DIGESTS OF ALL CASES UNDER CANON 2 OF THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL

CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

By: JD 1 – E (Tuesday Class)

2004 CASES

LUCILA TAN v. JUDGE MAXWEL S. ROSETE

A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1207-MTJ)
September 8, 2004
Ponente: Justice Reynato S. Puno

FACTS  Lucila Tan filed the instant complaint against Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, former
Acting Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San Juan, Metro
Manila, for violation of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019).

 Complainant claims that respondent judge, through his staff, required her to pay
the amount of ₱150,000.00 for him to render judgment in her favor in the two
criminal cases she filed against Alfonso Pe Sy.

 Complainant was shown copies of respondent judge’s Decisions in Criminal

Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120, both still unsigned, dismissing the complaints
against the accused. She was told that respondent judge would reverse the
disposition of the cases as soon as she remits the amount demanded. The staff
member allowed complainant to keep the copy of the draft decision in Criminal
Case No. 59440.

 Respondent judge, on the other hand, asserts that it was complainant who
attempted to bribe him by offering to pay for the downpayment of the car he
was planning to buy, and she even sought the intervention of then San Juan
Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to persuade him to rule for the complainant in Criminal
Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120.

FINDINGS OF THE  The respondent’s evidence did not overcome the facts proved by complainant.
COURT
 In ruling against Judge Rosete, the Court stated that judges must be the
embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. Like Caesar’s wife, a
judge must not only be pure but above suspicion. The exacting standards of
conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the people’s confidence in
the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and
the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of
integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. When the judge
himself becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply, he
places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is
therefore paramount that a judge’s personal behavior both in the performance of
his duties and his daily life, be free from any appearance of impropriety as to be
beyond reproach.

RULING  Judge Maxwel S. Rosete was SUSPENDED from office without salary and other
benefits for FOUR (4) MONTHS.

Page 1 of 104
 NELIA A. ZIGA v. JUDGE RAMON A. AREJOLA, MTC-Daet, Camarines Norte
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1318 (Formerly A.C. No. 4755)
November 23, 2004
Ponente: Justice Dante O. Tiñga

FACTS  This is an administrative complaint filed on 30 May 1997 by complainant Nelia A.

Ziga against respondent Judge (then Atty.) Ramon A. Arejola for "disregard of
the lawyer’s duty to represent and protect the interest of his client."

 Ziga alleges that respondent, her co-heir, acted as counsel for all the heirs of
Fabiana Arejola who were the applicants in LRC No. 95-142 before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City. After the trial court Decision, respondent failed to
ask for the correction of complainant's name which was misspelled as "LILIA."

 Complainant submits that respondent's failure to have the spelling amended

despite receiving requests to correct the mistake constitutes utter disregard of a
lawyer's duty to protect his client.

 Nelia Ziga filed a complaint praying that Judge Arejola be disciplined for
appearing before the court without the Supreme Court's permission and for
asking contingent attorneys fees and commission.

 Respondent's defense was that for him there was no need for the Supreme
Court's permission, as he was appearing as representative of the heirs and not
as counsel. That he was a party-in-interest being one of the heirs. He also
denied the existence of an attorney-client relationship between him and the
complainant.

OCA'S REPORT  In its Report the OCA recommended that the respondent be "cleared of any
administrative liability in so far as the Office of the Court Administrator is
concerned" and that the case be referred back to the Office of the Bar Confidant
on the ground that the acts complained of were allegedly committed before
respondent’s appointment to the judiciary.

 The Court, however, did not share the recommendation and resolved to return
the case to the OCA. The Court stated that "Charges against judges, even if
made for acts committed by them before their appointment to the judiciary are
to be investigated by the Office of the Court Administrator. Thus, the matter
should be investigated by the Office of the Court Administrator."

 Upon the OCA’s recommendation, the Court referred the case to the Executive
Judge of the RTC of Daet, Camarines Norte, to ensure the speedy disposition of
the case and for the convenience of the parties.

FINDINGS OF THE  Respondent stood as counsel for the Heirs of Fabiana Arejola, complainant Nelia
COURT A. Ziga included. Judge Arejola filed the initial and subsequent pleadings in the
land registration case and appeared for and in behalf of the heirs of Fabiana
Arejola from its inception to its termination.

 He even represented them with the City Government of Naga in the transaction
involving the sale of the subject land. A written contract is not essential to
Page 2 of 104
 establish the relation. It is enough that the advice and assistance of an attorney
is sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession. Besides, the
Notice of Attorney’s Lien contradicts respondent’s denials.

 As complainant’s counsel, he should be devoted to his client’s cause from

beginning to end. True, he may be excused for not having the complainant’s
erroneous name amended if in his judgment it was not necessary.

 Further, we cannot countenance respondent’s use of the erroneous name in the

Deed of Absolute Sale which he prepared. As relatives, He cannot justify such
use by reason of inadvertence or mistake. And in our opinion, we do not need to
divine his motives to call it a reprehensible act.

RULING  Judge Ramon Arejola is hereby REPRIMANDED with a WARNING that a

repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Let a
copy of this resolution be attached to his personal record.

Page 3 of 104
 2005 CASES

RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE EDMUNDO T. ACUÑA, REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 123
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2093-RTJ)
July 28, 2005
Ponente: Justice Romeo J. Callejo Sr.

FACTS  On November 21, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a
Letter dated November 3, 2003 from "Concerned citizens of the lower court"
reporting the alleged "practices" of Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, Regional Trial
Court, Caloocan City, Branch 123. According to the letter, the respondent Judge
conducted trials, signed orders and even sentenced accused while on official
leave from August 15, 2001 to September 15, 2001.

 The letter went on to question whether the respondent had authority to impose
such sentences, issue orders and conduct hearings. Aside from listing the
respondent's "dialogues," his "favorite expressions" were likewise listed, as
follows: Putris; Anak ng pating; Putang Ina; Pogi; beauty; Tulungan nyo naman
ako, hirap na hirap na ko; and Mali ka na naman.

 Anent the allegation that he conducted trials the respondent Judge said “I was
not actuated by any evil or improper motive. Neither was I motivated by any
monetary consideration or otherwise except by my desire to discharge my sworn
duty to administer justice expeditiously. I acted in good faith and in the honest
belief that I had the right to defer the effectivity of my leave chargeable against
the 30-day forfeitable leave benefit”

 In his comment, the respondent averred that the writers of the letter were
actuated by improper motive, and sent the letter with no other purpose than to
harass him. Furthermore, the allegations in the letter were fabricated,
exaggerated, or misquoted.

OCA’s REPORT  Official records culled from the OCA Office of Administrative Services indicate that
Judge Acuña had an approved application for leave covering the period from 21
August 2001 to 21 September 2001. This application for leave of absence was
approved on 3 August 2001. In view of this approved application for leave, it was
a natural expectation that Judge Acuña would cease from exercising his functions
during the said period.

 However, per verification with the clerk-in-charge at RTC Branch 123, Caloocan
City, respondent Judge Acuña presided cases on 21 August 2001.

FINDINGS OF THE  Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in
COURT conduct and in language. Indeed, a judge should so behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all
the activities of a judge. We recognize, of course, that judges are also human
beings, with their own burdens and private affairs. However, having accepted
the esteemed position of judge, the respondent ought to have known that more
is expected of him than an ordinary citizen. As subjects of constant public
scrutiny, personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the

Page 4 of 104
 ordinary citizen should be freely and willingly accepted by a judge. In particular,
he or she must exhibit conduct consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
Indeed, a judge's personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official
duties, must be beyond reproach, being the visible personification of law and of
justice.

 In Ignacio v. Valenzuela, a judge who heard a motion while he was on vacation

was held guilty of impropriety and was meted a fine of one month's salary. To
reiterate, a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all activities. Thus, in conducting hearings and promulgation of decisions on the
day when his official leave of absence was to commence, the respondent Judge
was guilty of impropriety. Considering, however, that no bad faith or ill motive
can be attributed to the respondent, the Court deems it proper to reprimand him
for his actuations.

RULING  WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Edmundo T. Acuña is found GUILTY of

impropriety and is REPRIMANDED therefor. He is STERNLY WARNED that the
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

JUDGE RODERICK A. MAXINO v. HERMOLO B. FABUGAIS, Process Server, Municipal

Trial Court in Cities, Dumaguete City, Branch 2
A.M. No. P-05-1946
January 31, 2005
Ponente: Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.

FACTS  In April 22, 2003, In a verified letter addressed to the Court Administrator,
respondent Hermolo B. Fabugais, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Dumaguete City, Branch 2, requested his temporary detail or transfer
from his present assignment, alleging that he was making the request as he
could "no longer stand the harassment and oppression being imposed on him" by
Presiding Judge Roderick A. Maxino.
 The respondent pointed out that two previous acting judges of the court gave
him "satisfactory" ratings, while Judge Maxino rated his performance as
"unsatisfactory." He also alleged that the judge asked him to voluntarily resign;
otherwise, an administrative complaint for unsatisfactory performance would be
filed against him seeking his dismissal from the service. The respondent stated
that Judge Maxino was being unfair, unjust and oppressive, and that his
attention should have been called first to warn him of lapses in his performance.

 In a Letter dated June 20, 2003, Judge Maxino admitted that he personally
advised the respondent to voluntarily resign from the service rather than face an
administrative complaint before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as a
consequence of his unsatisfactory performance. The judge clarified that the
respondent's attention had been called for failing to serve the court's processes
and was required to explain his lapses in writing. The judge claimed that the
respondent ignored the directive, but for reasons of compassion, no disciplinary
action was meted on the latter.

 In August 1, 2003, the respondent was directed to comment on Judge Maxino’s

Letter in a 1st Indorsement. The respondent explained that he was the only

Page 5 of 104
 process server assigned at the MTCC, Dumaguete City, Branch 2, while other
MTCCs have two process servers in their courts. He narrated the reason for
problems encountered in serving processes, such as numerous summonses,
incorrect addresses, parties who changed their addresses without notifying the
court, difficulty in locating such parties, and refusal of others to cooperate.4 He
alleged that he had already explained these difficulties to Judge Maxino, and
insisted that he could not understand why the judge was now demanding his
immediate dismissal from the service.

OCA’s REPORT  The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the June 20,
2003 Letter of Judge Maxino be treated as an administrative complaint against
the respondent for neglect of duty. It was, likewise, recommended that the
respondent be fined in the amount of P1,000.00 for inefficiency.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Executive Judge concluded that the respondent is guilty of simple neglect of
COURT duty and recommended that he be suspended for a period of one (1) month and
one (1) day with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely.

 The findings of the Executive Judge are well taken. The respondent's bare claim
that "court orders and other notices are delivered to counsel and parties on
time," presumably by him, is belied by the documents submitted by Judge
Maxino, by the respondent's own admission in his Letter6 dated September 15,
2003, and by the findings of the Executive Judge. The records show that Judge
Maxino issued several orders7 re-setting scheduled hearings as the parties did
not receive the notices thereon. Branch Clerk of Court Epifania P. Ramada even
issued Office Memorandum No. 4,8 requiring the respondent to explain in writing
why he failed to cause the service of notices for specified civil cases pending
before the court.

 Judges, as administrators of their respective courts, are responsible for the

conduct and management of the affairs therein. Judges have the duty to
supervise court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business in
their courts. As such, judges are authorized to "take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct" of which they may have become aware [Section 3, Canon 2 of of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC)
which took effect on June 1, 2004].

 The respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the
failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him.16 Under
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, simple neglect of duty is
classified as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one
(1) month and one (1) day to six months, for the first offense.

RULING  Respondent Hermolo B. Fabugais is hereby adjudged GUILTY of simple neglect of

duty and is SUSPENDED for two (2) months effective immediately. He is
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.

Page 6 of 104
JUDGE THELMA CANLAS TRINIDADPE AGUIRRE v. EDUARDO T. BALTAZAR, LEGAL
RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 129, CALOOCAN CITY
A.M. NO. P-05-1957 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA IPI NO. 04-1912-P)
February 7, 2005
Ponente: Justice Romeo J. Callejo Sr.

FACTS  On April 12, 2004, Judge Trinidad-Pe Aguirre charged Eduardo T. Baltazar, Legal
Researcher, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 129, with
conduct unbecoming a court employee.

 The complainant Judge first issued a directive requiring several of her staff to file
a written explanation regarding repeated absences, and that the respondent was
one of them.

 Herein respondent failed to submit his written explanation thus complainant

judge issued Administrative Order No. 01-041 dated March 17, 2004, effectively
imposing a fine on the respondent for "disobedience of a lawful order" in the
amount of P500.00.

 On April 14, 2004, the complainant Judge issued another Order detailing the
respondent in the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, this city to beef up the
manpower of the Clerk of Court, until such time that herein respondent can
perform his duties with fidelity and zeal.

 The complainant Judge alleged in her letter-complaint that she was the former
Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 62, Gumaca, Quezon and that she was charging
the respondent for misbehavior for filing a leave of absence from March 22, 2004
to April 20, 2004, without seeking her written permission

 Complainant judge claimed that such act of the respondent undermined her
position as Presiding judge and would create a bad precedent among her
subordinates.

 The respondent, for his part sought the approval of his application for leave of
absence from Judge Silvestre H. Bello, Jr., then Executive Judge of RTC,
Caloocan City, for the period of March 22 to April 20, 2004.
 The respondent maintained that he acted in good faith and did not undermine
the position of the complainant Judge.

 Complainant Judge reiterated that in imposing a fine against the respondent and
detailing him to another branch, she had no other intention than to improve
public service and preserve the public's faith and confidence in the judiciary.

OCA’s REPORT  Recommendations:

 The instant case be RE-DOCKETED as an administrative matter.

 The complaint against respondent Eduardo T. Baltazar, Legal Researcher,

RTC-Caloocan City, Branch 129, be DISMISSED.

 Complainant Judge Thelma Canlas Pe-Aguirre, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch

129, be ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the exercise of her
supervisory authority over the personnel of her court.

Page 7 of 104
  The respondent had already sought permission from Executive Judge Bello,
Jr. There was, thus, no need for Judge Aguirre to penalize the respondent as
the latter violated no rule.

FINDINGS OF THE  In the case at bar, there is no showing that the respondent acted in bad faith in
COURT failing to secure Judge Aguirre's written permission before taking a leave of
absence; if at all, it was a mere oversight on his part.

 The power to discipline court personnel is vested in the Supreme Court; and the
authority to detail or re-assign the personnel of one branch to another branch or
to the Office of the Clerk of Court is lodged in the Executive Judge (SC
Administrative Circular No. 6 dated June 30, 1975).

 Complainant overstepped the bounds of her authority by imposing a disciplinary

sanction on the respondent, and detailing him to the Office of the Clerk of Court
without seeking the approval of the Executive Judge.

 Complainant judge had no authority to impose a P500.00 fine on the respondent

for failure to submit a written explanation on his successive absences, or detail
him to another office.

 The court states that judges must bear in mind that their behavior must reaffirm
the people's faith and integrity of the judiciary, and that justice must not merely
be done but must also seen to be done.

RULING  Judge Thelma Canlas Trinidad-Pe Aguirre is ADMONISHED to be more

circumspect in the exercise of her supervisory authority over the personnel of her
court. She is WARNED that a similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.

 The complaint against respondent Eduardo T. Baltazar is DISMISSED for lack of

merit.

TRINIDAD LACHICA v. JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, MTCC, BRANCH 4, CEBU CITY

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1609 (OCA-IPI No. 03-1490-MTJ)
September 20, 2005
Ponente: Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago

FACTS  Judge Rosabella was charged by complainant for Abuse of Authority relative to
Criminal Cases Nos. 57220-R and 57223-R.

 Domugho (accused at said CC) was apprehended by PO3 Epifanio Sanjorjo and
was brought to the police station for booking and custody.

 Complainant was surprised to receive a call from accused regarding her release
and subsequently inquired from the police station.

 Complainant was informed that respondent judge called the police station and

Page 8 of 104
 told the desk officer that accused had posted a cash bail bond and may already
be released.

 There is allegedly no Release Order received by the police, but only the notation
that the accused had put up a cash bail bond.

FINDINGS OF OCA  Respondent judge must be fined in the amount of P20, 000 or suspended for
three (3) months.

HELD/FINDINGS OF  In the Judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity.
THE SUPREME Respondent must bear in mind that the exacting standards of conduct demanded
COURT from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of
the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages
disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the
judiciary itself.

RULING  Judge Tormis is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from
office for six (6) months without salary and other benefits and STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Page 9 of 104
 2006 CASES

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE FLORENTINO V FLORO, JR.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460
March 31, 2006
x-------------------------------------x
RE: RESOLUTION DATED 11 MAY 1999 OF JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC
March 31, 2006
x-------------------------------------x
LUZ ARIEGO v. JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 99-812-RTJ)
March 31, 2006
Ponente: Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario

FACTS  This is a consolidated case pertaining to the acts of Judge Floro.

 The first case (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460) started when Judge Floro requested an
audit on his sala by the OCA. It was found out he should be subject to
psychological or mental exams. It was also reported that he violated Canon 2,
Rule 2.02, Canons of Judicial Conduct when he circulated calling cards
containing self-laudatory statements regarding his qualifications and for
announcing in open court said qualifications. He also violated Canon 2, Rule 2.01
for his alleged partiality by declaring himself that he is pro-accused.

 There were 13 charges against him including the use of his chambers as
sleeping quarters; engaged in the practice of law as a member of the judiciary;
and proceeding on a hearing without the prosecutor amongst other things.
 A “Partial Report” by Justice Ramirez recommended Judge Floro’s dismissal by
reason of insanity. Meanwhile Judge Floro filed cases against those he thinks
conspired to kick him out of office which, later on, he moved to dismiss.

 The second case (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988) revolves on one of the complaints
against him in the first case. Judge Floro used his moral ascendancy to settle
and eventually dismiss a case for frustrated homicide by persuading complainant
and accused to sign the settlement without the trial prosecutor.

 The third case (A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC) concerns on a resolution by Judge Floro.
The resolution disposed of the motions for voluntary inhibition of Judge Floro
and the reconsideration of the order denying the petition for naturalization filed
by Mary Ng Nei.

