ASSIGNMENT 12 – CANON 5

1. Uy vs. Javellana 680 SCRA 13 , September 05, 2012

Principle:

Canon 5- EQUALITY

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.

SECTION 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or by conduct, manifest bias or
prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

SECTION 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to
the proper perfor-mance of such duties.

Facts:

Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug alleged the following complaint against Presiding Judge Javellana of the MeTC, La
Castellana, Negros Occidental.

1. Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

2. Judge Javellana gave the impression that he was a co-agent in a surety company with a certain Leilani
“Lani” Manunag

(Manunag).

3. Judge Javellana violated Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and issued
warrants of arrest without propounding searching questions to the complainants and their witnesses to determine the
necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody.

4. Judge Javellana failed to observe the constitutional rights of the accused as stated in Section 12(1), Article
III of the Constitution. Judge Javellana performed preliminary investigation even when the accused had no counsel,
and proceeded with said investigation without informing the accused of his rights to remain silent and to have a
counsel.

5. Judge Javellana was habitually tardy.

6. Judge Javellana 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.

7. Judge Javellana also adopted the mantra that the “litigants are made for the courts” instead of “courts for the
litigants.”

8. Judge Javellana did not observe the proper procedure in airing his complaints against public attorneys.

In his Comment on the complaint against him, Judge Javellana discounted the allegations of Public Attorneys Uy and
Bascug as “baseless, untruthful, intrigues, malicious and a harassment tending to intimidate.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Erwin B. Javellana violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Ruling:

Yes. Judge Javellana had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct in several instances.

Judge Javellana did not admit having a business relationship with Manunag, contrary to the finding of the OCA. What
Judge Javellana stated in his Comment was that his relationship with Manunag was “purely on official business,”
since Manunag was a duly authorized agent of a credited bonding company. Nonetheless, 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 favoredManunag and Manunag’s bonding company, as well as the reasonable
suspicion that he benefitted 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 reasoned in his Comment that the PAO lawyers
who prepared the motions should have signed the same as counsels for the accused, but this only explained Judge
Javellana’s denial of said motions. It did not address why, in other cases, Judge Javellana had granted similar
motions signed only by the accused. Without any satisfactory basis for the difference in his ruling on these motions,
Judge Javellana had acted arbitrarily to the prejudice of the PAO lawyers.

Decision:

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 with a stern warning that the
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Decision be
attached to his records with this Court.

2. Anres vs. Majaducon 574 SCRA 169 , December 17, 2008

Principle:

The procedure for the raffling of cases under Supreme Court Circular No. 7 is of vital importance to the administration
of justice because it is intended to ensure the impartial adjudication of cases— by raffling the cases, public suspicion
regarding the assignment of cases to predetermined judges is obviated.

Facts:

The complaint stemmed from the Special Order of Demolition issued by Judge Majaducon in connection with the
consolidated Civil Case on action for declaration of nullity of documents and recovery of possession of real property
with writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and damages. Complainants, who claimed an interest over Lot No. 2,
Psu-135740, filed a Special Appearance with Urgent Ex Parte Manifestation informing the court of the pending
protest between them and the heirs of Melencio Yu and TalinanapMatualaga. They also wrote a letter addressed to
respondents Lastimosa and Palati enjoining them from executing the order of demolition under pain of administrative
sanction. Notwithstanding complainants’ manifestation and letter ,Lastimosa and Palati proceeded with the demolition
of the improvements erected by the complainants and their predecessor-in-interest.

Thus, complainants instituted an action for Specific Performance, Reconveyance and Damages against the heirs of
Melencio Yu and impleaded Judge Majaducon, Lastimosa and Palati as co-defendants. The complaint alleged that
the title over Lot No. 2, Psu-135740 was valid, that they had been occupying the property since 1957 and that the
reckless and arbitrary demolition of their improvements had unlawfully disturbed their peaceful occupation of the
property. Complainants also filed an Urgent Motion for Special Raffle of said Civil Case No. 7066. However,
Respondent judge took cognizance of Civil Case No. 7066 wherein he was named as one of two defendants and
instantly dismissed it without first conducting the requisite raffle. On the same day, respondent judge issued another
Order declaring complainants in direct contempt of court for allegedly filing a complaint based on a quitclaim that had
already been pronounced null and void by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, complainants were ordered to pay a fine
of P2,000.00 and to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for ten (10) days.
This prompted complainants to file the instant administrative complaint. They averred that the actions of herein
respondents constitute bad faith, malicious motive, serious partiality, grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the
law. They also alleged that prior to his appointment in the judiciary, Judge Majaducon was the former counsel of
Melencio Yu and his mother DomingaPinagawang.

