchange for a favorable
decision. Complainants also allege that the
respondent received money from Calpito, in
exchange for endorsing him to the position of
Process Server of RTC, Branch 31. Judge Pardo also
allegedly received a cow from Michael T. Garingan
(Garingan), in exchange for endorsing him as Utility
8
Case Digests-BLE
in the Office of the Clerk of Court. Furthermore,
Judge Pardo allegedly ordered Lugeorge N. Discipulo
(Lugeorge), Electrician II of the Maintenance Section
of the RTC, to take out two (2) cans of coat master
paint from the Hall of Justice.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon
4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct

Ruling:
Yes, Section 1, Canon 4 of the Code states
that "Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities."
Although the alleged giving of money was not
proved, Judge Pardo did not deny that Rosendo, a
litigant who had a pending application for probation
in his sala, went to his house, had a "drinking spree"
with him and stayed there for more than two hours