 The resolution got to OCA and was evaluated. OCA said that Judge Floro is
wrong and that he violated Canon 2, Rule 2.03 by stating that Justice Regino C.
Hermosisima, Jr. as padrino in judgeship.

FINDINGS OF THE  Re: Charge of circulating calling cards containing self-laudatory statements
SUPREME COURT regarding qualifications AND for announcing in open court during court session
his qualifications in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.02, Canons of Judicial Conduct.

Page 10 of 104
 We find the act of Judge Floro in circulating calling cards containing self-
laudatory statements constitutive of simple misconduct in violation of Canon 2,
Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as it appears that Judge Floro was not
motivated by any corrupt motive but, from what we can see from the evidence,
a persistent and unquenchable thirst for recognition.

 As to the charge that Judge Floro, through his branch clerk of court, had been
announcing in open court his qualifications, we find that this is likewise violative
of Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as it smacks of
unnecessary publicity.

 Re: Charge of partiality in criminal cases where he declared that he is pro-

accused which is contrary to Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Canons of Judicial Conduct. By
professing his bias for the accused, Judge Floro is guilty of unbecoming conduct
as his capacity for objectivity is put in serious doubt, necessarily eroding the
public’s trust in his ability to render justice.

 Re: Charge of appearing in personal cases without prior authority from the
Supreme Court and without filing the corresponding applications for leaves of
absence on the scheduled dates of hearing.

 Judge Floro might not be guilty of unauthorized practice of law as defined, he is

guilty of unbecoming conduct for signing a pleading wherein he indicated that he
is the presiding judge of RTC, Branch 73, Malabon City and for appending to the
pleading a copy of his oath with a picture of his oath-taking. The only logical
explanation we can reach for such acts is that Judge Floro was obviously trying
to influence or put pressure on a fellow judge by emphasizing that he himself is
a judge and is thus in the right.

 Verily, Canon 2, Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a
"judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or administrative agency." By doing what
he did, Judge Floro, to say the least, put a fellow judge in a very awkward
position.

 There is no indication that Judge Floro is anything but an honorable man. And,
in fact, in our disposition of the 13 charges against him, we have not found him
guilty of gross misconduct or acts or corruption. However, the findings of
psychosis by the mental health professionals assigned to his case indicate gross
deficiency in competence and independence.

 Judge Floro’s separation from the service does not carry with it forfeiture of all
or part of his accrued benefits nor disqualification from appointment to any other
public office including government-owned or controlled corporations.

 Consequently, while Judge Floro may be dysfunctional as a judge because of the

sensitive nature of said position, he may still be successful in other areas of
endeavor.

Finally, if Judge Floro’s mental impairment is secondary to genetics and/or adverse

environmental factors (and, unfortunately, such essential information is not
available), we cannot condemn people for their faulty genes and/or adverse
environment – factors they have no control over.

Page 11 of 104
 RULING  The Court resolves to FINE Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr in the total amount of
P40,000 for seven of the charges against him in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460; RELIEVE
Judge Floro of his functions as judge and consider him SEPARATED from the
service due to a medically disabling condition of the mind; AWARD Judge Floro
back salaries, allowances and other benefits corresponding to three years;
DISMISS the charge in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988 for lack of merit; and DISMISS the
charge in A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC for mootness.

ESTRELLA A. BARBA v. JUDGE ROSITA B. SALAZAR, and CLERK OF COURT II JOSEPH

L. BRILLANTES, both of the MCTC, LICUAN-BAAY, ABRA
A.M. NO. MTJ-06-1630 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1590-MTJ)
March 31, 2006
Ponente: Justice Dante O. Tiñga

FACTS  Complainant alleged that she is the mother of Rosette Rosario B. Pineda Clerk II
of the MCTC Baay-Licuan, Abra who resigned from her post.

 Even after her resignation, Pineda's name remained in the payroll and several
checks were still issued in her favor. Complainant claimed that her daughter did
not receive any of the checks. Yet three (3) of the checks were allegedly
encashed by respondent judge.

 Respondent clerk of court upon receipt of the checks for Pineda immediately
returned the same to the Checks Disbursement Division of this Court.

 However, the checks taken by the respondent judge were not returned as she
herself volunteered to return them personally since she was supposedly going to
the Supreme Court at that time.

 Respondent judge in her Comment admits taking the checks of Pineda

representing the latter's midyear bonus, clothing allowance, and fiscal autonomy
allowance from the post office. She states that she did so not for any immoral
motive or sinister interest but for the sole and honest purpose of returning them
herself to the Court. However, she discovered that the checks were missing from
the book were she inserted them and her earnest efforts to locate them, to the
point of castigating the members of her household, proved futile. Upon
discovering the loss, respondent judge immediately informed the Court of such
loss and requested the stoppage of payment of the checks through the Checks
Disbursement Division. Finally, respondent judge reiterates that the loss was
completely beyond her perception.

OCA’S REPORT  OCA recommended that the instant administrative complaint be referred to the
executive judge of the Regional Trial Court, Bangued, Abra for investigation,
report and recommendation. In addition, the OCA, upon verification with the
Land Bank of the Philippines, reported that two (2) of the three (3) missing
checks were already encashed/negotiated.

RTC’S REPORT  The investigating judge filed her Report and Recommendation recommending
that the administrative complaint against respondent clerk of court be dismissed
for lack of substantial evidence. Respondent Judge exercises administrative
Page 12 of 104
 supervision over respondent clerk of court hence the latter cannot be faulted for
trusting his superior. At this point, the undersigned concludes that respondent
clerk of court should be absolved from any administrative charge pertaining to
the missing checks.

 As to respondent judge, the investigating judge recommended that she be

exonerated of the charges of gross dishonesty, conduct unbecoming of a judge,
and abuse of discretion.

FINDING OF THE  The court held that the act of taking the three checks, even if with honorable
COURT intentions, does not excuse her from the eventual consequences prejudicing
Pineda and more importantly, the Judiciary. That circumstance alone is already a
cause for suspicion. In so doing, respondent judge violated Canon 2 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct.

 Respondent judge's irregular obtention of the three (3) checks, and their
subsequent loss in her custody, stand as the proximate cause of the illegal
encashment of these checks to the financial damage of the Supreme Court. Even
if there is no substantial evidence establishing respondent's participation or
acquiescence to the encashment of the checks, her negligence is sufficiently
proved, and administrative sanction warranted.

 The ultimate victim in this case is neither complainant nor her daughter Pineda.
The money was illegally extracted from the funds of the Court. Evidently, it is
the Court which is prejudiced by the negligence of respondent judge since the
money was given to someone who did not render service to the Court.

 When the checks allegedly lost were encashed not by the person to whom it was
issued, respondent judge's liability is compounded. Not only is she responsible
for keeping the checks to which she is not entitled but she is also directly
accountable for the loss and the encashment of these checks by no other than
her son and another person whose signature appears to be hers.

 Complainant cannot be faulted in instituting this administrative complaint

because her daughter was also prejudiced by the culpable acts of respondent
judge.

RULING  Respondent Judge Rosita B. Salazar is hereby FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) and ORDERED to restitute the amount of Thirteen Thousand Nine
Hundred Twenty Five and Thirty Centavos (P13, 925.30) taken from the Court.

 The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) is DIRECTED to institute appropriate

criminal charges against James Salazar and all other persons responsible for the
encashment of the three (3) checks.

Page 13 of 104
 ARCELY Y. SANTOS v. JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM
A.M.NO. RTJ-04-1823
August 28, 2006
Ponente: Justice Antonio T. Carpio

FACTS  The case is an administrative complaint filed by Arcely Y. Santos against Judge
Ubaldino A. Lacurom a Presiding Judge of RTC of Cabanatuan City Branch 29 and
Branch 30.

 The complaint came from judge's alleged bias and partiality in favor of Rogelio R.
Santos, Sr. who had three pending cases before respondent judge's court, as
shown by the following:

 The judge allowed Rogelio, a non-lawyer, to appear in court and litigate personally
the three cases. Complainant pointed out that Santos was already represented by
counsels who have not withdrawn their appearances. Complainant alleged that the
judge is guilty of gross misconduct and grave abuse of judicial discretion for
having allowed a non-lawyer to engage in the practice law.

 In Special Proceedings Case No. 516-AF, respondent judge, in an Order dated 28

February 2003, even "appointed" Santos as lead counsel for the petitioners. As
early as 26 September 2002, complainant had been questioning the appearance of
Santos as "counsel" during the proceedings in court.

 On 11 November 2002, complainant filed a motion to destroy a pleading signed by

Santos, claiming that Santos, a non-lawyer, is not allowed to sign pleadings.

 In a Joint Resolution dated 7 February 2003, respondent judge denied

complainant's motion and stated that Santos is qualified to conduct his litigation
personally. Then on 20 February 2003, complainant filed a motion to reconsider
the Joint Resolution and suggested that, since Santos is now representing himself
and, at the same time, is being represented by counsel, respondent judge should
appoint a member of the Bar as lead counsel.

 On the other hand, complainant alleged that she and the other oppositors were
not allowed to address the court directly and respondent judge even compelled
them, under the pain of contempt, to secure the services of a lawyer to represent
them.

 Respondent judge always granted all the pleadings of Santos.

 Respondent judge denied complainant's letter-request dated 16 March 2001 for

respondent judge to inhibit himself from the cases to avoid suspicion of bias,
prejudice, conflict of interest and partiality.

 Complainant alleged that respondent judge used his office to advance and protect
the interests of Santos who is his close friend, to the prejudice of complainant and
in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

 Complainant also added that respondent judge refused to inhibit himself because
he was protecting his interest in Villa Benita Subdivision.

 Complainant explained that all three cases involved properties in the subdivision
and that he is an incorporator, a director, an officer and a legal adviser of Villa
Page 14 of 104
 Benita Homeowners Association.

 VBHA allegedly filed several cases before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) against Fabern's Inc. and complainant. Complainant asserted that
respondent judge had personal knowledge of the facts of the HLURB cases.

 Complainant added that in refusing to inhibit himself, respondent judge violated

Rule 3.12 and Canon 5 of the Code.

OCA’s REPORT  The OCA recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as an administrative
and matter and that Judge Lacurom be fined P5,000.
RECOMMENDATI
ON  OCA found respondent judge administratively liable for recognizing Santos as lead
counsel despite the fact that he already had two counsels of record.

 On being an incorporator and adviser of VBHA and his refusal to inhibit himself
from the cases, the OCA said that the subject cases are not covered by the rule on
mandatory disqualification of judges, hence, respondent judge's inhibition rested
upon his own discretion.

 Complainant filed the present administrative complaint on 5 May 2003 when

respondent judge was still presiding judge of Branch 29 and pairing judge of
Branch 30. Respondent judge compulsorily retired on 16 May 2003. However, his
retirement does not render this administrative case cancelled.

THE COURT’S  In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by
RULING substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint

 The complainant failed to prove that the judge granted with dispatch all the
pleadings of Santos and that respondent judge was responsible for the delay in
the execution of the Court of Appeals' decision in Cadastral Case No. 384-AF.

 Hence, the Court dismisses this particular charge.

 The judge's close friendship with Santos did not render respondent judge guilty of
violating any canon of judicial ethics as long as his friendly relations with Santos
did not influence his official conduct as a judge in the cases where Santos was a
party.

 Complainant failed to show any convincing evidence that judge gave any undue
privileges in his court to Santos, or that Santos benefited from his personal
relations with respondent judge, or that respondent judge used his influence, if
any, to favor Santos.

RULING  The Court finds respondent Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom GUILTY of simple
misconduct and ORDERS the FORFEITURE of the P10,000 withheld from his
retirement benefits.

Page 15 of 104
 ROLANDO GASPAR v. JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Gerona, Tarlac
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1565 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1545-MTJ)
August 16, 2006
Ponente: Justice Dante O. Tiñga

FACTS  Complainant (Gaspar) alleges that he was the elected and duly proclaimed
chairman of Barangay Pance, Ramos, Tarlac during the 2002 elections. However,
an election protest was filed against him by Anastacio Bonifacio before the MCTC
of Gerona-Ramos-Pura, Tarlac where respondent judge presides.

 While the election case was pending, respondent Judge was suspended.

 Complainant contends that even under suspension, respondent judge rendered a

decision in the election case holding that Anastacio Bonifacio was the duly elected
Brgy chairman of Pance, Ramos, Tarlac and ordered complainant to vacate the
position and deliver the same to Bonifacio.

 Respondent judge claims that he rendered the decision in good faith. He believed
that his suspension had been lifted when the criminal action against him was
dismissed.

 Executive Judge Arsenio P. Adriano, in his report, found that respondent judge
willfully violated the Court’s Resolution suspending the latter until further orders
from the Court and respondent judge’s interpretation of the Court’s Resolution is
erroneous.

OCA`S REPORT  OCA`s report stated that respondent judge violated Canons 1 and 2 of the old
Code of Judicial Conduct where it also talks about integrity which is also covered
under Canon 2 of the New Code

FINDINGS OF  In Dr. Alday v. Judge Cruz, Jr., the court held that directives issued by the Court
THE COURT are not to be treated lightly. Effective and efficient administration of justice
demands nothing than a faithful adherence to the rules and orders laid down by
the Court.

 Respondent judge fell short of showing such adherence. Respondent judge instead
openly defied the Court’s. He continued his judicial functions and even rendered
the decision in the election despite knowledge of his suspension order. He cannot
hide behind the defense of good faith and misinterpretation of the edict.

RULING  Respondent Judge Luisito T. Adaoag is FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be
dealt with more severely.

Page 16 of 104
BUSILAC BUILDERS, INC and ROMEO M. CAMARILLO v. JUDGE CHARLES A. AGUILAR,
RTC, Laoag City, BR 12
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1809 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1643-RTJ)
October 17, 2006
Ponente: Justice Cancio C. Garcia

FACTS  This is an administrative case filed by Busilac Builders, Inc. and its president
Romeo M. Camarillo against Judge Charles A. Aguilar of the RTC of Laoag City,
Branch 12, charging the latter with serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the
law, oppression, grave abuse of judicial authority and violation of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and R.A. 6713.

 Sometime in 1993 Complainant Camarillo entered into an agreement with the

spouses Anatalio and Pavita Ramos for the sale of the three parcels of land, Lot
1, 2, & 3 situated at Laoag City. However, the physical possession of Lot 1 was
transferred because the Spouses failed to execute the necessary deed of
conveyance thereof despite Camarillo’s repeated demands.

 16 July 2001, complainant instituted an action for specific performance against

the spouses Ramos before the Branch 12, RTC of Laoag City, docketed as Civil
Case No. 12310.

 Later, complainant discovered that the entirety of Lot 1 was sold to the other two
and to herein respondent judge who was then a prosecutor.

 21 August 2001, respondent prosecutor was appointed presiding judge of RTC,

Branch 12, Laoag City where Civil Case No. 12310 was then pending.

 26 April 2002, the case was heard and dismiss by the respondent Judge.

 1 July 2002, TCT was issued in the name of respondent Judge covering the
100sq. meters portion of Lot 1.

 12 October 2002, respondent judge, together with co-owners of Lot 1, removed

the concrete posts and barbed wires installed thereat by complainant Camarillo
and caused the leveling of the hilly portion of Lot1 with the use of payloader with
he rented from Municipallity of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte.

 30 October 2002, Camarillo filed a complaint for specific performance, quieting of

title against the respondent Judge Aguilar and the other co-owners of Lot.

 Respondent Judge appeared in at least two (2) hearings thereof and therein
manifested that "for purposes of pleadings he is represented by counsel but for
purposes of appearing in court, he appears for himself."

 10 December 2002, Complainant Camarillo filed the instant administrative

complaint against the respondent Judges charging the latter with the following:
failure to disqualify and/or inhibit himself from hearing Civil Case No. 12310 and
ordering its dismissal; causing the leveling of Lot 1 in gross disregard of the rule
of law and with grave abuse of power and authority; acting as his own counsel in
civil case no. 12310 before RTC, BR 16, Laoag City; maliciously issuing a search
warrant against complainant Camarillo for illegal possession of firearms and

Page 17 of 104
 ammunitions.

COURT OF APPEAL  Respondent's failure to inhibit himself from hearing Civil Case No. 12310 and his
INVESTIGATING issuance of the Order of Dismissal dated April 26, 2002 constitute a violation of
OFFICER REPORT Paragraph 28 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Canon 3, Rule 3.12 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct;

 Respondent's participation in the leveling of Lot 1 constitutes a violation of

Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct;

 The charge that respondent engaged in the private practice of law by appearing
as counsel for himself in Civil Case No. 12635 should be dismissed for lack of
factual and legal basis; and

 The charge of grave abuse of authority for having issued a search warrant should
also be dismissed for lack of merit.

 Recommended that the respondent judge be fined in the amount of Four

Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) and warned that a repetition of the same acts will
be dealt with more severely.

OCA’s FINDINGS  Recommended that the respondent judge be: (1) suspended for one month
without pay for failing to inhibit himself in Civil Case No. 12310, for ordering its
dismissal, and for participating in the leveling of Lot 1; (2) reprimanded for
appearing as his own counsel in Civil Case No. 12635; and (3) exonerated for
grave abuse of authority in issuing a search warrant but warned that similar
infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely.

FINDINGS OF THE  Rule 3.12 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct specifically provides that "a
COURT judge should take no part in any proceeding where the judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned." On the other hand, the Canons of Judicial Ethics
mandates that a judge "should abstain from participating in any judicial act in
which his personal interests are involved. If he has personal litigation in the court
of which he is a judge, he need not resign his judgeship on that account, but
should of course refrain from any judicial act in such controversy."

 Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides:

SECTION 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall in any

case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniary interested as heir, legatee,
creditor, or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record.

 Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should avoid
impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all his activities. Specifically, Rule
2.01 mandates that a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. This includes a judge's behavior not
only in the performance of his judicial duties but also in his private capacity.

Page 18 of 104
RULING  Judge Aguilar is Guilty of violating the abovementioned provisions.