Issue:

Whether or not Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority.

Ruling:

Yes. Respondent judge violated the canon when he dispensed with the raffle and took cognizance of Civil Case No.
7066 as well as ordered its outright dismissal and cited the complainants in contempt of court. He thus created the
impression that he intended to favor his former clients, Melencio and Dominga. His actuations gave ground for the
parties to doubt his impartiality and objectivity. A judge should strive to be at all times wholly free, disinterested,
impartial and independent. He has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to its integrity. A critical component of due process is a
hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, for all the other elements of due process, like notice and
hearing, would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge.

Decision:

The Court finds Judge Jose Majaducon guilty of abuse of his authority for which he is meted a fine of P20,000.00 to
be deducted from his retirement benefits.

3. Santos vs. Tanciongco 567 SCRA 134 , September 30, 2008

Facts:

The OCA required Judge Tanciongco to submit a comment relative to the complaint filed in the First Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC), Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Dinalupihan, Bataan. Judge Tanciongco filed his comment to the letter-
complaint on September 2, 2005. The case was immediately set for hearing. On July 17, 2006, Judge Fernando
voluntarily inhibited himself from hearing the case due to doubts raised by Santos about the former’s impartiality,
since Judge Tanciongco had been the public prosecutor assigned to his sala from 1992 to 2002.

The culpability of respondent Judge lies on the propriety or impropriety of his acts. Respondent Judge was accused
of manifest bias, partiality and neglect of duty relative to his actions in connection with Civil Case No. 1334. Records
reveal that the complainant filed her complaint for forcible entry with TRO and injunction on December 16, 2003. All
cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be
recovered, shall be governed by the rules on summary procedure. Section 6, Rule 70 of the Revised rules of Civil
Procedure provides that the defendant shall file his answer within ten (10) days from the service of the summons and
his failure to answer the complaint within the said period, the court, motuproprio or motion of the plaintiff, shall render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint. Summons were issued on January 7, 2004. In
their Answer, defendants Dominador and Maria Jimenez averred that they received the complaint on January 15,
2004. A close scrutiny of the Answer reveals that it was prepared on January 26, 2004, verified only on January 27,
2004 and received by the MCTC on the same date. Surely, the ten (10)-day reglementary period fixed by law had
already lapsed. Complainant filed her comment with motion to strike out answer, but this was not even acted upon by
respondent Judge, claiming that he was trying to settle the issues amicably between the parties, but despite his
efforts, the same failed and that the complainant filed her pre-trial brief which was tantamount to abandonment of the
motion to strike out answer. The filing of the pre-trial brief does not necessarily mean that the complainant is
abandoning her motion to strike out answer. Respondent Judge should have acted on it just the same. Unfortunately,
he chose to ignore it.

In contrast, Judge Tanciongco, denied the allegations of Santos. He maintained that he conducted hearings in
accordance with law and observed due process by giving the parties and their respective lawyers enough time and
opportunity to be heard in court. He asserted that the delays were attributable to non-appearance of counsel and the
parties. Judge Tanciongco further explained that he did not act on the motion to render judgment because of his
earnest desire for the parties to settle their dispute amicably. However, his efforts were in vain. Moreover, in view of
the complaint against him, he voluntarily inhibited himself and requested the Supreme Court to designate another
judge.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Tanciongco is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency tantamount to neglect of
duty relative to Civil Case No. 1334.

Ruling:

The rules on summary procedure require that an answer be filed within ten (10) days from receipt of summons. Judge
Tanciongco instead gave defendants fifteen (15) days from receipt of summons. Apparently, Judge Tanciongco
overlooked a summary rule. It is a lapse in procedure made without bad faith or corrupt motive. However, the Court is
mindful of the fact that Judge Tanciongco is merely human and this Court has forgiven human errors in the past.

Decision:

A fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) is imposed on Judge Tanciongco, the same to be deducted from his
retirement benefits.

