CANON 1

CASE 10 (Carlos, Cruz, Rueda & Raquiz)

A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362               February 22, 2011

(formerly A.M. No. 01-2-49-RTC)
JUDGE NAPOLEON E. INOTURAN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City, 
vs.
JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785
(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1945-MTJ)
SANCHO E. GUINANAO, Complainant, 
vs.
JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental, Respondent.

FACTS:

These are two (2) consolidated cases filed against respondent. The first case involves the failure of Judge
Limsiaco to comply with the directives of the Court. This stemmed from a complaint filed against Judge Limsiaco
for his issuance of a Release Order in favor of an accused in a criminal case before him.  After considering the
evidence, the court then found respondent guilty of ignorance of the law and procedure and of violating the Code
of Judicial Conduct. He was ordered to pay a FINE of P40,000.00 and was STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Judge was likewise DIRECTED to explain
why he should not be administratively charged for approving the applications for bail of the accused and ordering
their release in the other criminal cases filed with other courts. Judge Limsiaco twice moved for an extension of
time to file a motion for reconsideration of the above decision and to comply with the Court’s directive requiring
him to submit an explanation due to his poor health condition. Despite the extension of time given however, Judge
Limsiaco failed to file his motion for reconsideration and the required explanation.

The second case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to decide a case within the 90-day reglementary
period. Guinanao claimed that Judge Limsiaco failed to seasonably decide the ejectment case he filed which had
been submitted for resolution as early as April 25, 2005. Under the pain of a show cause order for contempt for
failure to heed the OCA directives to file a comment, Judge Limsiaco informed the court that he had already
decided the case on February 4, 2008. Subsequently, the court resolved 2 to declare Judge Limsiaco in contempt
and to impose a fine of P1,000.00 for his continued failure to file the required comment to the administrative
complaint. The records show that Judge Limsiaco paid the P1,000.00 fine but did not submit the required
comment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent’s failure to comply with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the
Supreme Court violates Canon 1, Section 7 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct?

RULING:

The court ruled in the affirmative. The duty to comply with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the
Supreme Court is one of the foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This duty is verbalized
in Canon 1, Section 7 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by
Judge Limsiaco constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Court’s authority. His conduct also reveals
his deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court, shown by his failure to heed its warnings
and directives. Judge Limsiaco’s actions further disclose his inability to accept the Court’s instructions. Moreover,
his conduct failed to provide a good example for other court personnel, and the public as well, in placing
significance to the Court’s directives and the importance of complying with them.

In determining the proper imposable penalty, the court considers Judge Limsiaco’s work history which
reflects how he performed his judicial functions as a judge. The court observed that there are several
administrative cases already decided against Judge Limsiaco that show his inability to properly discharge his
judicial duties. The court finds that his conduct as a repeat offender exhibits his unworthiness to don the judicial
robes and merits a sanction heavier than what is provided by our rules and jurisprudence. Under the
circumstances, Judge Limsiaco should be dismissed from the service. The court, however, note that on May 17,
2009, Judge Limsiaco has retired from judicial service. The court also notes that Judge Limsiaco has not yet applied
for his retirement benefits.

WHEREFORE, in lieu of the penalty of dismissal for his unethical conduct and gross inefficiency in
performing his duties as a member of the bench, the court declares all his retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits, forfeited. Furthermore, he is barred from re-employment in any branch or service of the
government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.