ALLAN MACROHON, RODRIGO GONZALES AND REDEEM ONGTINCO v. JUDGE

FRANCISCO B. IBAY, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 135, MAKATI CITY
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1970
November 30, 2006
Ponente: Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago

FACTS  On Aprill 22,2005, a Pinagsanib na Salaysay was filed by the complainants, Allan
Macrohon, Rodrigo Gonzales and Redeem Ongtinco, before the Office of the
Court Administrator against respondent Judge Francisco B. Ibay charging him
with Grave Abuse of Authority.

 On May 10,2005, in compliance with the directive of the Court Administrator in a

1st Indorsement the respondent judge submitted his comment on the
complainants' Pinagsanib na Salaysay through a 3rd Indorsement dated June 10,
2005.

 On April 28, 2006, an Order was issued ordering the complainants and the
respondent judge, with their respective counsels, to appear for a preliminary
conference and initial presentation of evidence on May 11, 2006 at 2:00 oclock
in the afternoon.

 Only the respondent judge with his counsel, Atty. Apolonio A. Padua, Jr.,
appeared in the said hearing, while the complainants were absent. Atty. Padua
moved for the dismissal of the case for failure of the complainants to inform the
Court of their latest address, but [the Investigating Justice] proceeded with the
investigation.

 The complainants alleged in their Pinagsanib na Salaysay that they are laborers
of HIS Construction, which in August 2,2002 were engaged to paint the Hall of
Justice in Makati City that after completing the painting of the building, they
dismatled the metal scaffoldings which was used to support their painting at the
2nd floor of the building and a small amount of water from the metal tubes
flowed to a closed window in the jalousie and did not bother about the water
and continued to work.

 Several minutes later, a policeman arrived and took their names and when they
asked him why, the policeman replied that they will be informed of the reason
when they reach the sala of the respondent judge.

 At 9:30 A.M. the respondent judge who was then very angry met with them and
showed the complainants the flooring of his chamber which was drenched with
water, at which the complainants apologized as they did not intend to cause
such damage.

 Redeem Ongtinco volunteered to clean the wet floor but the respondent judge
replied 'Huwag na, baka sampalin pa kita.”

 Complainants were surprised when a charge was read to them in English which

Page 19 of 104
 they did not understand.

 In the respondent’s judge comment, he alleged that the careless attitude of the
three (3) complainants in carrying out their tasks and their obvious indifference
to the safety and well-being of others, resulted in the damage of his computer
that he was not able to use the same computer for at least a week and was
forced to handwrite his decisions, draft them and have them typed by his staff.

 In the respondent’s judge memorandum, he maintained that the spillage of

water into his chamber could have been prevented if due care was observed by
the complainants, as a consequence of which, the administration of justice was
delayed; that finding the complainant's act to be contemptuous, he cited them in
direct contempt of court and meted the penalty of imprisonment; that
complainants were detained before noon on that day but were released
immediately after lunch of the same day; that the proceedings he observed were
not arbitrary and the imposition of the sanction of imprisonment for a few hours
was not abuse of authority; and that he observed and felt that someone is all
out to harass and embarrass him through the simultaneous filing of the
complaint-affidavits against him.

OCA’S REPORT/  The Investigating Justice observed that although the complainants did not
INVESTIGATING appear during the hearing, the facts in their Pinagsanib na Salaysay on the
JUSTICE circumstances surrounding their incarceration upon the order of respondent
judge, are substantially correct and true.

 The act of a judge in citing a person in contempt of court in a manner which

smacks of retaliation as, in this case, is appalling and violative of Canon 2 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary which mandates that
the behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the
integrity of the judiciary.

 The Investigating Justice finds the respondent administratively liable for abusing
his contempt powers and recommends the respondent judge be reprimanded
and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt more
severely.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the
COURT Investigating Justice.

 The case at bar is not respondent's first offense because only recently, he had
been similarly administratively sanctioned for Grave Abuse of Authority. In
Panaligan v. Ibay respondent was fined for improperly citing in contempt the
complainant and sending him to jail because the latter switched off the electric
power on the floor where respondent's sala is located during the latter's tour of
duty the night before.

 Respondent judge, did not just commit a simple lapse of judgment but a gross
and grievous abuse of his authority. Gross misconduct under Section 8(3), Rule
140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is classified as a serious offense
punishable by any of the sanctions enumerated in Section 11 of the same Rule.

RULING  Respondent Judge Francisco B. Ibay of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
2006

 Branch 135, is FINED P25,000.00 for gravely abusing his authority. He is likewise
Page 20 of 104
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt
with more severely.

Page 21 of 104
 2007 CASES

MARISSA R. MONDALA v. JUDGE REBECCA R. MARIANO

A.M. No. RTJ-06-2010
January 25, 2007
Ponente: Consuelo Ynarez-Santiago

FACTS  Complainant Mondala charged Respondent Judge Mariano with misrepresenting

in her "Report of Pending Cases for January 2005" that she had already decided
Civil Case No. 00-564 entitled "Amanet Inc. v. Eastern Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc." 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.

 Judge Mariano averred that Mondala should have called her attention regarding
the status of the subject case to enable her to address the situation; that
Mondala's failure to inform her of the status of the case showed her inefficiency
and unworthiness as a public servant. Moreover, Judge Marianom insisted that
what prompted Mondala to write the letter-complaint was to seek revenge and
harassment due to their quarrel which transpired on August 22, 2005.

OCA’s REPORT  The OCA found that Judge Mariano is liable for misrepresenting that she had
decided the case of "Amanet Inc. v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines,
Inc." before it was drafted, printed and signed by her, such misrepresentation
partaking the nature of dishonesty, and be fined in the amount of P20,000.00.

FINDINGS OF THE  It is elementary that a draft of a decision does not operate as judgment on a
COURT case until the same is duly signed and delivered to the clerk for filing and
promulgation. In Echaus v. Court of Appeals, it is said that “No judgment, or
order whether final or interlocutory, has juridical existence until and unless it is
set down in writing, signed, and promulgated, i.e., delivered by the Judge to the
Clerk of Court for filing, release to the parties and implementation, and that
indeed, even after promulgation, it does not bind the parties until and unless
notice thereof is duly served on them by any of the modes prescribed by law.”
Hence, rendition of judgment is not effected and completed until after the
decision and judgment signed by the trial judge.

 In this case, 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.

 Respondent is also guilty of other administrative transgressions. The January

2005 monthly report of Branch 136 reveals that there were cases submitted for
decision but remained undecided beyond the 90-day reglementary period
without any request for extension of time within which to decide the same being
submitted.

Page 22 of 104
  Under Sec. 1, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges ought to
ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to
be so in the view of a reasonable observer. Integrity is essential not only to the
proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of
judges. In the instant case, respondent was guilty of intentional
misrepresentation of her records resulting in a breach of trust and confidence,
amounting to the serious charge of gross misconduct due to violations of the
Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct

RULING  Judge Rebecca R. Mariano is GUILTY of the serious charge of gross misconduct
due to violations of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and provisions of
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 4-2004 and ordered to pay a FINE in
the amount of P40,000.

CARMEN P. EDANO v. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, RTC Br. 87, Quezon City, and
STENOGRAPHER MYRLA DEL PILAR NICANDRO, RTC Br. 217, Quezon City
A.M. NO. RTJ-06-1974
July 26, 2007
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  Judge Fatima G. Asdala from the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 87 was charge of
grave abuse of discretion and authority, and of conduct unbecoming a judge.

 In the complainant's letter-complaint, she laments the fact that without notice,
much less consent, respondent Judge Asdala met privately with defendant Butler
in her chambers to discuss the finding of indirect contempt against the latter
without any hearing or minutes of the proceedings and without her or her
counsel's participation.

 As a result of the said private meeting, the fine was reduced from P30,000 to
P5,000, the order of imprisonment was removed, and the Bench Warrant was
recalled.

 Complainant alleges that respondent Judge Asdala force her to file a complaint
for neglect of duty against her own counsel, Atty. Alejandria, with the PAO, as
respondent Judge Asdala had a grudge against Atty. Jalendria.

 In her defense, she points to the fact that the complainant herself wrote a letter
of apology to Atty. Alejandria withdrawing her complaint and retracting the
statements made therein.

 Respondent Judge Asdala avers that the recall of the bench warrant and the
reduction of the fine are matters of judicial discretion.

 She insists that the amendment to her previous orders was more in keeping with
justice and fairness.

OCA’S FINDING  The OCA found that Judge Asdala GUILTY of gross insubordination and gross
misconduct unbefitting a member of the judiciary and is accordingly DISMISSED
from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which

Page 23 of 104
 she may be entitled.

FINDING OF THE  Respondent Myrla Nicandro is found GUILTY of insubordination in assuming the
COURT position and discharging the functions of OIC/ Branch Clerk of Court without and
in defiance of proper authority and is accordingly SUSPENDED from the service
for a period of sixty (60) days, without pay, commencing on the day immediately
following her receipt of a copy of this Decision, with a warning that a repetition
of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. The period of
suspension shall not be chargeable against her leave credits. Respondent
Nicandro is likewise ordered to immediately cease and desist from discharging
the functions of OIC/Branch Clerk of Court and from representing herself as
such.

RULING  Respondent Nicandro is likewise REPRIMANDED for conduct prejudicial to the

best interest of the service and ordered to abstain from transacting with party
litigants other than for official purposes.

JUAN DE LA CRUZ VS. JUDGE RUBEN B. CARRETAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT OF LEGAZPI CITY, BRANCH 9
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043
September 5, 2007
Ponente: Justice Renato Tirso Antonio C. Corona

FACTS  The case stems from a letter sent by a certain petitioner ‘Juan De La Cruz’, a
‘concerned citizen’, complaining about the alleged behavior of respondent Judge
Ruben B. Carretas, Presiding Judge of the Legazpi City Regional Trial Court
Branch 9.

 The letter alleges respondent Judge as to insulting witnesses, private lawyers,

and public prosecutors by using side comments, seeming as if he was the only
one who knew the law.

 In his comment, respondent Judge:

 surmised that the complaint was initiated by a lawyer whose petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage was not granted, and denied all accusations
in the letter;

 narrated observations of witnesses, private lawyers, and public prosecutors in

his first few months in office, which he described as “exasperating and
somewhat amusing incidents”, adding that he was shocked because he
thought such “things happened only in anecdotes”;

 observed that due to their familiarity with each other, lawyers appearing in
his sala hardly objected even to obviously objectionable questions, remarking
that they were making a “moro-moro” out of the proceedings; and

 stated that harsh words may have been used but only out of exasperation
and intended only to right the wrongs committed in his presence.

 Legazpi City RTC Executive Judge Romeo Danas conducted a discreet

Page 24 of 104
 investigation, interviewing lawyers and requesting written comments from them
on respondent Judge’s decorum when on trial, to which the common comments
were that he was being rude to lawyers and made them feel embarrassed.

 The Executive Judge likewise received comments from city and provincial
prosecutors, and concluded that the charges against respondent Judge were
true, however he refrained from recommending any definite action and left the
matter to the discretion of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

OCA’s REPORT  The OCA adopted the Executive Judge’s findings, and recommended that
respondent Judge be advised to observe proper judicial decorum and to
conscientiously abide by the mandates of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and
the Canons of Judicial Ethics in the exercise of his official functions.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court disagreed with the OCA’s recommendation, stating that respondent
COURT Judge deserved more than mere advice, and must be reminded of Sections 1 and
2, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,
among other Canons, and of several Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

 Respondent Judge indeed appeared to be arrogant and boastful not only in the
eyes of the anonymous complainant but also to the lawyers who practice in his
sala, revealing a hint of arrogance in his comment when he professed
exasperation over minor procedural mistakes or even negligible lapses.

RULING  Respondent Judge is fined:

 Php7,500.00 for violations of Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2, Section 1, Canon 4

and Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary, Rule 3.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 14 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics; and

 Php7,500.00 for violations of Canons 1, 8 and 11 and Rule 8.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility for which he is FINED in the amount of P7,500.

Page 25 of 104
 2009 CASES

JUDGE RIZALINA T. CAPCO-UMALI, RTC, Br. 212, Mandaluyong City v.

JUDGE PAULITA B. ACOSTA-VILLARANTE, RTC, Br. 211, Mandaluyong City
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2631-RTJ0
August 27, 2009
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
JUDGE PAULITA B. ACOSTA-VILLARANTE, RTC, Br. 211, Mandaluyong City v.
JUDGE RIZALINA T. CAPCO-UMALI, RTC, Br. 212, Mandaluyong City
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2125 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2632-RTJ)
Ponente: Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales

FACTS  Judge Acosta-Villarante wrote a Memorandum addressed to Executive Judge

Maria Cancino-Erum of RTC of Mandaluyong City asking to suspend the holding
of the monthly meeting of judges.

 It was stated in the memorandum that the unfortunate incident occurred during
the first meeting of RTC Judges held on March 23, 2007. It was further stated
that the conduct of the newly appointed vice executive judge Judge Capco-Umali
does not speak well of her being a judge who is expected to conduct herself in a
way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

 Judge Capco-Umali filed a complaint for libel.

 Judge Acosta-Villarante countered by also filing an Administrative Complaint

charging Judge Capco-Umali with violation of Canon 4, Sections 1 and 28 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct, and a complaint for Grave Oral Defamation and
Grave Threats.

 In her Comment, Judge Capco-Umali, admitting having uttered the remarks

"matanda ka na, halos malapit ka na sa kamatayan gumagawa ka pa ng ganyan,
madadamay pa kami" to Judge Acosta-Villarante, explained that it was "due to
exasperation" as Judge Acosta-Villarante called her "an incorrigible liar" or
"sinungaling." Also admitting having uttered "Judge ako! Judge ako!," she
explained that it was to remind Judge Acosta-Villarante that she deserved
respect and courtesy, for while she was speaking on the topic of allowances,
Judge Acosta-Villarante kept interrupting her by "making interjections and
unnecessary comments."

 In her reply, Judge Acosta- Villarante, admitting calling Judge Capco-Umali

"sinungaling," explained that she was only "constrained" by the situation, adding
that Judge Capco-Umali is a "pathological liar."

FINDING OF THE  Under Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC (September 11, 2001), a
COURT violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct is classified as a serious charge only if it
amounts to gross misconduct. Since, as correctly found by the OCA, the same
does not constitute gross misconduct, it should be considered only as a violation
of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars, which is classified as a less
serious charge, in which case, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
(1) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one
nor more than three months; or (2) a fine of more than ₱10,000 but not
exceeding ₱20,000.The Court finds, however, that Judges Capco-Umali and

Page 26 of 104
 Acosta-Villarante should each be fined ₱11,000.

RULING  The Court finds Judges Rizalina T. Capco-Umali and Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante
GUILTY of violation of Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary, for which they are each FINED in the amount of
Eleven Thousand (₱11,000) Pesos.

 In view of the retirement of Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante, the Fiscal

Management and Budget Office, Office of the Court Administrator is ordered to
DEDUCT the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos (₱11,000) from her retirement
benefits.

 Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali, who is still in the service, is STERNLY WARNED

that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely. The same stern
warning applies to retired Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante in her capacity as a
member of the Bar.

VALERIANO F. NUÑEZ v. JUDGE FRANCISCO B. IBAY, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,

BRANCH 135, MAKATI CITY
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1984 (Formerly OCA IPI NO. 05-2255-RTJ)
June 30,2009
Ponente: Justice Diosdado Madarang Peralta

FACTS  On April 22, 2005, a Sinumpaang Salaysay was filed by complainant Valeriano F.
Nuñez with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent
Judge Francisco B. Ibay of Branch 135 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati City, charging the latter with grave abuse of authorityt before this court.

 Complainant was a driver at the Engineering Department of the Makati City Hall.

 On April 1, 2005 at around 5:00 in the the afternoon, complainant parked the
government vehicle (anL-300 van with plate number SFN-767) at the basement
of the Makati City Hall and left the key in their office because drivers were not
allowed to bring such vehicles home in which the parking space was reserved for
the said respondent judge.

 On April 4, 2005, after the flag Ceremony, complainant went to the Office of the
Engineering Department where he received an Order from respondent Judge,
directing the former to appear before the latter on that same day at ten o'clock
in the morning and to explain why he occupied the parking space allotted for
respondent Judge.

 Complainant apologized and explained that he did not intend to park in

respondent Judge's space, and that he did not know that such space was
reserved for respondent Judge.

 Respondent Judge refused to accept complainant's apology and, instead, found

the latter guilty of direct contempt of court for using the former's parking space,
sentencing complainant to five (5) days imprisonment and a fine of one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00).

Page 27 of 104
  Respondent then ordered the jail guard to bring complainant to the City Jail in
Fort Bonifacio, where the latter was incarcerated for two days.

 Complainant was released on April 5, 2005 after filing a Motion for

Reconsideration4 and paying the fine of P1,000.00.

 Respondent judge in his comment dated June 27,2005 alleged that judges were
assigned their respective parking spaces in the basement of the City Hall of
Makati City and that he placed a marker with his name at the space allotted to
him

 Respondent judge claimed that on the date and time in question he was set to
dispose a criminal case, and over the weekend, had even conceptualized the
matter on how to administer the proceedings but the inconsiderate and
improper parking of complainant disturbed his train of thought as to the
intended disposition of his cases and already programmed his activities to
maintain or improve his present position as the third ranking judge in Makati,
thus disrupted the speedy administration of justice.

 Respondent judge recounted that there were similar incidents in which he cited
persons in contempt, to wit; Allan Macrohon et al., in August 2002 who caused
an overflow of water in the chambers of the former; Venacio Inonog for the
same reason in the case at bar on March 18, 2005; On April 12, 2005, John
Panaligan who erroneously switched off the electrical outlets of respondent
Judge's sala.

 Respondent judge alleges that someone, "an unknown person inside," is

orchestrating the filing of these cases against him for the chief or sole purpose
of harassing him.

OCA’s REPORT  This office agrees with the Investigating Justice’s findings that respondent
committed grave abuse of authority in citing complainant in contempt of court.
Respondent's reaction to the complainant's mistake is exaggerated.