4. Jamsani-Rodriguez vs. Ong 628 SCRA 626, August 24, 2010

Principle:

Section 3, Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the

Philippine Judiciary, mandates judges to carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all
persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, and judicial
colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance
of such duties.

Facts:

The complainant’s charge that Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez had uttered the improper and intemperate
statements attributed to them.A review of the transcripts of the stenographic notes for the hearings in which the
offensive statements were supposedly uttered by them has failed to substantiate the complainant’s charge. In the
absence of a clear showing to the contrary, the Court must accept such transcripts as the faithful and true record of
the proceedings, because they bear the certification of correctness executed by the stenographers who had prepared
them.

Even so, 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.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent justices violate Section 3, Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Ruling:

Yes. Judges should be dignified in demeanor and refined in speech. In performing their judicial duties, they should
not manifest bias or prejudice by word or conduct towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds. It is very
essential that they should live up to the high standards their noble position on the Bench demands. Their language
must be guarded and measured, lest the best of intentions be misconstrued.

Decision:

The Court Resolves as follows: Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong is ordered to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely; 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 Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada is warned to be more cautious about the proper procedure to
be taken in proceedings before his court.

5. Mataga vs. Rosete 440 SCRA 217 , October 13, 2004

Facts:

This the complaint filed by retired Court Stenographer Adarlina G. Mataga of the Municipal Trial Court of Santiago
City, Isabela, against Judge Maxwell S. Rosete and Process Server Gasat M. Payoyo in connection with the
encashing of the check representing her terminal pay.

Complainant’s application was approved on January 30, 1996, and consequently, Disbursement Voucher No. 101-96-
03-89245 for One Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty and 8/100 Pesos (P165,530.08) and the
corresponding Land Bank Check No. 370216 were prepared in the name of complainant. The check was released to
respondent Payoyo who turned it over to Judge Rosete. Sometime in March 1996, respondent Payoyo brought
complainant to the house of respondent Judge Rosete, where she was given the amount of P44,000.00 as her
terminal pay. It was only subsequently that complainant came to know that the disability retirement benefit granted to
her was in the amount of P165,530.08, which respondents did not deliver to her. When asked to comment, the
respondent judge denied the complainant’s allegations. He stated that complainant has not been to his house in
Quezon City, nor has he given the complainant the sum of P44,000.00 as her terminal pay. Respondent judge,
however, admitted that the check representing the retirement benefits of the complainant was indeed turned over to
him by the Supreme Court security guard after it was misplaced by his co-respondent, Payoyo. Upon his receipt of
complainant’s check, respondent judge immediately handed the same to Payoyo because he knew that complainant
had requested the latter to follow up her check. There is no reason to doubt this inspite of the statements given by
GasatPayoyo in his supplemental affidavit which he admitted were not true. To absolve himself, the respondent
Payoyo by himself or upon the advice of others, tried to put the blame on Judge Rosete.

Subsequently M. Payoyo became more worried and became more scared of what he did.. So, he refused to appear
in the scheduled investigation. But finally, he appeared and admitted that the contents of his supplemental affidavit
are not true.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Rosete is guilty of dishonesty and misconduct.

Ruling:

No, because of insufficiency of evidence against the respondent judge. Mere imputation of judicial misconduct in the
absence of sufficient proof to sustain the same will never be countenanced. If a judge should be disciplined for
misconduct, the evidence against him should be competent.
Decision:

The complaint filed against respondent Judge Maxwell S. Rosete is dismissed for lack of merit.

6. Concerned Trial Lawyers of Manila vs. Veneracion 488 SCRA

Facts:

Before us are consolidated administrative cases against retired Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, then presiding judge of
Branch 47, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.

1. A.M. No. RTJ-05-1920

• Complainants assailed the apparent reluctance of Judge Veneracion to grant petitions for the declaration of
nullity of marriage despite their alleged merit. Lawyers were often embarrassed by his emphasis on legal
technicalities allegedly designed to prevent them from presenting evidence in favor of their clients. Complainants
were often harassed whenever respondent would force them to read and interpret verses from the Bible.

• Complainants further assailed respondent judge’s habitual tardiness which caused the delay in the
disposition of cases assigned to him.

