HEINZ R. HECK v. JUDGE ANTHONY E.

SANTOS
401 SCRA 46 (2003)

Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties the preparation of a decision and parroting it
verbatim reflect blatant judicial sloth.

FACTS:

Heinz R. Heck is one of the defendants in a Civil Case before the Regional Trial presided
by Judge Anthony E. Santos. Heck and his co-defendant did not receive a copy of the
order to schedule the trial on June 10 and 11, 1996. Consequently, they and their counsel
failed to appear therein. Since only the plaintiff’s counsel, Atty. Manuel Singson,
appeared in that hearing, Judge Santos considered the non-attendance of Heck and his
co-defendant as waiver of their right to present evidence. Judge Santos thereafter
ordered that the case to be submitted for decision. He therefore authorized Atty.
Singson to prepare the draft of the decision.

The decision issued by Judge Santos was copied verbatim from the draft which Atty.
Singson prepared. Hence, Heck filed an administrative complaint charging Judge
Santos with violation of Section 1, Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Santos guilty for adopting Singson’s work
as his own.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Santos is guilty of gross ignorance of the law

HELD:

The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA. Santos’ order for the counsel of one of
the parties to draft the decision and his adoption verbatim of the draft clearly violate the
Code of Judicial Conduct. The pertinent canons of which read: Canon 2, a Judge should
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Canon 3, a Judge
should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence adjudicative
responsibilities. By such order, Judge Santos abdicated a function exclusively granted to
him by no less than the fundamental law of the land. It is axiomatic that decision-
making, among other duties, is the primordial and most important duty of a member of
the bench. He must use his own perceptiveness in understanding and analyzing the
evidence presented before him and his own discernment when determining the proper
action, resolution or decision. Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties the
preparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant judicial sloth.

Lack of malice or bad faith is not an excuse. It bears emphasis that a judge must not only
render a just, correct and impartial decision. He should do so in such a manner as to be
free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.
Guilty of violating Canons 2 & 3 - Fine of 20,000 to be deducted from retirement
benefits
Disbarment case referred to IBP