 Taking into consideration that this complaint is a third transgression of a similar

offense, the OCA recommends respondent Judge Francisco B. Ibay be
SUSPENDED for FOUR (4) MONTHS with STERN WARNING that a repetition of
similar act shall be dealt with more severely

FINDINGS OF THE  The court disagrees from the facts that the respondent judge failed to
COURT substantiate his allegations.

 The court does not see how the improper parking by complainant, or by a
certain Oscar dela Cruz, could, even in the remotest manner, disrupt the speedy
administration of justice.

 In Oclarit v. Paderanga the Court held that the power to punish for contempt
must be exercised on the preservative, not vindicative, principle and on the
corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. Courts must exercise the
power to punish for contempt for purposes that are impersonal, because that
power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons, but for the
functions that they exercise.

 Respondent judge failed to show his integrity which is essential not only to the
proper discharge of the judicial office, but also to his personal demeanor which
Page 28 of 104
 is contrary to Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary.

 The court believes that the frequency of his offenses already constitutes gross
misconduct.

RULING  Judge Francisco B. Ibay is found GUILTY of grave abuse of authority for citing
complainant Valeriano F. Nuñez for contempt without legal basis, and is
ORDERED to PAY a FINE of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), to be deducted
from his retirement benefits, which in this case shall be deductible from the Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) withheld from his retirement benefits,
per Resolution dated November 14, 2007.

ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY Clerk III, RTC, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, v.
JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Liloy-Tampilisan,
Zamboanga del Norte
A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659
June 18, 2009
Ponente: Justice Antonio Carpio

FACTS  On 25 February 2005, Sheriff IV Bandivas of the RTC retired from the service.
Lihaylihay alleged that Judge Canda asked Process Server Tenefrancia of the
RTC to apply for the position vacated by Sheriff Bandivas. But a certain Jesus V.
Alimpolo (Alimpolo) applied for the vacated position.

 Judge Canda was of the impression that Lihaylihay was assisting Alimpolo in his
application for the position of Sheriff IV.

 On 5 January 2006, Judge Canda sent a text message to Lihaylihay stating,

"Maayo tingali modistansya ka anang mga tawhana kay basin masabit ka,
pakiusap lang ni." Taking the text message as a threat, Lihaylihay reported it to
the police and requested that a blotter entry be made.

 On 6 January 2006, Judge Canda sent another text message for maliciously
causing it to appear as threatening in the police blotter.

 Two letters were sent and addressed to Executive Judge Oscar D. Tomarong of
the RTC, First, Judge Canda accused Lihaylihay of (1) actively supporting
Alimpolo; (2) using the facilities of the RTC in preparing Alimpolo's medical
certificate; (3) being at the beck and call of Alimpolo; (4) blatantly disregarding
the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel; (5) fraudulently scheming against the
court; (6) performing highly contemptuous acts; (7) failing to distance herself
from Alimpolo; (8) failing to stay neutral; (9) having a distorted sense of values
that deserves disciplinary action; (10) being arrogant, insolent and cocky; and
(11) disrespecting him.

 In the second letter, Judge Canda charged Lihaylihay with violation of

reasonable office rules and regulations. (1) "She is supposed to be wearing
uniform or decent attire instead of very tight fitting jeans and blouses with very
low hemline that almost exposes her breast or cocktail dresses as if she is going
to a party or attending high profile gatherings of elite." (2) She does not hesitate
Page 29 of 104
 to smoke inside the office in the very eyes of the public, an act which is in gross
violation of existing rules and regulations against smoking in public places and
government offices.

 In Lihaylihay's comment dated 20 January 2006, she alleged that Judge Canda
wanted Tenefrancia to apply for the position of Sheriff IV so that Tenefrancia's
position as process server would become vacant - Judge Canda's son, Alejandro
Canda, was qualified for the position of process server.

OCA'S REPORT  The OCA found Judge Canda liable for using inappropriate language. The OCA
recommended that: (1) Judge Canda be found guilty of gross misconduct; (2)
Judge Canda be fined P21,000; (3) the 4 May 2006 complaint be docketed as a
regular administrative matter; (4) A.M. No. MTJ-09-1730 be consolidated with
A.M. No. P-06-2254 and A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659; and (5) Judge Canda be
directed to comment on the allegation that he sent Lihaylihay indecent text
messages.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court finds Judge Canda liable for gross misconduct.
COURT
 Judge Canda harassed and publicly humiliated Lihaylihay: (1) he asked her to
stay away from Alimpolo; (2) when she reported the matter to the police, he
took it as a "declaration of war" and warned her that she will have her "fair
share of trouble in due time"; (3) he filed a complaint with Judge Tomarong
accusing her of several things, and describing her as a "GRO," "undignified," a
"whore," "disgusting," "repulsive," and "pakialamera"; (4) he accused her of
violating office rules and describing her as "offensive," "demeaning," and
"inappropriate"; (5) still unsatisfied, he had his second complaint published in
the newspaper; and (6) when she published her comment in the newspaper, he
filed a criminal case for libel against her.

RULING  The Court finds Judge Alejandro T. Canda of Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Liloy-
Tampilisan, Judicial Region IX, Zamboanga del Norte, GUILTY of GROSS
MISCONDUCT CONSTITUTING VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT.

 Accordingly, the Court FINES him P40,000 and STERNLY WARNS him that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR MANUEL F. TORREVILLAS v. JUDGE ROBERTO A. NAVIDAD

A.M. No. RTJ-06-1976 Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1857
April 29, 2009
Ponente: Justice Carpio Morales

FACTS  On July 16, 2003, Provincial Prosecutor Manuel Torrevillas, Jr. called the
attention of then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. the “inapropriate actuation”
of Judge Roberto A. Navidad of the RTC of Calabayog City in the handling of
cases before his sala.

 The Chief Justice thus instructed the Provincial Prosecutor to submit a written
report to which he complied by letter-complaint.

Page 30 of 104
  By 1st Endorsement, the letter-complaint was referred by the Chief Justice to
then Court Administrator and now a member of this Court, Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr., for comment and recommendation.

 By Resolution, the Court acting on the recommendations of Justice Velasco in his

Memorandum to the Chief Justice, required Judge Navidad to comment on the
complaint and directed the Court Management Office of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) to:

 conduct a judicial audit on “all undecided criminal cases, which include cases that
are pending, submitted for decision, archived, etc. for the purpose of
determining any inappropriate actuation with respect to the issuance of court
orders especially on matters pertaining to the grant of bail in non-bailable
offenses”; and

 coordinate with Trial Prosecutor Cicero T. Lampasa as regards the other cases
that needed to be investigated.

 By Resolution, the Court referred the complaint to Justice Isaias P. Dicdican of

the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

 Justive Dicdican then evaluated and has come up with a finding that the
respondent had indeed committed irregularities and procedural lapses in the
handling of the cases pending before his sala.

OCA’s REPORT and  The OCA recommended that the Judge Roberto A. Navidad should be held
RECOMMENDATIO administratively liable for gross inefficiency.
N
 Judge Navidad's contention that the cases were not yet submitted for decison
when the audit was conducted is an outright falsehood meant to mislead this
Court.

 The failure of the parties to file their memoranda within the period given them is
not a valid reason for Judge Navidad not to decide the cases.

 A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the parties'
evidence at the termination of the trial and respondent is well aware of this.
Should the court allow or require the submission of memorandum, the case is
considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the
expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier.

 Respondent judge could have asked the Court for an extension of time to decide
these cases instead of issuing this Order. If he honestly believed that he could
not decide the cases within the reglementary period, all he had to do was to ask
for an extension of time.

 The Court being mindful of the caseload of judges and mindful of the difficulty
encountered by them in the disposition of cases, usually grants the request.

THE COURT’S  Respondent judge ascribes his inaction in 51 cases to the inadvertence of his
RULING court personnel and the failure of the police officers to make a return of the
warrants of arrest. This is totally unacceptable.

 A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency of his court personnel, for the

Page 31 of 104
 latter are not guardians of the judge's responsibilities.

 Judge Navidad should also be held liable for gross ignorance of the law. In
granting bail without conducting any hearing to the accused in Criminal Cases
Nos. 4023, 4024, 3701, 4109 and 4110 who were charged with murder and
frustrated murder, respondent judge knowingly disregarded the well-established
rule that no person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable
by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

 The judge likewise has no authority to conduct his own determination of

probable cause and downgrade the offense charged or dismiss the complaint for
insufficiency of evidence.

RULING  WHEREFORE, for Dishonesty, Gross Ignorance of and Contempt for the Law,
Gross Inefficiency and Negligence, and Violations of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and the Judge's Oath, respondent, Judge
Roberto A. Navidad, who has, in the meantime died, is in each of these cases
subject of this Decision FINED the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000) Pesos.
The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator is authorized
to deduct the total sum of Eighty Thousand (P80,000) Pesos from the benefits
due respondent and to release the remaining amount to his heirs unless there
exists another lawful cause for withholding the same.

NILDA VERGINESA-SUAREZ v. JUDGE RENATO J. DILAG and Court Stenographer III

CONCEPCION A. PASCUA, RTC Olongapo City, Zambales
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014
March 04, 2009
Ponente: Per Curiam
x------------------------------------x
OCA VS. JUDGE RENATO J. DILAG
A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC
March 04, 2009
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014:

 This is an administrative charge of graft and corruption against respondent
Judge Dilag and Concepcion Pascua filed by Petitioner who is a Court
stenographer of the same Court.

 25 Nov. 2005 & 11 Jan 2006, Complaint affidavit and letter was filed before
the OCA by the Complainant Suarez against the two respondent for allegedly
collecting money in the sum of Php30k from litigants in consideration of
favorable judgements in cases of annulment.

 It is supported by a sworn statement of one of the litigant named Belen

Trapane; Anonymous letter addressed to former C.J. Davide Jr. which stated
that Judge Dilag charged the said amount; and conflicting judgement in
Pancho, Tomboc, and Del Rosario case rendered by respondent Judge Dilag
with his identified signature, which he would dismiss first but after payment

Page 32 of 104
 thru respondent Pascua, Judge Dilag would later grant the petition.

 21 Feb 2006, respondent Judge Dilag denied all allegations and filed
administrative counter-charges against complainant Suarez for falsification or
fabrication of purported dismissed; negligence; and absence without official
leave decisions

 23 Feb 2006, respondent Pascua denied all the allegations and filed
countercharges against complainant. After trial, the parties filed their
respective memoranda.

 A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC:

 Arose from a series of anonymous letters which reported the alleged graft
and corrupt practices of Judge Dilag. As early as December 25, 2003, an
anonymous letter addressed to former Chief Justice Davide, Jr. was indorsed
and referred to the OCA. According to this letter, Judge Dilag would initially
dismiss a case, but, after payment, would subsequently re-open the case and
grant the same. Another anonymous letter dated February 1, 2004 likewise
reported that Judge Dilag collected P30,000.00 for a favorable judgment in
cases of annulment of marriage. On February 9, 2005, the OCA received the
last of these anonymous letters which alleged that Judge Dilag issued two (2)
conflicting decisions in the Del Rosario case.

OCA’s REPORT  A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014:

 Recommended a formal administrative inquiry to be conducted by a
designated Associate Justice of the C.A.

 A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC:

 The judicial audit team recommended to the OCA that the foregoing
findings be consolidated with Administrative Matter No. RTJ-06-2014 and
referred to an Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals. It was also
recommended that the resolution of the issue of the resignation of
respondent Pascua be deferred and subjected to the outcome of the
investigation by the Investigating Justice. The OCA adopted the
recommendations of the judicial audit team. In a Resolution dated August 1,
2006, this Court approved the recommendation of the OCA.

 These cases were then assigned to Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia of

the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

 OCA charge the respondent of gross negligence, gross inefficiency, gross

misconduct and/or ignorance of the law and procedure.

COURT OF APPEAL  A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014:

INVESTIGATING  The Investigating Justice dismissed the administrative charges of graft and
JUSTICE REPORT corruption against Judge Dilag and the countercharges of falsification,
negligence in the transcription of stenographic notes, and absence without
official leave against Suarez for insufficiency of evidence.

 However, the Investigating Justice found Judge Dilag liable for: (1) "gross
misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct" for signing
conflicting decisions in the Pancho, Tomboc, and Del Rosario cases; (2)

Page 33 of 104
 "gross ignorance of the law and procedure" in handling Joyce Moreno v. Alvin
Moreno and Eliodoro Perez v. Adelita Perez; and (3) "gross negligence and
inefficiency" for failing to administer proper supervision over his staff when a
fake registry return receipt was effected in Cayabyab v. Cayabyab and entries
of judgment were effected in Joyce Moreno v. Alvin Moreno, Angelito and
Yolanda Roldan, and Dinoso v. Corpuz. The Investigating Justice also found
Pascua guilty of the administrative charges of graft and corruption

 A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC:

 On February 10, 2005, the OCA directed a discreet investigation of the
allegations against Judge Dilag.

 Investigating justice finds respondent Judge guilty thereof. Respondent

exhibit acts amounting to gross ignorance of the law and procedure in
handling the cases cited in audit report.

FINDINGS OF THE  A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014:

COURT  The Investigating Justice finds no sufficient, clear and convincing evidence
to hold respondent Judge administratively liable for graft and corruption
because hearsay evidence has no evidentiary weight in the absence of
required degree of proof needed in an administrative charge of graft and
corruption. Therefore, administrative charges and countercharges of
falsification, negligence, and absence w/out official leave against complainant
is dismissed.

 On the other hand, regarding the conflicting judgement, Section 22, Rule
132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that:

 Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The handwriting of a

person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting
of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen the writing
purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and
has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the handwriting of such person may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge

 A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC:

 Respondent Judge is charged with gross ignorance of the law, however,
there was no allegation whatsoever that respondent Judge was motivated by
bad faith, malice or corruption but we hold him administratively liable for his
unfamiliarity with the rules on the conduct of preliminary investigations.

RULING  Accountable for gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of

Judicial conduct, Canon 2 Sec1 & 2; Canon 3, Section 2; and Canon 4, Section
1, of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

 Respondent are dismissed from service.

Page 34 of 104
 ATTY. ANTONIO G. CAÑEDA v. JUDGE ERIC F. MENCHAVEZ
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2026, Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2496-RTJ
March 4, 2009
Ponente: Justice Arturo D. Brion

FACTS  The complainant is the counsel of one of the defendants, Virginia Borromeo
Guzman, in Civil Case No. CEB-30956, entitled Roberto Borromeo, et al. v. Heirs
of Juan Borromeo, for judicial partition, pending with the respondent's RTC
Branch 21. Lawyer Pepito C. Suello is complainant's collaborating counsel in the
case. Both Ms. Guzman and Atty. Suello executed affidavits in connection with
the complaint.

 The respondent asked the complainant at the start of the hearing if the
defendants he was representing were amenable to a partition. The complainant
answered in the affirmative, subject to the conditions that the counsel for the
plaintiffs would withdraw a pending motion for reconsideration before the
Supreme Court to clear one of the areas subject to partition of squatters, and
would secure a writ of execution.

 Atty. Delfin V. Nacua (Atty. Nacua), counsel for the plaintiffs, replied that he
could not withdraw the motion before the Supreme Court. At this point, the
respondent asked the complainant if he was amenable to segregate only the
share of Roberto Borromeo. The complainant expressed reservations about it.
Instead he advanced the idea that the parties talk to each other through
mediation. The respondent thereupon blurted out "never mind mediation, walay
hinundan na (it's useless)."

 When the respondent checked on the progress of the case, the complainant
remarked that it was being delayed because no proper summons (by
publication) had been served on the defendants who were residing outside the
country. The respondent reacted by angrily banging his gavel and shouting, "I
said no publication period." He banged the gavel so hard that it broke, its head
flying into the air and almost hitting complainant. The respondent then
slammed the table with his hand and then went inside his chambers. After a
while, he came back with a holstered handgun and smashed it on the table, as
he angrily shouted at complainant, "Unsay gusto nimo? Yawa! Gahig ulo!"
(What do you want? Devil! Hardheaded!)

 The complainant regarded the respondent's act of challenging him inside the
courtroom in the presence of many people as an act of impropriety under
Section 6(3), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, in relation with the Code of
Judicial Conduct, Canons 2.01, 3.01 and 3.03. The complainant maintained that
the conduct of the respondent inside the court not only tarnished the name of
the judiciary he represents but constituted an insult to the law profession; that
the respondent is not above the law; and that the gun is not an emblem of
authority.

OCA’s REPORT  The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found substantial evidence to
support the conclusion that the respondent is administratively liable for conduct
unbecoming a judge.7 The OCA noted that the respondent admitted the
following:

Page 35 of 104
  The aggressive, belligerent and disrespectful conduct of the complainant caused
him to flare up or to blow his top and bang his gavel on the table; and

 He equipped himself with his gun by bringing it outside and placing it on the
table, as he asked complainant, "What do you want?"

 The OCA also characterized as highly irresponsible and improper the

respondent's acts of bringing his handgun into the courtroom, placing it on his
table, and threateningly asking the complainant, "what do you want?" This
reaction was uncalled for as the respondent has ample powers to address any
hostile or unfriendly situation in his court.

 The OCA recommended that the respondent be made liable for conduct
unbecoming a judge and fined in the amount of P5,000.00, with a warning
against the commission of the same or a similar infraction in the future.

FINDINGS OF THE  There were basic disagreements on approaches and issues in the partition case.
COURT In the courtroom, a lawyer makes submissions before a judge whose role is to
hear and consider the submissions, and subsequently rule on the matter. It is
not a situation where two equals, such as the opposing counsels, argue against
each other. The respondent apparently had a misplaced concept of what a
courtroom situation should ideally be, so that he was effectively arguing with
counsel as shown by his clearly contentious stance when he made his ruling.
This was the respondent's first error; he should have coolly ruled and allowed
counsel to respond to his ruling, instead of proceeding in a manner that invited
further arguments. The complainant, however, also erred since he continued to
argue despite the respondent's ruling. The respondent judge's response, under
this situation, should have been to direct the complainant to wind up his
arguments under pain of direct contempt if this warning would be disregarded.
Thereafter, he could have declared the complainant in direct contempt if he
persisted in his arguments. A direct contempt, of course, is not enforced by a
judge's act of bringing out his weapon and asking counsel the direct question
"What do you want?" This confrontational manner - shown usually in the
western genre of movies - has no place in our present justice system. There are
agents of the law, specifically, officers of the court and the police who can be
called upon to implement contempt orders and restore order as needed.