2. In A.M. No. RTJ-01-1623, a report on the judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted in Branch
47, Manila RTC, from June 19 to 26, 2000, challenged the efficiency.

In respondent judge’s explanation, he averred the following:

• that Branch 47 was one of the five branches in the Manila RTC originally designated to handle and try family
relations cases. It was also designated as a special tax court in Manila as well as a special criminal court to handle
heinous crimes and drug cases. But despite these special assignments and designations, additional personnel were
not assigned to Branch 47. The docket clerks had a hard time managing the records, some of which may have been
misfiled due to lack of space and filing cabinets.

• He suffered a mild stroke which affected his handwriting. He could no longer take notes on the
proceedings/testimonies in court. He had to rely on the stenographic notes for the preparation of his resolutions and
decisions. Hence, until the branch clerk of court certified that the stenographic notes had been transcribed, cases
were not deemed submitted for decision.

• Respondent judge declared that he had already dictated his decisions in several cases reported unresolved,
but the stenographers had not yet transcribed them. Some of the reported cases were not Branch 47’s but were
assigned to other branches. There were also cases included in the report of pending cases which had already been
decided. Other cases already had drafts but were not yet signed.

• Respondent judge did not deny that he read verses from the Bible during hearings of annulment, adoption
and criminal cases. This was meant to share the word of God with those who came before his court and who were in
a quandary about their purpose in life. He only wished to remind litigants in these cases that God had given them a
manual to serve as a guide in conducting their lives.

In his comment, he begged us to allow him to avail of optional retirement in case we found that his actuation violated
his responsibilities as a judge.

Issue:

Whether or not the judge respondent is guilty of the enumerated charges against him.

Ruling:
Yes. Time and again, we have emphasized that a judge should dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide
cases within the prescribed periods. Any delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and
confidence in the judiciary. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

Decision:

1. DISMISSING for lack of merit the charge of misconduct and tardiness against Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion
in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1920; and

2. Finding Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion liable for gross inefficiency in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1623 for which he is
hereby fined P11,000 to be deducted from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits.

7. Gargar de Julio vs. Vega 199 SCRA 315 , July 18, 1991

Facts:

The records show that in 1977 Judge Benjamin Vega and his wife, Carmelita Vega, leased for a monthly rental of
P500 to complainant’s building at Olongapo City for their bake shop operation and hot pandesal business on the
premises. The lessees used to pay the rent regularly but defaulted beginning July 16, 1977. The owner made verbal
demands for payment, but the lessees did not heed them. On November 25, 1977, a demand letter was sent by the
complainant, through counsel, to the lessees. As the Vegas failed to comply with the lessors’ demands, the latter filed
an ejectment complaint. Answering the ejectment complaint, the defendants alleged that no rents were due after July
15, 1977 for they stopped the operation of their bake shop on that date after Judge Vega was promoted to the Court
of First Instance of Palawan.

The trial lasted ten (10) years on account of Judge Vega’s dilatory tactics compounded by his over-extended
testimony (he took the witness stand seven times) while a succession of four different judges took turns presiding
over the court. The amount due on the judgment, including legal rate of interest (over a period of ten years) and
attorney’s fees, was only P4,500, but respondent would not give his lessors the satisfaction of recovering what was
due them. He appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City which affirmed it and took the case
to the Court of Appeals which dismissed his petition for review.

Even after the judgment had become final, its execution was delayed because Judge Vega questioned the
computation of the amount due (P4,500). When the writ of execution was presented to him in his office at Malolos,
Bulacan, he advised the sheriff to serve it at his house in Quezon City. It was only after the complainant filed this
administrative case against him on June 15, 1989 that Judge Vega paid through the Assistant Clerk of Court on July
21, 1989 the sum of P4,500 on the judgment in Civil Case No. 1690.

Issue:

Whether or not the Judge Vega is guilty of the oppressive conduct.

Ruling:

Yes. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that respondent judge’s conduct toward the complainant was
oppressive and unbecoming a member of the judiciary. He used his position and his legal knowledge to welsh on just
debt and to harass his creditor. His example erodes public faith in the capacity of courts to administer justice.