 The findings of the Executive Judge are well taken. The respondent's bare claim
that "court orders and other notices are delivered to counsel and parties on
time," presumably by him, is belied by the documents submitted by Judge
Maxino, by the respondent's own admission in his Letter dated September 15,
2003, and by the findings of the Executive Judge. The records show that Judge
Maxino issued several orders re-setting scheduled hearings as the parties did
not receive the notices thereon. Branch Clerk of Court Epifania P. Ramada even
issued Office Memorandum No. 4,8 requiring the respondent to explain in
writing why he failed to cause the service of notices for specified civil cases
pending before the court.

 As the OCA aptly pointed out, the New Code of Judicial Conduct requires
"`(Judges) shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that
it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer," and their
"behavior and conduct x x x must reaffirm the peoples' faith in the integrity of
the judiciary,"(Section 1 and Section 2 of Canon 2). The respondent violated
this rule when, after a show of anger, he brought and openly displayed his gun
Page 36 of 104
 on his courtroom table while hurling a confrontational question at the offending
counsel. While the New Code of Judicial Conduct requires a magistrate to
maintain order and decorum in the court, the Code itself sets limits on how a
judge should do this. Section 6, Canon 6 of the Code provides:

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 find the respondent liable for vulgar and unbecoming conduct defined under
Section 10, Rule 140, as amended, of the Rules of Court as a light charge
punishable by a fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00.
In light of the severity of the respondent judge's transgression affecting as it
does, not only the judge himself but his court and the image and reputation of
the whole judiciary, we find the maximum fine of P10,000.00 to be merited.

RULING  Judge ERIC F. MENCHAVEZ, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Cebu City,
is hereby declared LIABLE for vulgar and unbecoming conduct as a judge.
Accordingly, a fine of P10,000.00 is imposed upon him with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. The
complainant is given the ADMONITION that in representing his clients, he
should ever be mindful of the respect due to the court and avoid actions
bordering on disrespect.

RE: CASES LEFT UNDECIDED BY FORMER JUDGE RALPH S. LEE, MeTC, BRANCH 38,
QUEZON CITY, and REQUEST OF NOW ACTING JUDGE CATHERINE D. MANODON
A.M. NO. 06-3-112 MeTC
March 4, 2009
Ponente: Justice Arturo D. Brion

FACTS  Judge Lee was asked to explain about why he certified that he had no pending
undecided cases at the time he assumed as RTC Judge, when in fact there were
some cases submitted to him for decision and have not yet decided, why he
failed to decide the case and the case for decision are not indicated in the
Monthly Report of Cases to the OCA.

 Judge Lee filed a manifestation and explained that at the time there was no
regular Branch Clerk of Court, and upon his consultation to the Officer in
Charge, the 31 cases should not be reported ripe for decision.

OCA’S FINDING  OCA found Judge Lee administratively liable for undue delay in deciding cases,
submission of false monthly report, and misrepresentation.

FINDING OF THE  We find Judge Ralph S. Lee liable for his failure to decide assigned cases within
COURT the period fixed by law.

 The records plainly show that Judge Lee, who had quite recently been
promoted to the position of RTC judge, presented a monthly report (for August
2005) containing horribly erroneous sections, and an affirmation that he left no
Page 37 of 104
 pending cases in MeTC, Branch 38 of Quezon City, when he accepted his new
situation in the RTC. The OCA Memorandum dated October 24, 2007 made
uncommon notice of 8 cases which Judge Lee neglected to choose before he
took on the situation of RTC Judge and which, all the more fundamentally, he
neglected to remember for his month to month report for August 2005.

RULING  Judge RALPH S. LEE is hereby declared LIABLE for undue delay in deciding
cases. Accordingly, he is FINED P20,000.00, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Page 38 of 104
 2010 CASES

FRANCISCO P. OCAMPO v. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, Regional Trial Court,

Branch 144, Makati City
A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTC
x---------------------------------------------------x
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049
April 23, 2010
x---------------------------------------------------x
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, and COURT STENOGRAPHER VICTORIA
C. JAMORA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141 (Formerly A.M. No. 07-5-263-RTC/Re: Initial Report on the Judicial
Audit Conducted at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City)
April 23, 2010
x---------------------------------------------------x
SYLVIA SANTOS v. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, Regional Trial Court, Branch
144, Makati City
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093
April 23, 2010
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS Consolidated cases which stemmed from administrative complaints filed against
respondent Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua.

 A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ

 It stemmed from a Special Proceeding of child custody between spouses
Francisco Ocampo and Milan Ocampo, in which Milan filed a petition to claim
the sole custody of their 2 minor children

 During the pendency of the hearing, respondent judge ordered Francisco

Ocampo to seek court permission before traveling abroad with his children

 Mr. Ocampo filed a motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction since he and
his former wife were living not in Makati but in Mecauayan, Bulacan

 Respondent Judge denied the motion, Mr. Ocampo filed motion for
reconsideration but likewise denied

 Respondent judge issued TPO and directed Mr. Ocampo to surrender the
custody of the children to the wife and to provide monthly support of P50,000

 Mr. Ocampo questioned the sudden issuance of TPO by the respondent judge
since he was still allowed by law to file his answer. Also, the P50,000 was
questioned since it was not based on factual findings as to the resources of
the giver.

 Petitioner charged the respondent judge with harassment, grave abuse of

authority, gross ingnorance of he law, gross misconduct, manifest partiality

Page 39 of 104
 and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

 A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049

 The OCA, through then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, informed
the Office of the Chief Justice in a Memorandum dated May 11, 2007 of the
reports about the rampant selling of TPOs and PPOs in the RTC of Makati
City, Branch 144, which was the sala presided by the respondent Judge.

 May 7, 2007, respondent Judge issued a TPO in the said case, granting,
among others, the custody of the subject minor, Rafi Pulliam, to therein
petitioner, Albert Chang Tan, and directing therein respondent, Stephanie
Pulliam, to stay away from the home and office of Chang Tan as well as from
the school of the subject minor.

 May 8, 2007, the sheriff failed to deliver the child from Stephanie Pulliam
causing Albert Chang Tan to be furious outside Br. 144

 On the same date, respondent judge issued to allow sheriff to search open
areas where the subject might be for the purpose of turning the child over to
Chang Tan.

 OCA stated that respondent judge seem to be interested on the case as

shown by the suddenness of her issuance of TPO and custody to Mr. Chang
Tan

 Respondent reasoned that her decision was reliant to R.A. 9262 or the or
Anti-VAWC Law.

 A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141

 A judicial audit was conducted on May 15 to 17, 2007 at the RTC of Makati
City, Branch 144 following reports of alleged irregularities committed by
respondent.

 May 12, 2007, court ordered to padlock branch 144 (respondent’s sala) with
2 guards on duty to guard it 24 hours

 On May 17, 2007, guards on duty saw a utility that came out from branch
144 with a trash bag, they followed him and brought the bag to the Audit
Team for investigation

 The bag contained marriage certificates solemnized by respondent judge and

the utility conferred that he was asked by the judge to throw away the bag
and other more bags inside the courtroom

 Respondent judge was charged in connection with 1,975 copies of marriage

certificates she solemnized which were unpaid amounting to P542,700 and
for failing to report the said marriages to her Monthly Report

 A.M. RTJ-07-2093
 Complainant in this case was the relative of respondent judge.

 Complainant’s friend asked her to help her with her case pending in the SC,
complainant in turn, asked for the help of the herein respondent judge who
has connections that could expedite their case.

Page 40 of 104
  Respondent judge allegedly asked the complainant for P100,000, when the
latter followed up the case after several months, respondent judge said that
there was a problem and that the other party to that case gave more money
than them; respondent judge cannot be contacted to return the money
afterwards.

 Complainant filed a case against respondent judge for serious misconduct

and dishonesty but upon pending of the case, both reconciled since that was
just a mere misunderstand between family members.

 The court was not satisfied to this explanation by the complainant and asked
the complainant to give reason why she would not be charged with contempt
in filing an unfounded verified complaint

 In the petitioner’s reply, she cited that her allegations were verified and the
main reason for her withdrawal was the pressure from her family members to
forgive the respondent judge and the judge also seek forgiveness to her.

FINDINGS OF THE  A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ Justice Salazar-Fernando in believed that
INVESTIGATING respondent Judge's disposition thereof fell within the ambit of discretion vested
JUSTICE upon her as a judge. Not giving credence to the evidence presented by the
movants with respect to the residence of Milan Ocampo was well within her
judicial discretion. Assuming the same was erroneous, no administrative liability
attached thereon in the absence of sufficient evidence that she ruled in such
manner, because of a corrupt or dishonest motive, bad faith, fraud or malice.

 A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049 Justice Salazar-Fernando stated that in the Chang Tan
Case, the OCA primarily asserted that the TPO issued by respondent Judge
Arcaya-Chua could not be legally justified under R.A. No. 9262, because the
said law applies only if the applicant for TPO is a woman; but the investigating
justice found no evidence to incriminate the respondent judge to bribery since
there was no proof that she received money from Chang Tan. Still, respondent
judge must be charged with gross ignorance of the law.

 A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141

 Justice Salazar-Fernando found that there is substantial evidence of an
anomaly in respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's solemnization of marriages in
her court and failure to reflect the correct number of marriages in her
Monthly Reports.

 The Investigating Justice stated that at once, the timing of the disposal of
the marriage certificates, which were said to have been contained in four (4)
plastic bags, is highly suspect, because it occurred during the time the
judicial audit was being conducted.

 Upon verification, the solemnization fees of the marriages covered by the

said marriage certificates were found to have not been paid; despite openly
admitting having solemnized all the weddings covered by the said marriage
certificates, the monthly reports of respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua reflected
only a very minimal number of weddings solemnized.

 Violation of New Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2 section 1 and 2

 Taken together, the circumstances lead to no other conclusion that

Page 41 of 104
 irregularities were obviously perpetrated by respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua
in solemnizing marriages in her court.

FINDINGS OF THE  All those who don the judicial robe must always instill in their minds the In
SUPREME COURT Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Victoria Villalon-Pornillos the Supreme Court
stated that those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct
and integrity have no place in the judiciary. This Court will not withhold penalty
when called for to uphold the people's faith in the judiciary.

RULING  WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court holds that:

 in A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ, the charges against Judge Evelyn S.
Arcaya-Chua of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 144 is
DISMISSED.

 in A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049, Judge Arcaya-Chua is found GUILTY of gross

ignorance of the law and punished with SUSPENSION from office for six (6)
months without salary and other benefits.

 in A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093, the motion for reconsideration of Judge Arcaya-

Chua is DENIED exhortation that the administration of justice is a mission.
Judges, from the lowest to the highest levels, are the gems in the vast
government bureaucracy, beacon lights looked upon as the embodiments of
all what is right, just and proper, the ultimate weapons against injustice and
oppression.

 for lack of merit. The penalty of SUSPENSION from office for a period of six
(6) months without salary and other benefits imposed upon her is
RETAINED.

 in A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141, Judge Arcaya-Chua is found GUILTY of gross

misconduct and punished with DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of
all benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment
in any government agency or instrumentality.

 in A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141, Victoria C. Jamora, Court Stenographer of the

Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 144 is found GUILTY of grave
misconduct and punished with DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of
retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-
employment in any government agency or instrumentality.

JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. JUDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, PRESIDING

JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 225
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248
September 29, 2010
Ponente: Justice Jose C. Mendoza

FACTS  Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment and dismissal

from judiciary service against respondent Judge Sempio-Diy.

Page 42 of 104
  Complainant is alleged to be the private complainant in Criminal Case Nos. Q-
95-61294 and Q-95-62690. Respondent judge order that the cases be
submitted for decision on June 20, 2008 and the promulgation of judgment was
set on September 11, 2008.

 However, the promulgation of judgment for the said cases were rescheduled
three times due to the following reasons: first, respondent had a previously
scheduled medical consultation concerning a neck ailment; second, respondent
cited as reasons the voluminous case records and health problems; and third,
respondent had just recently arrived from a trip to the United States where she
attended a symposium on religious freedom.

 The Joint Decision was finally promulgated on December 12, 2008 where all of
the accused, except for accused SPO1 Roberto Carino, were acquitted.
Complainant alleges that the Decision was belatedly rendered and no requests
for time extensions were made by respondent Judge Sempio-Diy.

 Complainant then raised another instance where respondent incurred

unjustifiable delay. Convicted accused SPO1 Roberto Carino assailed the Joint
Decision and filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on January 5, 2009.
However, it was only on July 30, 2009 that respondent judge issued an Order to
submit the incident for resolution. On August 24, 2009, respondent judge
resolved the matter and denied Carino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration for
lack of merit.

 Complainant then alleged that the August 24, 2009 Resolution was likewise
belatedly issued by the respondent and stressed that Judge Sempio-Diy
violated, among others, pertinent provisions of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

 Respondent belied complainant’s accusations and maintained that the orders

resetting the promulgation of judgment were issued in good faith. Respondent
also noted that the case records were voluminous for she inherited such cases
which were previously handled by three (3) other judges. Regarding the
resettings, respondent claimed that she asked for time extensions which were
all granted by the Supreme Court. Regarding the Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration, respondent pointed out that the delay was inadvertently
incurred in good faith.

 Respondent also attributed the inadvertent delay to the “unfortunate crises”

that befell her, her mother, and the court's personnel sometime between the
months of May to July of 2009. She reported to the Office of the Court
Administrator that they received a series of death threats which caused, among
others, disorientation.

OCA’S REPORT  The OCA found that due to respondent Judge Sempio-Diy’s seasonably-filed
requests for extension of time, respondent cannot be held guilty of
unreasonable delay in rendering the Joint Decision in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-
61294 and Q-95-62690. It should be noted that such requests were all granted
by the Supreme Court.

 The OCA, however, opined that respondent should be administratively

sanctioned for incurring delay in the resolution of accused Carino's Urgent

Page 43 of 104
 Motion for Reconsideration.

 The OCA recommended that Judge Sempio-Diy be fined in the amount of

P2,000.00 for her delayed action on a motion for reconsideration with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more
severely.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court agreed with the findings of the OCA but modified the recommended
COURT disposition in light of the circumstances of the case.

 The Court finds no evidence to sustain the charges of delay against Judge
Sempio-Diy in rendering the Joint Decision in the consolidated Criminal Case
Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690 for the reason that respondent judge timely
sought for three (3) successive extensions of the period to decide the
consolidated criminal cases and all requests were favorably considered by the
Court.

 However, the Court ruled that there was indeed delay in resolving accused
Carino's Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. The New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to perform all judicial duties
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

 Respondent failed to observe the reglementary period to resolve the motion in

question. Respondent did not act on the matter and allowed a hiatus in the
consolidated criminal cases. A judge cannot choose to prolong the period for
resolving pending incidents and deciding cases beyond the period authorized by
law. Let it be underscored that it is the sworn duty of judges to administer
justice without undue delay under the time-honored precept that justice
delayed is justice denied. Judges should act with dispatch in resolving pending
incidents, so as not to frustrate and delay the satisfaction of a judgment.

 Respondent's claim of death threats on her and her staff, even if real, would not
constitute a valid excuse for her inaction. After all, as member of the judiciary,
she must display diligence and competence amid all adversities to live up to her
oath of office.

 In determining the sanction to be imposed upon respondent, the Court ruled

that there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive that
could have compelled respondent to delay the resolution of the subject motion.
There is an absence of malice and the delay could only be due to inadvertence.
Considering that this is respondent judge’s first infraction due to inadvertence,
the Court ruled that admonition will suffice.

RULING  Judge Diy is ADMONISHED (for being in delay in the rendition of an order in
Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690) to be more circumspect in
observing the reglementary period for disposing of motions.

Page 44 of 104
 ROLAND ERNEST MARIE JOSE SPELMANS v. JUDGE GAYDIFREDO T. OCAMPO,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTABATO
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1663
March 26, 2010
Ponente: Justice Roberto A. Abad
FACTS  On April 8, 2006 complainant Roland Ernest Marie Jose Spelmans filed before the
Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, a complaint for theft and graft and
corruption against respondent Municipal Trial Court Judge Gaydifredo Ocampo of
Polomolok, South Cotabato.

 It was alleged that Judge Ocampo took pieces of antique, and furniture and
fixtures from the house of Spelmans during an official ocular inspection related
to a theft case filed by Spelmans against Joelito Rencio.

 Judge Ocampo denied the charge and claimed that Spelmans’ wife, Villan, gave
him certain household items for safekeeping. He returned the items only after
four years when the Spelmans already filed a complaint against him.

 In a supplemental complaint dated August 30, 2006 Spelmans further alleged

that Judge Ocampo requested him to sign an affidavit which cleared the Judge
and prayed for the dismissal of the administrative complaint.

OCA’s REPORT  The Court Administrator found Judge Ocampo guilty of committing acts of
impropriety and maintaining close affinity with a litigant in violation of Canons 1
and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and
recommended the imposition of a fine of P5,000.00 with a stern warning that a
repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court ruled that OCA erred in regarding Judge Ocampo's offense as falling
COURT merely under Section 11(B), in relation to Section 9(4) of Rule 140, as amended,
which is a less serious charge of violation of Supreme Court rules.

 Respondent judge should be made accountable for gross misconduct constituting

violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Section 6 of Canon 1,
Section 1 of Canon 2 on Integrity stating that “Judges shall ensure that not only
is their conduct above reproach, but that is perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer”, and Section 1 of Canon 4. His acts were motivated by
malice, and would have kept Spelman’s properties had no complaint been filed
against him. He was not a warehouseman for personal properties of litigants in
his court. He was guilty of covetousness. It affected the performance of his
duties as an officer of the court and tainted the judiciary's integrity.

RULING  Judge Gaydifredo Ocampo was found GUILTY of gross misconduct and was
imposed a penalty of SUSPENSION from office without salary and other benefits
for six (6) months. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Page 45 of 104
 2011 CASES

VICTORIANO SY VS. JUDGE OSCAR E. DINOPOL, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH

24, KORONADAL CITY
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2189 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2837-RTJ)
January 18, 2011
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  The complaint was brought about by Victoriano Sy, one of the plaintiffs in a
Civil Case which was raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Oscar Dinopol of
Koronadal City RTC Branch 24, involving a property which had been mortgaged
and foreclosed, and sold at auction to the mortgagee.

 Respondent Judge initially inhibited from acting on the case after receiving a
call from an official interceding in behalf of the adverse party in the said Civil
Case, however when a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Possession that was
intertwined with the Civil Case was raffled to his sala, he did not inhibit and
even granted such petition.

 Complainant filed for a motion to inhibit on the grounds of respondent Judge’s

partiality, which the latter denied, and led to complainant filing the present
complaint, charging respondent Judge of gross ignorance of the law and
conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary.

 In relation to the second charge (“conduct unbecoming a member of the

judiciary”), complainant claims that while the Civil Case was pending in
respondent Judge’s sala, respondent Judge asked him for commodity loans in
the form of construction materials to be used in the construction of his house,
which was proven as evidenced by receipts and invoices; and complainant
further claimed that respondent Judge obtained loans from him on previous
occasions, and borrowed a car which was returned when respondent Judge was
suspended.

 In his comment, respondent Judge simply denied complainant’s accusations,

and explained regarding the loans for construction of his house, that it was
done after he had inhibited from the case and before the mortgagee filed its
petition for writ of possession.

OCA’s REPORT  The OCA found no basis to charge respondent Judge with gross ignorance of
the law, but found him liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court agreed with the OCA’s findings as not to charge respondent Judge
COURT with gross ignorance of the law, and found acting well within his authority,
because of the essential nature of the proceedings on Petitions for a Writ of
Possession, being ex-parte and summary in character, for the benefit of one
party only and even without notice to the mortgagor.

 The Court likewise agreed with the OCA’s findings of liability for conduct
unbecoming of a judge, due to the overwhelming evidence against him,
ultimately finding him to have committed a serious impropriety in his or his
family's financial or business dealings with the complainant.

RULING  Respondent Judge Oscar Dinopol is declared Guilty of Gross Misconduct and is
Page 46 of 104
 dismissed from service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave
credits.

FLORENDA V. TOBIAS v. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE,

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, VALLADOLID-SAN ENRIQUE-PULUPANDAN,
NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734
January 19, 2011
Ponente: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

FACTS  A complaint for corruption was filed against respondent Judge Limsiaco, Jr. for
allegedly offering “package deals” to litigants who plan to file cases in his court.
Complainant requested her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to inquire from the said court
about the requirements needed in filing an ejectment case that they will file
against spouses Raymundo and Francisca Batalla.

 For the sum of Php 30,000.00, Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero proposed
to Vollmer that Judge Limsiaco, Jr. will provide the lawyer, prepare the necessary
pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment case. An initial
amount of Php 10,000.00 was required by Fegidero which Vollmer delivered to
Judge Limsiaco, Jr.’s residence. The remaining amount was to be paid in the
course of the proceedings.

 True enough, an ejectment case was filed in respondent judge’s court and
respondent assigned a certain Atty. Robert G. Juanillo to represent the
complainant in the said case. Shortly after, Judge Limsiaco, Jr. demanded an
additional payment of Php 10,000.00. Complainant refused to pay the respondent
and asked her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to request Atty. Juanillo to withdraw as
counsel and to withdraw the case. Respondent granted the Motion to Withdraw
as Counsel and Motion to Withdraw the Case.

 Respondent denied the allegation that he offers “package deals” and inhibited
from the ejectment case. Executive Judge Frances Guanzon of the Regional Trial
Court of Bago City, Negros Occidental, was tasked to investigate the said case
and produce corresponding reports and recommendations.

 Both parties were called to attend the formal investigation before Investigating
Judge Guanzon. Complainant’s witness, Lorna Vollmer, was not able attend the
investigation because she was out of the country at that time.

 Complainant testified that it was her sister, Lorna Vollmer, who informed her
about the alleged “package deals” and that she had no personal dealings with
respondent Judge Limsiaco, Jr. and Court Stenographer Fegidero. Additionally,
complainant admitted that respondent judge did not personally receive the initial
payment from her nor did respondent judge ask her for the additional payment.
It was only her sister who told her, over the telephone, about respondent’s
demands.

 Respondent judge denied that he received the Php 10,000.00 from Vollmer but
admitted that he prepared Atty. Juanillo’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

Page 47 of 104
 because he wanted to help complainant with the urgent matter.

 Investigating Judge Guanzon found that complainant did not have personal
knowledge about that alleged “package deals” and that the only person who
could have shed light on the matter was not present. Hence, the complaint of
corruption was unsubstantiated. However, Investigating Judge Guanzon ruled
that it was improper and unethical for respondent judge (1) to talk to prospective
litigants in his court; (2) to recommend lawyers to handle cases; and (3) to
prepare the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel which was also filed in his court and
likewise acted upon by him.

 Per verification from court records, respondent compulsorily retired from service
on May 17, 2009.

OCA’s REPORT  The OCA found that Judge Limsiaco, Jr.’s acts were violative of the rules on
integrity, impartiality, and propriety contained in the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. The OCA recommended that respondent be
found guilty of gross misconduct.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court agreed that complainant failed to prove the allegation that respondent
COURT offers “package deals” to prospective litigants in his court. Even so, the Court
ruled that respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge. The conduct of a
judge should be beyond reproach and reflective of the integrity of his office.

 It was inexcusable for respondent to prepare Atty. Juanillo’s Motion to Withdraw

as Counsel. By doing so, respondent displayed improper conduct that tarnished
the integrity and impartiality of his court, considering that the said motion was
filed in his own sala and was acted upon by him.

RULING  Judge Limsiaco, Jr., former Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, is found GUILTY
of gross misconduct for which he is FINED in the amount of Twenty-five
Thousand Pesos (Php 25,000.00). The Office of the Court Administrator is
DIRECTED to deduct the fine of Php 25,000.00 from the retirement benefits due
to Judge Limsiaco, Jr.

Page 48 of 104
 2012 CASES

CRISELDA C. GACAD vs. JUDGE HILARION P. CLAPIS, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 3, NABUNTURAN, COMPOSTELLA VALLEY
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257
July 17, 2012
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  November 3, 2009: Complainant, together with her father and her ssister-in-
law, went to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to file a criminal charges
against the person who gunned down her brother. The Provincial Prosecutor,
Graciano Arafol advised them not to hire a private lawyer.

 The next day, Arafol filed a complaint for murder against the suspect, in behalf
of the family of the complainant, but the Provincial Governor kept on pressuring
him about the case. Arafol then suggested that complainant should prepare P
50, 000 in order to get a favorable decision from Judge Clapis regarding the
Motion for reinvestigation to be filed by the accused.

 November 23, 2009: Arafol, Gacad, her husband and Baylosis, their family
driver, met Judge Clapis at the Golden Palace Hotel in Tagum City where they
talked about the payment in exchange for a favorable decision. Judge Clapis
excitedly nodded and said, "Sige, kay ako na bahala, gamuson nato ni sila."
(Okay, leave it all to me, we shall crush them.)

 The following day, Arafol instructed Baldomero, his nephew to go to Gacad’s

house and accompany Baylosis. There, Gacad gave the money to Baylosis in
front of Baldomero. Baldomero then drove Arafol to Mikos Coffee Bar in Tagum
City to meet with Judge Clapis and give the money.

 January 4 2010: Judge Clapis issued an Order denying the Motion fo

Reinvestigation filed by the accused. Arafol showed it to Gacad and
subsequently told the complainant that Judge Clapis would like to borrow P50,
000 for his mother’s hospitalization bills. However, Gacad was not able to give
the money.

 From then on, the complainant alleged that Arafol and Judge Clapis began to
“play different hideous schemes” that prejudiced their case. Judge Clapis
evidently set hearings on the dates that the complainant were not only informed
of. The Notices for Hearings were only mailed to them after the dates of the
hearings.

 March 29, 2010: Judge Clapis also calendared the case for speedy trial by
setting continuous hearings for a petition for bail even without application for
bail and granted bail without affording the prosecution the opportunity to prove
the guilt of the accused.

 April 8, 2010: Gacad filed a Motion for Inhibition of Judge Clapis.

 June 1, 2010: Judge Clapis inhibited himself.

 To support her case against the respondent, she narrated that in a previous
case against her brother, Arafol suggested that thy give Judge Clapis P80, 000
Page 49 of 104
 cash bond posted in the case in exchange for the dismissal of the case, which
the respondent judge did despite the strong evidence against her brother.

OCA’s REPORT and  Investigating Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles’ undated Report and
RECOMMENDATIO Recommendation, she ruled that Judge Clapis committed grave misconduct for
N acting contrary to the prescribed standard of conduct for judges. She found
Gacad’s narration of her meeting with Judge Clapis in Golden Palace Hotel as
credible.

 She also found Judge Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the law. Judge Clapis
was partial in granting bail to the accused and in failing to set the case for
hearing within a reasonable time.

 The OCA agreed with the findings of the Investigating Judge and found that
Judge Clapis violated Canon 1 (Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02) and Canon 2 (Rule
2.01) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The OCA also found Judge Clapis liable
for gross ignorance of the law for failing to observe the rules in hearing the
petition for bail and to accord the prosecution due process.

 Accordingly, the OCA recommended the penalties of: (1) suspension for six
months for gross misconduct; and (2) a fine of P40,000 for gross ignorance of
the law.

COURT’s FINDINGS  The Court find Judge Clapis liable for gross misconduct. In Kaw v. Osorio, the
Court held that while the respondent judge, in that case, may not be held liable
for extortion and corruption as it was not substantially proven, he should be
made accountable for gross misconduct.

 The Court also find Judge Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the law for
conducting bail hearings without a petition for bail being filed by the accused
and without affording the prosecution an opportunity to prove that the guilt of
the accused is strong.

 The act of Judge Clapis is not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and
judgment but a patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross
and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge
liable for gross ignorance of the law. If judges are allowed to wantonly misuse
the powers vested in them by the law, there will not only be confusion in the
administration of justice but also oppressive disregard of the basic requirements
of due process

 The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to

promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
because the people’s confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on
the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the
bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they
are expected to possess. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of
any law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute,
encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount that a judge’s
personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be
free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.

Page 50 of 104
 RULING  Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Nabunturan,
Compostela Valley from the service for Gross Misconduct and Gross Ignorance
of the Law, with forfeiture of all benefits due him, except accrued leave credits,
and disqualification from appointment to any public office including
government-owned or controlled corporations. His position in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostcla Valley is declared VACANT. This
Decision is immediately executory.

GERLIE M. UY and MA. CONSOLACION T. BASCUG v. JUDGE ERWIN B. JAVELLANA,

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LA CASTELLANA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1761-MTJ)
September 5, 2012
Ponente: Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro

FACTS  This administrative case is filed by Public Attorneys Gerlie M. Uy and Ma.
Consolcaion T. Bascug of the PAO, La Carlotta District, against Presiding Judge
Javellana of the MeTC, La Castellana, Negros Occidental. It arose from a
verified complaint for “gross ignorance of the law and procedures, gross
incompetence, neglect of duty, conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge,
grave misconduct and others.”

 Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug alleged the following in their complaint:

 First, Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure.

 Second, in People v. Celeste, et al., Judge Javellana refused to dismiss

outright the complaint even when the same was patently without basis or
merit, as the affidavits of therein complainant and her witnesses were all
hearsay evidence.

 Third, 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.

 Fourth, Judge Javellana failed to observe the constitutional rights of the

accused as stated in Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution.

 Fifth, Judge Javellana was habitually tardy.

 Sixth, 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.

 Seventh, Judge Javellana also adopted the mantra that the "litigants are
made for the courts" instead of "courts for the litigants."

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

Page 51 of 104
  Lastly, to support their complaint, Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug attached a
hand-written notell relating the observations of an anonymous member of
Judge Javellanas staff.

 Based on the foregoing, Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug prayed that Judge
Javellana be removed from the MTC of La Castellana.

 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 him.” Consequently,
Judge Javellana sought the dismissal of the instant complaint against him.

OCA’s REPORT  The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) 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.

FINDINGS OF THE  Judge Javellana violated the Canon 2 (Sec. 1 and 2), Canon 3 (Sec. 1 and 2),
COURT Canon 4 (Sec. 1, 2, 8, and 14), Canon 5 (Sec. 2 and 3), and Canon 6 (Sec. 5
and 6) of New Code of Judicial Conduct.

 The Court is not persuaded when Judge Javellana claimed that he often
mentioned his previous accomplishments as counsel in big and controversial
cases 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.

 Even no longer explicitly stated in the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are
still proscribed from engaging in self-promotion and indulging their vanity and
pride by Canons 1 and 2 of the New Code.

 Javellana’s actuations 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. We cannot stress enough that “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.

 For his violations of the New Code of Professional Conduct, Judge Javellana
committed gross misconduct. The Court have defined gross misconduct as a
“transgression of some established and definite rue of action, more particularly,
unlawful behaviour or gross negligence by the public officer.”

RULING  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.

Page 52 of 104
 2013 CASES

ANONYMOUS v. JUDGE RIO C. ACHAS, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2,

Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1801 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-2438 MTJ)
February 27, 2013
Ponente: Justice Jose C. Mendoza

FACTS  An anonymous letter-complaint dated August 2, 2010 was sent to the Supreme
Court alleging immorality and conduct unbecoming of a judge against Judge Rio
C. Achas. Specifically, the letter states that: (1) it is of public knowledge in the
city that Judge Achas is living scandalously with a woman who is not his wife;
(2) he lives beyond his means; (3) he is involved with illegal activities through
his connection with bad elements, the kuratongs; (4) he comes to court very
untidy and dirty; (5) he decides his cases unfairly in exchange for material and
monetary consideration; and (6) he is involved with cockfighting/gambling.

 The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the matter to Executive
Judge Miriam Orquieza-Angot for Discreet Investigation and Report.

 Judge Angot stated in her Report dated November 26, 2010 that: (1) Judge
Achas had been separated from his legal wife for quite some time and they are
living apart and that he found for himself a young woman with whom he would
occasionally go out with in public; (2) it could not be certain whether Judge
Achas was living beyond his means and was involved in illegal activities; (3)
Judge Achas had indeed established friendships or alliances with people of
different social standings from around the city; (4) the allegation that Judge
Achas would come to court untidy and dirty was a matter of personal hygiene
and in the eye of the beholder; and (5) the charge that Judge Achas decided
cases unfairly in exchange for consideration is vague and unsubstantiated.

 Judge Achas denied all the allegations against him in his Comment dated
February 4, 2011 and claimed that they were hatched to harass him. He
asserted that after 28 years in the government service, he had remained loyal
to his work and conducted himself in a righteous manner.

 The Supreme Court resolved to redocket the case as a regular administrative

matter and referred the same to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court
of Ozamiz City, Executive Judge Salome P. Dungog, for investigation, report and
recommendation.

 Judge Dungog stated in her Report dated April 4, 2012 that it is not
commendable, proper or moral for Judge Achas to go out with a woman not his
wife and for him to be involved in rearing game cocks, after the latter admitted
the said facts during investigation.

OCA’s REPORT  The OCA recommended that (1) Judge Achas be reprimanded as to the charge
of immorality, (2) he be ordered to refrain from going to cockpits or avoid such
places altogether, with a warning that the same or similar complaint in the
future shall be dealt with more severely, and (3) the other charges be dismissed
for lack of merit.

Page 53 of 104
FINDINGS OF THE  The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary pertinently
SUPREME COURT provides:

CANON 2
INTEGRITY

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but
also to the personal demeanor of judges.

SEC. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but
that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in
the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be
seen to be done.

xxx xxx xxx

 The Court agrees with Judge Dungog in finding that it is not commendable,
proper or moral for a judge to be perceived as going out with a woman not his
wife. Such is a blemish to his integrity and propriety, as well as to that of the
Judiciary. For going out in public with a woman not his wife, Judge Achas has
clearly failed to abide by the above-cited Canons of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for Philippine Judiciary.

 Also, while rearing fighting cocks is not illegal, Judge Achas should avoid
mingling with a crowd of cockfighting enthusiasts and bettors as it undoubtedly
impairs the respect due him. As a judge, he must impose upon himself personal
restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and
should do so freely and willingly.

 In City of Tagbiliran v. Judge Hontanosas, Jr, the Court held that “No position
demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than
does the judicial office. Judges in particular must be individuals of competence,
honesty and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the
court and its proceedings. He should behave at all times so as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. His personal
behaviour outside the court, and not only while in the performance of his official
duties, must be beyond reproach, for he is perceived to be the personification
of law and justice. Thus, any demeaning act of a judge degrades the institution
he represents.”

RULING  Judge Rio Concepcion Achas is REPRlMANDED and FINED in the amount of FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (₱5,000.00), ADMONISHED not to socially mingle with
cockfighting enthusiasts and bettors, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Page 54 of 104
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE RAYMUNDO D. LOPEZ and EDGAR
M. TUTAAN, former Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court, respectively, Municipal Trial
Court, Palo, Leyte,
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1790 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-7-86-MTC)
December 11, 2013
Ponente: Justice Antonio T. Carpio

FACTS  May 31-June 11, 2011 – the Office of the Court Administration (OCA) conducted
judicial audit in connection with the compulsory requirement of Judge
Raymundo D. Lopez (Judge Lopez), former presiding judge of the trial court.

 The audit team examined all pending cases during the first semester of 2011.
Of the 133 cases audited, the audit team found that: (1) the trial court had
motions and cases submitted for decision which remained unresolved or
undecided despite the lapse of the prescribed period (90-day reglementary
period); and (2) that 14 criminal and 7 civil cases were not reflected in the trial
court’s Docket Inventory for the second semester of 2010 and in the list of
cases submitted for decision in the Monthly Report for February 2011; (3) that
Judge Lopez submitted false Certificates of Service (an instrument essential to
the fulfillment by judges of their duty to dispose of their cases speedily as
mandated by the Constitution) for the months of February 2010 to December
2010

 Judge Lopez in his letter contended that the pending incidents and his false
declarations in his Certificates of Service within the reglementary period was
caused by health problems and personal circumstances including the death of
his wife, which gravely affected his work that he lacked the time to review the
monthly reports and docket inventory.