Decision:

The Court finds respondent Judge Benjamin A.G. Vega guilty of oppressive conduct and willful delay in paying a just
debt (Section 5, Rule 140, Rules of Court as amended). He is ordered to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000) and is hereby warned that a repetition of this misconduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.
8. Salazar vs. Marigomen 537 SCRA 25 , October 19, 2007

Principle:

Judges; Bias and Partiality; Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice, and shall not, by
words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

Facts:

Zenaida F. Salazar, wife of complainant, and a mayoralty candidate in the Municipality of Madridejos, Cebu in the
May 2001 elections, filed an election protest against the proclaimed winner Mancio (Mancio) before the Regional Trial
Court, Bogo. In said election case, Judge Salazar is accused of admitting in evidence uncertified photocopies of the
contested ballots contrary to Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

Salazar also accuses Judge Marigomen of partiality after he ordered his Clerk of Court to coordinate with counsel for
the protestee in the election case and to testify for her, despite the objection of the protestant in relation with the
presentation of the plain photocopies of the contested ballots. Furthermore, Judge Marigomen allowed Atty.
ReinerioRoeles, the co-counsel for the protestee, to testify despite the protestant’s objection on the ground that his
testifying would be a violation of professional ethics and despite Judge Marigomen’s citation of authorities on the
matter. Finally, Salazar claims that Judge Marigomen violated the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as well as the
Constitution for not clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the law on which his decision was based.

In his Comment, Judge Marigomen offers, among other things that Salazar is not the real party in interest and, in any
event, the complaint is moot and academic as the election protest had been decided on appeal by the COMELEC;
and if errors were committed, they pertain to the exercise of his adjudicative functions which cannot be corrected
through administrative proceedings.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the administrative case shall be dismissed because the complainant is not a real party in
interest.

2. Whether or not respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, bias and dishonesty.

Ruling:

Administrative matter involves the exercise of the Court’s power to discipline judges. It is undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare, that is, to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government. Thus, unlike
in ordinary cases, there is no private offended party in administrative proceedings who may be entitled to judicial
relief. The complainant need not be a real party in interest, as anyone may file an administrative complaint against a
judge, the only requirement being that the complaint be verified and it ―be in writing and shall state clearly and
concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the
Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.‖

The Court finds the evaluation of the case by the OCA in order. Judge Marigomen’s questioned acts do not conform
to Canons 3 and 5 regarding impartiality and equality of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary.

And respondent indeed committed falsehood, as found by the OCA. Judge Marigomen’s claim that he allowed the
protestee’s counsel, Atty. Roeles, to testify over the objection of the protestant’s counsel because the latter failed to
submit a memorandum in support of the objection, is belied by the records of the case. Thus, in a pleading captioned
―Manifestation,‖ the protestant’s counsel submitted a memorandum of authorities on the matter.

Judge Marigomen also indeed failed to state in his decision why he invalidated 90 ballots in favor of the protestant
and to specify the ballots being set aside, thereby violating the Constitution.

Decision:
The Court finds respondent, Judge Antonio D. Marigomen, guilty of 1) gross ignorance of the law or procedure and is
fined in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand (P25,000) Pesos, and 2) manifest bias and dishonesty amounting to
grave misconduct and is FINED in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand (P25,000) Pesos.

9. Correa vs. Belen 627 SCRA 13 , August 06, 2010

Principle:

The Code also calls upon judges to ensure equality of treatment to all before the courts. More specifically, Section 3,
Canon 5 on Equality provides:

SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to
the proper performance of such duties.

Facts:

Complainant narrated that he was one of the Co-Administrators appointed by the court in Special Proceedings No.
660-01C, entitled “Intestate Estate of Hector Tan.” He revealed that during the hearing of the case, respondent Judge
Belen disagreed with various items in the Administrator’s Report, including the audited Financial Report covering the
said estate, and immediately ruled that they should be disallowed. Complainant added that respondent Judge Belen
scolded their accountant, branded her as an incompetent, and threatened to sue her before the regulatory body
overseeing all certified public accountants.

Complainant further claimed that, in the course of the proceedings, he was asked by respondent Judge Belen to
stand up while the latter dictated his order on their Administrator’s Report. Respondent Judge Belen even rebuked
him for some mistakes in managing the affairs of the estate, adding that it is regrettable “because Atty. Raul Correa is
a U.P. Law Graduate and a Bar Topnotcher at that.” Complainant regrets the actuations and statements of
respondent Judge Belen, especially because the remark was uncalled for, a left-handed compliment, and a grave
insult to his Alma Mater. Worse, respondent Judge Belen ousted complainant as co-administrator of the estate of
Hector Tan.

Respondent Judge Belen argued that a judge, having the heavy burden to always conduct himself in accordance with
the ethical tenets of honesty, probity and integrity, is duty bound to remind counsel of their duties to the court, to their
clients, to the adverse party, and to the opposing counsel.

Respondent Judge Belen claimed that the conduct of complainant in handling the settlement of the estate of Hector
Tan violated and breached the tenets and standards of the legal profession and of the Lawyer’s Oath. He alleged
that, despite the clear tenor of a lawyer-client relationship, complainant associated himself as corresponding counsel
and member of the Ongkiko Law Office, the counsel of the opposing party in the settlement proceedings. Respondent
Judge Belen further alleged that complainant, in connivance with Rose Ang Tee, surreptitiously released millions of
pesos for the now deceased Purification Tee Tan and to themselves, in clear violation of complainant’s legal and
fiduciary relationship and responsibilities as court-appointed co-administrator.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent judge violates the Section 3, Canon 5 on Equality.

Ruling:

Yes. OCA notes that the incidents narrated by complainant were never denied by respondent Judge Belen, who
merely offered his justification and asserted counter accusations against complainant. Verily, respondent Judge
Belen should be more circumspect in his language in the discharge of his duties. A judge is the visible representation
of the law. Thus, he must behave, always, in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can withstand the
most searching public scrutiny. The ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the
preservation of the people’s faith in the judicial system.
A judge must consistently be temperate in words and in actions. Respondent Judge Belen’s insulting statements,
tending to project complainant’s ignorance of the laws and procedure, coming from his inconsiderate belief that the
latter mishandled the cause of his client is obviously and clearly insensitive, distasteful, and inexcusable. Such abuse
of power and authority could only invite disrespect from counsels and from the public. Patience is one virtue that
members of the bench should practice at all times, and courtesy to everyone is always called for.

Decision:

Judge MedelArnaldo B. Belen, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 36, GUILTY of
Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, and FINE him P10,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

10. Ocenar vs. Mabutin 452 SCRA 377 , February 28, 2005

Facts:

Complainant Ocenar , challenges the propriety of the grant of bail by the respondent to the accused Monsanto. As to
Ocenar narration, Raymund Monsanto was arrested in a buy-bust operation. Confiscated from him were shabu
paraphernalia, money, and 3.8 grams of shabu. A case for violation of Section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act was
filed against Monsanto who was held behind bars. Respondent judge conducted the preliminary investigation of the
case which was terminated , however, even before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, respondent judge
approved the motion for bail of Monsanto and even granted the motion to reduce bail bond filed by Monsanto;
whereupon, accused was released from prison.From the point of view of the Complainant, Monsanto is not entitled to
bail and the granting thereof was a violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002) inasmuch as Section 5 provides that the penalty for the alleged crime is life imprisonment to death.
Complainant submits that the Respondent gave undue favor to Monsanto because the latter is a grandson of Judge
Sinforiano A. Monsanto who is the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan, Samar.

In contrast, in another criminal case (Crim. Case No. Y3-H-330 entitled, People v. Felix Bantugan), likewise for
violation of Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 9165, the accused therein, Felix Bantugan, who was arrested in a police buy-
bust operation and caught in possession of 0.06 grams of shabu, was denied his bail by respondent.

In the respondent just comment, the charge of partiality due to the grant of bail to Monsanto and the denial of bail to
Bantugan, the reason proffered by respondent is simply because no bail was applied for by Bantugan. The fact of
non-application for bail is attested by a certification, to that effort issued by Mr. Alfredo Bardaje, Administrative Officer
III of the OPP of Samar.

Relative to the allegation that he is a protégé of Judge Monsanto, respondent denies the same and instead claims
that he comes from another town in Samar, Sta. Margarita, while Judge Monsanto hails from Calbayog City. He never
had any dealings with Judge Monsanto except on a purely professional basis such as when “he had to go to Judge
Monsanto’s office to research, the IBP officers induction, their attendance in judge’s seminars, Christmas party of the
trial court, encounters during town fiestas, and the blow-out of Judge Monsanto when he was chosen as centennial
judge for Region VIII.” Other than those instances, there was never any time where respondent dealt with Judge
Monsanto personally.