 On the other hand, he Clerk of Court, EdgarM. Tutaan (Mr. Tutaan), reasoned
in his letter that he did not intend to submit false reports of cases because he
merely acceded to Judge Lopez’s request to exclude the same out of sympathy
for Judge Lopez’s health and personal circumstances.

 Judge Lopez then requested the release of his retirement benefits, which he
needed for his maintenance medicines and for hospitalization and medical
expenses, pending resolution of this case.

ISSUE  WON Judge Raymundo Lopez violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct for his
delay and failure perform his duties as a judge

RULING  YES.

 This Court reminds judges to decide cases with dispatch. Judges are expected
to be more diligent in preparing their Monthly Certificates of Service by verifying
every now and then the status of the cases pending before their sala. The
administration of justice demands that those who on judicial robes be able to
comply fully and faithfully with the task before them. Judges are duty-bound
not only to be faithful to the law, but likewise to maintain professional
competence. Section 2, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary provides that “The behavior and conduct of judges must
reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the Judiciary. Justice must not

Page 55 of 104
 merely be done, but must also be seen to be done.”

 Judge Lopez’s submission of false monthly reports and docket inventory

undermines the speedy disposition of cases and administration of justice and is
prejudicial to the interests of the party litigants. Judges are expected not to
engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial
duties. Further, Judge Lopez’s explanation of lack of time due to emotional and
physical stress does not inspire trust and confidence from the public. The
negligence of Judge Lopez shows a lack of professional competence in court
management, and does not inspire the observance of high standards of public
service among the court personnel.

 The Court held that Judge Lopez is guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT and
accordingly FINES him ₱40,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement/gratuity
benefits and guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions and making untruthful
statements in his Certificates of Service. The Financial Management Office of
the Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to release the remainder of
the retirement pay and other benefits due Judge Lopez.

Page 56 of 104
 2014 CASES

ANTONIO M. LORENZANA vs JUDGE MARIA CECILIA I. AUSTRIA

AM NO. RTJ-09-2200
April 2, 2014
Ponente: Justice Arturo D. Brion

FACTS  The administrative complaints arose from the case "In the Matter of the Petition
to have Steel Corporation of the Philippines Placed under Corporate
Rehabilitation with Prayer for the Approval of the Proposed Rehabilitation Plan”,
where the respondent was the presiding judge. The complainant was the
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Steel Corporation of the
Philippines (SCP), a company then under rehabilitation proceedings.

 The complainant alleged that the respondent judge committed Gross Ignorance
of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Misconduct, Grave Incompetence,
Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, Grave Bias and Partiality, Lack of
Circumspection, Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, Failure to Observe the
Reglementary Period and Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

 A supplemental complaint was also filed where complainant alleged that

respondent committed an act of impropriety when she displayed her
photographs in a social networking website called "Friendster" and posted her
personal details as an RTC Judge, allegedly for the purpose of finding a
compatible partner. She also posed with her upper body barely covered by a
shawl, allegedly suggesting that nothing was worn underneath except probably
a brassiere.

OCA’S  The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its 1st Indorsement4 dated March
RECOMMENDATIO 18, 2008, referred the complaints to the respondent for comment.
NS
 In a Resolution dated September 9, 2009, the Court re-docketed the complaints
as regular administrative matters, and referred them to the CA for investigation,
report and recommendation.

 In its Memorandum dated September 4, 2013, the OCA recommended

respondent Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria, Branch 2, Regional Trial Court,
Batangas City, Batangas, be found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a judge and
for violation of Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; and
respondent Judge Austria be ADMONISHED to refrain from further acts of
impropriety with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act
will be dealt with more severely.

COURT OF  Justice Gonzales-Sison noted the CA’s May 16, 2006 Decision finding that the
APPEALS’ respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the creation of a
RECOMMENDATIO management committee without first conducting an evidentiary hearing in
NS accordance with the procedures prescribed under the Rules. She ruled that such
professional incompetence was tantamount to gross ignorance of the law and
procedure. She also recommended that the respondent be admonished for
failing to observe strict propriety and judicial decorum required by her office.

Page 57 of 104
FINDINGS OF THE  The Supreme Court concurred with findings and recommendations of the CA
COURT and the OCA. It states that:

 "As a judge, [she] should ensure that [her] conduct is always above reproach
and perceived to be so by a reasonable observer. [She] must never show
conceit or even an appearance thereof, or any kind of impropriety."

 Section 1, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct states that:

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach,
but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

 In these lights, the respondent exhibited conduct unbecoming of a judge and

thus violated Section 6, Canon 6 and Section 1, Canon 2 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct.

 Indeed, while a judge may not be held liable for gross ignorance of the law for
every erroneous order that he renders, this does not mean that a judge need
not observe due care in the performance of his/her official functions. When a
basic principle of law is involved and when an error is so gross and patent, error
can produce an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross
ignorance of the law. On this basis, we conclude that the respondent’s act of
promptly ordering the creation of a management committee, without the
benefit of a hearing and despite the demand for one, was tantamount to
punishable professional incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.

RULING  Respondent Judge Ma. Cecillia Austria found GUILTY of GROSS IGNORANCE OF
THE LAW. Judge Austria is likewise hereby ADMONISHED to refrain from further
acts of IMPROPRIETY and to refrain from CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A
JUDGE, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely.

EMILIE SISON-BARIAS vs. JUDGE MARINO E. RUBIA, RTC BRANCH 24, BIÑAN,
LAGUNA and EILEEN A. PECAÑA, DATA ENCODER II, RTC, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388. June 10, 2014 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3554-RTJ]
June 10, 2014
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  Barias is involved in three cases pending before RTC Branch 24 under Judge
Rubia: a.) An intestate proceeding, b.) A guardianship proceeding, and c.) A
civil action for annulment of contract

 Eileen Pecaña was the daughter of Enrique Sison’s (Emilie’s brother) good friend
and was a data encoder in the Office of the Clerk of Court of RTC of Biñan,
Laguna.

 Complainant asked Eileen to check on the status of the case and exchanged
number with her.

Page 58 of 104
  After knowing the true interest of complainant regarding the administration of
the properties of late-husband, Eileen informed Emilie that Judge Rubia wanted
to talk to her.

 Judge Rubia and complainant met and talked over dinner. Complainant alleged
that Judge Rubia were asking inappropriate questions.

 Complainant’s lawyer immediately admonished her for agreeing to meet with

Judge Rubia.

 Judge Rubia claimed that the alleged meeting between him and co-respondent
Eileen together with complainant was a mere chance encounter. He denied that
there is any pre-arranged dinner meeting, stating that after the brief encounter
with complainant, he had to rush home to attend his ailing wife.

FINDINGS OF OCA  The OCA found that Judge Rubia and co-respondent should be held
administratively liable for their actions.

HELD/FINDINGS OF  In Gandeza Jr. v. Tabin, the Court provides that Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
THE SUPREME Conduct requires a judge to avoid not only impropriety but also the mere
COURT appearance of impropriety in all activities

 Respondent Judge Rubia clearly failed to live up to the standards of his office.
By participating in the dinner meeting and by failing to admonish respondent
Eileen for her admitted impropriety, respondent Judge Rubia violated Canons 1
and 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING  Judge Mariano is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with corresponding
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and
disqualified from reinstatement or appointment in any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.

P/SR. INSP. TEDDY M. ROSQUETA vs. JUDGE JONATHAN A. ASUNCION, MUNICIPAL

TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, LAOAG CITY
A.M. No. MTJ-13-1823
March 19, 2014
Ponente: Justice Lucas Purugganan Bersamin

FACTS  Complainant Police Sr. Insp. Teddy M. Rosqueta, then Deputy Chief of Police of
Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, filed an affidavit- complaint charging respondent
Presiding Judge Asuncion of the MTCC, Branch 2, in Laoag City, with grave
misconduct and violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically
Canon 2, Rule 2.01.

 The firearm that became the subject of this administrative charge was seized
from Refuerzo, who worked as an associate/bodyguard of Judge Asuncion.
Upon verification, it was found that Refuerzo was not a registered or licensed
holder of any kind of firearm.

Page 59 of 104
  The investigation revealed that the firearm in question was the subject of the
Information in a criminal case for illegal possession of firearms, assigned to
Branch 2 where Judge Asuncion presided.

 Upon the recovery of the firearm two years after the dismissal of the criminal
case, Sr. Insp. Rosqueta insisted that Judge Asuncion should have turned over
the firearm to the PNP in accordance with Supreme Court (SC) Circular No. 47-
98 which states that “Firearms being used as evidence in courts will only be
turned-in to FEO (now Firearms and Explosives Division) upon the termination
of the cases or when it is no longer needed as evidence.

 Judge Asuncion explained that he instructed the clerk of court to put the
firearm in the trunk of his car because he would take up the turnover of the
firearm personally with the PNP Provincial Director.

 Apparently, he carelessly dispatched the car to the mechanic with the firearm
still inside the trunk. He instructed Refuerzo to retrieve the firearm from the
car; and that on his way, Refuerzo dropped by his (Judge Asuncion) house, and
it was there where the policemen frisked him allegedly for no reason and seized
the firearm.
OCA`S REPORT  OCA recommended Judge Asuncion, be ADJUDGED GUILTY of gross misconduct
constituting a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

FINDINGS OF SC  As the judge, all he needed to do was to direct the clerk of court to deliver the
firearm to the custody of the PNP Provincial Office, or simply to require a
representative of the PNP Provincial Office to collect the firearm from the clerk
of court. Either alternative would have substantially complied with the directive
of SC Circular 47-98 regarding the firearm.

 The court finds him guilty of misusing evidence entrusted to his court by taking
personal interest in the firearm and appropriated it. He thereby did not live up
to the exacting standards prescribed by the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
specifically its Canon 2 and Canon 4.

 Judge Asuncion is reminded, that "the Constitution stresses that a public office
is a public trust and public officers must at all times be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

RULING  The Court pronounces Judge JONATHAN A. ASUNCION, ADMINISTRATIVELY

LIABLE for GROSS MISCONDUCT for violating Section 1 and Section 2 of Canon
2, and Section 1 of Canon 4, of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; FINES him in
the amount of P21,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Page 60 of 104
 REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO, Branch 5, Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-2491-MTJ)
February 24, 2014
Ponente: Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen

FACTS  Rex Tupal filed with the OCA a complaint against Judge Rojo for violating the
Code of Judicial Conduct and for Gross Ignorance of the Law.

 Respondent allegedly solemnizes marriages without the required marriage

license. He instead notarizes affidavits of cohabitation and issued them to the
contracting parties on the day of the parties’ marriage and there “package
marriage”.

 Circular No. 1-90 only allows MTC judges to act as notaries public ex officio and
notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties.
Thus, respondent cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of parties
whose marriage they will solemnize.

 Also, complainant contended that respondent allegedly violated 2004 Rules on

National Practice for notarizing affidavits without affixing his judicial seal on the
affidavits. He also did not require the parties to present their competent pieces
of evidence of identity as required by law.

 Respondent argued that complainant was only harassing him to delay Frialyn
Tupal’s case since he is the father of the latter who has a pending perjury case
in for allegedly making false statements in her affidavit of cohabitation.

 He also argued that notarizing the affidavits of cohabitation was connected with
his official functions and duties as a judge. Thus, did not violate Circular No. 1-
90.

 In addition, he did not notarize the affidavits with the parties representing their
competent pieces of evidence of identity since he knew them to be the same
persons who executed the affidavit.

OCA’s REPORT  The OCA found that Judge Rojo Violated Circular No. 1-90. The OCA
recommended that Judge Rojo be fined P9,000.00 and sternly warned that
repeating the same offense will be dealt with more severely.

FINDINGS OF THE  Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct on integrity, "Judges shall ensure that
SUPREME COURT not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the
view of a reasonable observer." If the law involved is basic, ignorance
constitutes "lack of integrity." Violating basic legal principles and procedure nine
times is gross ignorance of the law.

RULING  Judge Remegio V. Rojo, is SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE.

RE: ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH AT THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE

Page 61 of 104
HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORY S.
ONG, SANDIGANBAYAN
A.M. No. SB-14-21-J (Formerly A.M. No. 13-10-06-SB)
September 23, 2014
Ponente: Justice Lucas Purugganan Bersamin

FACTS  When the Pork Barrel Scam broke the news in 2013, incriminating evidence
surfaced implicating Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan Gregory Ong.

 Multiple sworn statements and verbal testimonies of Marina Sula pointed out that
Ong had visited the office of key Pork Barrel Scam player Janet Lim Napoles.
Benhur Luy, Aries Rufo and Marina Sula further testified that:

 Ong acted as contact of Napoles in connection with the Kevlar case while it was
pending in the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division wherein he is the Chairman;

 Ong, being Napoles' contact in the Sandiganbayan, fixed the Kevlar case
resulting in her acquittal;

 Ong received an undetermined amount of money from Napoles prior to the

promulgation of the decision in the Kevlar case thus, she was sure of her
acquittal;

 Ong visited Napoles in her office where she handed to him eleven checks, each
amounting to P282,000.00 or a total of P3,102,000.00, as advanced interest for
his P25.5 million BDO check she deposited in her personal account

 A photo published by Rappler showed Senator Jinggoy Estrada, Napoles and Ong
together in a party.

 Ong explained himself in a letter to CJ Sereno, saying that the photo was taken
in one of Sen. Estrada’s birthday parties and it would have been rude of him not
to pose with other guests

 Sereno then requested the court En Banc to conduct an investigation motu

proprio under this Court's power of administrative supervision over members of
the judiciary and members of the legal profession.

FINDINGS OF  Justice Ong be found guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty, and impropriety, all
INVESTIGATING in violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and
JUSTICE be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all
SANDOVAL- retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and WITH PREJUDICE to
GUTIERREZ reemployment to any government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.

 His act is unquestionably disgraceful and renders him morally unfit as a member
of the Judiciary and unworthy of the privileges the law confers on him.

 Furthermore, Ong’s conduct supports Benhur's assertion that he received money

from Napoles.

 Dishonesty likewise violates Canon 2 (1 and 2) on Integrity of the New Code

Page 62 of 104
 providing in part that judges must ensure that their conduct is above reproach
and must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the Judiciary.

HELD/FINDINGS  Ong’s act of voluntarily meeting with Napoles at her office on two occasions was
OF THE SUPREME grossly improper and violated Section 1, Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code of
COURT Judicial Conduct. A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be
impartial and that fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. The SC’s
previous pronouncements have enjoined judges to avoid association or
socializing with persons who have pending cases before their court.

 A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as personal conduct, a
price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond
which he may not freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins
a judge to avoid not just impropriety in the performance of judicial duties but in
all his activities whether in his public or private life. He must conduct himself in a
manner that gives no ground for reproach.

 In this light, it does not matter that the case is no longer pending when improper
acts were committed by the judge. Because magistrates are under constant
public scrutiny, the termination of a case will not deter public criticisms for acts
which may cast suspicion on its disposition or resolution.

RULING  Justice Gregory S. Ong is GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT, DISHONESTY and

IMPROPRIETY, all in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, for which he is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, and with
prejudice to reemployment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the
government including government-owned or -controlled corporations.

Page 63 of 104
 2015 CASES

DR. CORAZON D. PADERANGA, DULCE P. GUIBELONDO, PATRIA P. DIAZ,

CARMENCITA P. ORSENO, and DR. AMOR P. GALON v. HONORABLE RUSTICO D.
PADERANGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 28, IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2383 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 05-2301-RTJ)
August 17, 2015
Ponente: Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen

FACTS  Complainants and Respondent Judge are siblings of full blood being the children
of the late Narciso and Rosario Paderanga in the following order: Complainant
Dulce; Complainant Dra. Amor; Narciso D. Paderanga, Jr. (Narciso Jr.);
Respondent Judge; Complainant Carmen; Complainant Patria; and Complainant
Dra. Corazon.

 Complainants aver that Respondent Judge, being a magistrate, failed to exert

any effort to mediate the differences and misunderstandings between his
siblings. They refer particularly to those incidents between Narciso, Jr. and
Corazon culminating in the filing of charges and counter-charges for different
cases.

 Thus his siblings alleged that the magistrate disregard of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct and committed abuse of authority.

FINDINGS OF OCA  The OCA found that Judge Paderanga be suspended from the service without
compensation and benefits for a period of two (2) months

HELD/FINDINGS  Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that conduct above
OF THE SUPREME reproach is essential not only in the proper discharge of the judicial office but
COURT also in the personal life of judges. Section 1 of Canon 2 clearly states:

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach,
but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

 In Lorenzana v. Austria the court the Court has also stressed that:

A judge should always conduct himself in a manner that would preserve the
dignity, independence and respect for himself/herself, the Court and the Judiciary
as a whole. He must exhibit the hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety
and self-restraint. He should choose his words and exercise more caution and
control in expressing himself. In other words, a judge should possess the virtue
of gravitas.

RULING  Retired Judge Paderanga is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and conduct
unbecoming of a judge and imposes him a fine of P40, 000 to be deducted from
the retirement benefits due him.

Page 64 of 104
ANTONIO S. ASCAÑO, JR., CONSOLACION D. DANTES, BASILISA A. OBALO, JULIETA D.
TOLEDO, JOSEPH Z. MAAC, EMILIANO E. LUMBOY, TITA F. BERNARDO, IGMEDIO L.
NOGUERA, FIDEL S. SARMIENTO, SR., DAN T. TAUNAN, AMALIA G. SANTOS, AVELINA
M. COLONIA, ERIC S. PASTRANA, and MARIVEL B. ISON v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S.
JACINTO, JR., Branch 45, Regional Trial Court, San Jose Occidental Mindoro
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3919-RTJ)
January 12, 2015
Ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno

FACTS  Complainants, section leaders of the lessees of market stalls in the public market
of Occidental Mindoro, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jose S.
Jacinto Jr. for gross and serious violations of the Canons of the Code of Judicial
Conduct and Judicial Ethics and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act).