Issue:

Whether or not is guilty of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.

Ruling:

No. The Court finds that Respondent has more than sufficiently complied with the requirements of the law before his
approval of the bail application of accused Monsanto, negating a charge that he was remiss in his duty. Clearly, the
prosecutor assigned to the court to appear in behalf of the People was notified of the hearing on the application for
bail and directed to make a recommendation. The bail application was heard on different occasions before the same
was granted. The Order allowing the accused to be released on bail on the ground that the evidence of his guilt was
not strong was based on and contained a summary of the evidence of the prosecution as required by the law.

In sum, the acts of respondent judge were all in accordance with law and settled jurisprudence.

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with
substantial evidence,18 i.e., that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the
performance of his functions.

While it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against judges and other
court personnel, it is also our duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative
charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it
hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of
justice.

Decision:

The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

11. State Prosecutors vs. Muro 236 SCRA 505 , September 19, 1994

Facts:

The case at bar involves the prosecution of the 11 charges against Imelda Marcos in violation of the Central Bank
Foreign Exchange Restriction in the Central Bank Circular 960. The respondent judge dismissed all 11 cases solely
on the basis of the report published from the 2 newspapers, which the judge believes to be reputable and of national
circulation, that the President of the Philippines lifted all foreign exchange restrictions. The respondent’s decision was
founded on his belief that the reported announcement of the Executive Department in the newspaper in effect
repealed the CB 960 and thereby divested the court of its jurisdiction to further hear the pending case thus
motupropio dismissed the case.

The petitioners stressed that this is not just a simple case of a misapplication or erroneous interpretation of the law.
The very act of respondent judge in altogether dismissing suasponte the eleven criminal cases without even a motion
to quash having been filed by the accused, and without at least giving the prosecution the basic opportunity to be
heard on the matter by way of a written comment or on oral argument, is not only a blatant denial of elementary due
process to the Government but is palpably indicative of bad faith and partiality.

Moreover, Petitioner’s alleged that the judge also exercised grave abuse of discretion by taking judicial notice on the
published statement of the President in the newspaper (Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Daily Globe)which is a
matter that has not yet been officially in force and effect of the law.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in taking judicial notice on the statement of
the president lifting the foreign exchange restriction published in the newspaper as basis for dismissing the case?

Ruling:

Yes. A law which is not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge capable of ready and
unquestionable demonstration, which is one of the requirements before a court can take judicial notice of a fact.
Evidently, it was impossible for respondent judge, and it was definitely not proper for him, to have taken cognizance
of CB Circular No. 1353, when the same was not yet in force at the time the improvident order of dismissal was
issued.
When the President’s statement was published in the newspaper, the respondent judge admitted of not having seen
the official text of CB circular 1353 thus it was premature for him to take judicial notice on this matter which is merely
based on his personal knowledge and is not based on the public knowledge that the law requires for the court to take
judicial notice of.

This is not a simple case of a misapplication or erroneous interpretation of the law. The very act of respondent judge
in altogether dismissing suasponte the eleven criminal cases without even a motion to quash having been filed by the
accused, and without at least giving the prosecution the basic opportunity to be heard on the matter by way of a
written comment or on oral argument, is not only a blatant denial of elementary due process to the Government but is
palpably indicative of bad faith and partiality.

The Court strongly feels that it has every right to assume and expect that respondent judge is possessed with more
than ordinary credentials and qualifications to merit his appointment as a presiding judge in the Regional Trial Court
of the National Capital Judicial Region, stationed in the City of Manila itself. It is, accordingly, disheartening and
regrettable to note the nature of the arguments and the kind of logic that respondent judge would want to impose on
this Court notwithstanding the manifest lack of cogency thereof.

Decision:

The Court finds respondent Judge Manuel T. Muro guilty of gross ignorance of the law. He is dismissed from the
service, such dismissal to carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and
disqualification from reemployment in the government service. Respondent is ordered to cease and desist
immediately from rendering any judgment or order, or continuing any judicial action or proceeding whatsoever,
effective upon receipt of this decision.