 The complaint stemmed from Occidental Mindoro Mayor Jose T. Villarosa’s action
to demolish the public market so that the Municipality can use the space to erect
the new "San Jose Commercial Complex." The complainants opposed such action
and filed a petition for the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and
Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) against the Municipality and Mayor Villarosa,
which was raffled to Judge Jacinto Jr.’s sala.

 The complainants contend that during the scheduled hearings, Judge Jacinto Jr.:
(1) was bias and partial because he did not allow the "more than 500 members"
who accompanied the petitioners during the hearing to enter the courtroom
while he let the whole entourage of Mayor Villarosa in and he let Mayor Villarosa
step out of the courtroom through the door used by the judge to take a call and
suddenly explain that the Mayor had to excuse himself for an important
appointment, and (3) berated, scolded, confused and admonished their
witnesses without basis or justification. Judge Jacinto Jr. denied these
accusations.

 The case was raffled to Court of Appeals Justice Pedro B. Corales on February
24, 2014 for investigation, report and recommendation.

FINDINGS OF CA  Regarding the first charge, complainants failed to substantiate their allegation
JUSTICE PEDRO B. that Judge Jacinto Jr. acted with bias and partiality. Mere suspicion that a judge
CORALES is partial is not enough. Clear and convincing evidence is necessary to prove a
charge of bias and partiality. Also, due to the standard sizes of our courtrooms, it
is highly improbable that this huge group could have been accommodated inside.

 Anent the second charge, apart from raising his voice when addressing a witness
named Toledo and making "abrasive and unnecessary statements to her," Judge
Jacinto Jr. also made the following "insulting, sometimes needlessly lengthy
statements" in open court:
 Respondent declared that he no longer wanted to go to the market, because he
might be mistreated by petitioners.

 He told petitioners: "Mga taga-palengke na nagkakaso sa akin xxx pero ‘di

naman nila alam ang kanilang ginagawa."

 He told Toledo while the latter was testifying: "[B]asta na lang kayo pirma pirma
Page 65 of 104
 na gawa naman ng abogado niyo."

 He asked Toledo: "You mentioned about that ‘walang pwesto na nakikipwesto sa

inyo,’ is that not a violation to your lease contract that you are allowing
somebody to occupy your portion so that they can also engage in business? Is
this not an additional earning on your part and you are violating your lease
contract? Is that not depriving the coffer of the Municipal Government?"

 The foregoing statements "definitely imperiled the respect and deference" rightly
due to respondent’s position.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court agrees with the findings of Justice Corales.
SUPREME COURT
 This Court finds that respondent violated, among other, Section 1 of Canon 2 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which read:

CANON 2
INTEGRITY
SEC. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but
that it is perceived to be so in view of a reasonable observer.

 The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that
judges must not only maintain their independence, integrity and impartiality;
they must also avoid any appearance of impropriety or partiality, which may
erode the people's faith in the Judiciary. Members of the Judiciary should be
beyond reproach and suspicion in their conduct, and should be free from any
appearance of impropriety in the discharge of their official duties, as well as in
their personal behavior and everyday life.

 Respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge. The Court also notes that
in a previous case, Taran v. Jacinto, Jr., Judge Jacinto Jr. was already found
liable for his failure to supervise his personnel closely and for issuing orders
relayed over the phone. Considering that this is his second infraction already, the
Court finds that the penalties of a fine in the amount of P10,000 and admonition
with warning, as recommended by the investigating justice, are proper under the
circumstances.

RULING  Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. is found guilty of unbecoming conduct and is FINED in
the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000) and REPRIMANDED with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.

JILL M. TORMIS v. JUDGE MEINRADO P. PAREDES

A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3740-RTJ]
February 4, 2015
Ponente: Justice Jose Catral Mendoza

FACTS  Jill Tormis is a student of Judge Paredes in a certain law school in Cebu. She filed

Page 66 of 104
 a case against Judge Paredes for grave misconduct on September 5, 2011
because she averred that during his class, Judge Paredes named her mother,
Judge Rosabella Tormis as one of the judges involved in the marriage scams in
Cebu City and that she was abusive, corrupt, and ignorant of the law. Jill added
that Judge Paredes also named Francis Mondragon Tormis, her brother, as a
“court-noted addict” during her absence as told by her classmate. To avoid
humiliation, Jill decided to drop the class and transfer to another law school.

 Jill also disclosed that Judge Paredes was the one who reviewed the findings
conducted and recommended that the penalty be reduced to severe reprimand in
the case “Lachica v. Judge Tormis” in which her mother got suspended. She also
averred that Judge Paredes accepted P6,000 worth of bail bond for the
temporary release of Lita Guioguio.

 In his comment, dated October 28, 2011, Judge Paredes denied the accusations
and said that Judge Tormis used Jill to get back at him. He also said that the
case was discussed during meetings of the RTC and in schools where remedial
law and legal ethics where taught and that there was nothing wrong in
discussing it. Judge Paredes added that Jill did not complain or dispute his
discussions.

 Regarding the issue of the cash bail bond, Judge Paredes admitted that he
personally accepted it for the temporary release of Lita Guiogiuo in which Jill
contended that Judge Paredes was not the Executive Judge of the MTCC when
he received the cash bail and that he could not prove that the executive judge of
the MTCC was unavailable before accepting the bail.

 Lastly, he averred that the discussions were related to Judge Tormis could not be
subject to administrative complaint because it was not in the performance of his
judicial duties.

FINDINGS OF  Justice Diy found Judge Paredes guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge. She
JUSTICE DIY opined that his use of intemperate language during class was inappropriate. His
statements regarding Judge Tormis were obviously and clearly insensitive and
inexcusable.

 Justice Diy rejected Judge Paredes’ position that he could not be held
administratively liable for his comments against Judge Tormis and Francis as
these were uttered while he was not in the exercise of his judicial functions.
Jurisprudence, as well as the New Code of Judicial Conduct, required that he
conduct himself beyond reproach, not only in the discharge of his judicial
functions, but also in his other professional endeavors and everyday activities.

 As regards Judge Paredes’ receipt of the cash bail bond in relation to the
Guioguio case, Justice Diy absolved him of any liability as the charge of grave
misconduct was not supported by sufficient evidence. She accepted Judge
Paredes’ explanation that he merely followed the procedure laid down in Section
14, Chapter 5 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC when he approved the bail bond.

 The undersigned Investigating Justice finds that indeed Judge Paredes is guilty of
conduct unbecoming of a judge.

 Inasmuch as this is Judge Paredes’ first offense and considering the factual

Page 67 of 104
 milieu and the peculiar circumstances attendant thereto, it is respectfully
recommended that Judge Paredes be meted out with the penalty of REPRIMAND
with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.

HELD/FINDINGS  The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of Justice Diy except as to
OF THE SUPREME the penalty.
COURT
 Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules,
which must be established by substantial evidence. As distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.

 To constitute misconduct, the act or acts must have a direct relation to and be
connected with the performance of his official duties. Considering that the acts
complained of, the remarks against Judge Tormis and Francis, were made by
Judge Paredes in his class discussions, they cannot be considered as
"misconduct." They are simply not related to the discharge of his official
functions as a judge. Thus, Judge Paredes cannot be held liable for misconduct,
much less for grave misconduct.

 The Court cannot sustain the assertion of Judge Paredes that he cannot be held
administratively liable for his negative portrayal of Judge Tormis and Francis in
his class discussions. Judge Paredes should be reminded of the ethical conduct
expected of him as a judge not only in the performance of his judicial duties, but
in his professional and private activities as well.

 Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 of the Code mandates:

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach,
but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. SECTION 2.
The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the
integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen
to be done.

 Thus, being a subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and
willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by
the ordinary citizen. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance
of official duties and in private life should be above suspicion.

 Finally, Judge Paredes justified his action by stating that he was merely following
the procedure set forth in Section 14, Chapter 5 of A.M. No. 03-02-SC, which
authorizes executive judges to act on petitions for bail on Saturdays after 1:00
o’clock in the afternoon, Sundays, official holidays, and special days. Said rule
also provides that should the accused deposit cash bail, the executive judge shall
acknowledge receipt of the cash bail bond in writing and issue a temporary
receipt therefor. Considering that Judge Paredes merely followed said procedure,
he cannot be held administratively liable for his act of receiving the cash bail
bond in the Guioguio case.

Page 68 of 104
RULING  Judge Meinrado P. Paredes is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a
judge and the Court ADMONISHES him therefor.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALAN FLORES

AM NO. RTJ 12-2325
April 14, 2015
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  Acting on two anonymous letters from aka “John Hancock and “Concerned
citizen” alleging that respondent Judge Flores committed irregularities in his
judicial functions which includes:

 Judge Flores rendering favorable judgments in exchange for monetary

consideration; of taking cognizance of, and deciding cases on annulment
of marriage even if said cases were beyond the territorial jurisdiction of
the courts he presided;

 that every time an audit team of the OCA visits Iligan, Lanao del Norte
and Marawi City, Judge Flores would meet them at the airport, act as
their driver, entertain them and even give presents for their return to
Manila

 that Judge Flores demands ₱5,000.00 for special proceedings and

notarial commissions;

 that he maintains the services of four non-court personnel who regularly

reported to him and acted as his errand boys, bag-men, personal security
and drinking buddies;

 that if Judge Flores is not with his mistress in Cagayan de Oro City or
Ozamis City, he is having drinking sprees from 3 p.m. until 7 or 8 p.m.
with his errand boys at "Randy's Place" in Tubod, Lanao del Norte.and

 Judge Flores also allegedly claims to be protected by one of the associate

justices of the Supreme Court (SC) who is a former Free Legal Assistance Group
lawyer, and by a "Lawyer-Administrator" who is assigned in Lanao del Norte.

 The Court approved OCA Audit team to investigate and inspect the respondent’s
pending cases in his sala and after the investigation the OCA found that
respondent indeed violated the Rule on venue when he took cognizance of
Annulment/ Declaration Nullity of Marriages despite glaring evidence that the
parties are not residents of the place under the judicial jurisdiction of his court.
Other Special Proceedings cases were also allowed by respondent despite the
fact that the Petitioners did not reside within the place under the Jurisdiction of
his court.

 The OCA likewise found that respondent committed undue delays in acting on
pending motions of criminal cases or which ruled upon long after the
reglementary period to rule on the same.

 While the OCA Audit Team was conducting their investigation/inspection on the
Page 69 of 104
 sala of respondent they were told by Prosecutor Cabrera that he filed
administrative complaint against respondent alleging that Judge Flores violated
the provisions of SC Administrative Circular No. 23-95 dated October 11, 1995
when he failed to timely resolve several incidents in Criminal Cases Nos. 270-07-
2006 and 322-07-2006.

 Prosecutor Cabrera also claimed that Judge Flores neglected to resolve incidents
in eight criminal cases, which were then pending in his sala, and that he
rendered favorable decisions in numerous petitions for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage in exchange for monetary consideration even if the parties reside in
areas outside the territorial jurisdiction of his courts.

 It was also alleged that he maintained the services of Oscar Flores (Oscar),
Gedeon Catedral (Gedeon), Mario Capalac and Jeter Flores (Jeter) who served as
his driver, unofficial security guards and bribe collectors

 OCA consolidated the above two administrative case against respondent.

 Respondent in his comment denied the above allegations charged against him in
these two administrative cases.

 The OCA submitted their Memorandum and recommendation to the Court and
the latter assigned the Court of Appeals Mindanao Station to conduct a hearing
and submit its fidings/recommendations to the Court.

OCA’S  Based on the Audit Report OCA recommended respondent to:

RECOMMENDATIO  be IMMEDIATELY placed under PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION from the
NS service, pending final resolution of herein administrative cases or until
further orders from the Supreme Court;

 be found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct

and be DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and privileges, with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of
government service, including government-owned and controlled
agencies or corporations: GUILTY of incompetence and inefficiency and
be FINED the amount of ₱20,000.00

 be found GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering an Order in the following

seven (7) criminal cases and be FINED in the maximum amount of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 20,000.00).

 In the Complaint of Prosecutor Cabrera the OCA recommended thar respondent

be found GUILTY of incompetence and inefficiency and be FINED the amount of
₱20,000.00

COURT OF  After the CA conducted investigation and hearing on the matter referred to it, it
APPEALS’ found sufficient evidence to hold Judge Flores administratively liable for
RECOMMENDATIO ignorance of the law, gross misconduct and undue delay in rendering decisions
NS and orders.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Supreme Court concurred with findings and recommendations of the CA and
COURT the OCA. It states that

 “When a law or a rule is basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply

Page 70 of 104
 apply the law. "Anything less is gross ignorance of the law”.

 sustained the findings of the Court's audit team and concurred that the use of
"c/o" (care of) addresses in petitions for nullity of marriage raises doubt as to the
veracity of their actual residence.

 No less than the Code of Judicial conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful
to the laws and maintain professional competence. Indeed, competence is a
mark of a good judge. A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and
precepts as well as with procedural rules. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is
a sign of incompetence.

RULING  Respondent Judge Alan L. Flores found:

 GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct, and is

DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except as to
accrued leave credits and disqualified from reinstatement or appointment
to any public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations; and

 GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering Decisions/Orders and is imposed a

FINE of ₱20,000.00 to be deducted from the balance of the monetary
value of the accrued leave credits and/or other benefits that he may be
entitled to.

Page 71 of 104
 2016 CASE

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, METROPOLITAN

TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-42-METC)
November 22, 2016
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  The following are administrative cases that respondent Judge Eliza B. Yu was
involved: a. ( A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813) where the respondent does not want to
comply A.O. No. 19-20113 issued by the court; b. (A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836) the
respondent protested against the appointment and refused to administer oath of
Ms. Leilani A. Tejero-Lopez as Clerk of Court III; c. (A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815) the
respondent protested against the appointment of Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman as
Clerk of Court III; d. (A.M. No. 12-109-METC); e. (A.M. No. 11-2399-MTJ); f.
(A.M. No. 11-2378- MTJ) three complaints concerned the conduct of Judge Yu in
relation to her staff, fellow Judges and other officers of the Supreme Court, her
disobedience of the Court's issuances, and her manner of disposing cases; g.
(OCA iPI No. 12-2456-MTJ) charging the respondent with oppression in issuing
the order dated December 1, 2011 in Criminal Case No. M-PSY-09-08592-CR.
The Pasay City MeTCs; h. (OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ) respondent’s unjustified
refusal to sign Noel Libid’s application of leave, who had served as Utility Worker
at the MeTC Branch 47; and i. (A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821) about respondent’s
conduct unbecoming of a judge for constantly sending alarming messages with
sexual undertones via Facebook and electronic mail to Judge Emily L. San.

 The following administrative cases were filed against Judge Eliza B. Yu:

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813

On January 27, 2011, the Court issued A.O. No. 19-20113 expeditiously hear and
try cases involving nighttime apprehensions, special cases under the Rule on
Summary Procedure, and criminal cases involving tourists. Respondent Eliza Yu
was assigned to the duty, however, did not desire to comply. The OCA submitted
a memorandum to the Court be docketed as an administrative complaint against
her. Judge Yu denied the charges.

A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836

On July 9, 2010, Judge Yu requested to fill the position of Clerk of Court III in
her sala. s Ms. Tejero-Lopez's appointment was approved. Judge Yu expressed
her protest against the appointment. Judge Yu refused her request to administer
her oath and questioned the integrity of the selection process. Ms. Tejero-Lopez
executed a “sinumpaang salaysa” charging Judge Yu with refusal to obey court
order. The Court dismissed Judge Yu's protest.

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815

The Court appointed Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman as Clerk III of Branch 108 of the
RTC in Pasay City. Apparently, Ms. Lagman's appointment did not sit well with
Judge Yu. OCA received a letter of complaint from Judge Yu. The OCA filed a
memorandum denouncing the misconduct and insubordination of Judge Yu
relative to the appointments of Clerks. Judge Yu denied the allegations.

Page 72 of 104
 A.M. No. 12-109-METC; A.M. No. 11-2399-MTJ; and A.M. No. 11-2378-MTJ
The common issue in the three complaints concerned the conduct of Judge Yu in
relation to her staff, fellow Judges and other officers of the Supreme Court, her
disobedience of the Court's issuances, and her manner of disposing cases.

OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ

This administrative matter concerned the letter dated January 12, 2012 charging
Judge Yu with oppression in issuing the order dated December 1, 2011 in
Criminal Case No. M-PSY-09-08592-CR. The Pasay City MeTCs, the Court
suspended Judge Yu from office effective February 1, 2012. Judge Yu maintains
that she validly issued the subject order by virtue of the inherent contempt
powers of the court, and that the complainants should have availed of the
appropriate relief in questioning the order instead of filing the administrative
complaint; and that the OCA could not rule on the propriety of issuing the
subject order because doing so was beyond the OCA's power and prerogative.

OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ

This administrative matter stemmed from the complaint filed by Mrs. Josefina G.
Labid charging Judge Yu with oppression, gross ignorance of the law, and
conduct unbecoming of a judge in connection with the fate of her son, Noel, who
had served as Utility Worker at the MeTC Branch 47. Mrs. Labid believed that
Judge Yu's unjustified refusal to sign Noel's application for leave had been
motivated by malice and ill-will, arising from the administrative complaint against
her that Noel had signed and joined. In her comment, Judge Yu denied the
imputations of Mrs. Labid.

A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821

This administrative matter emanated from the Letter-Complaint of Judge Emily L.
San Gaspar-Gito of MeTC Branch 20, whereby the latter imputed to Judge Yu
conduct unbecoming of a judge for constantly sending alarming messages with
sexual undertones via Facebook and electronic mail.

OCA’s REPORT  OCA recommended that Judge Eliza B. Yu, GUILTY of INSURBORDINATION,
GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, REFUSAL TO PERFORM OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS, GROSS MISCONDUCT AMOUNTING TO VIOLATION OF THE CODE
OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHROITY, OPPRESSION, and
CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A JUDGE, and be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE
with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification
from reinstatement or appointment to any public office including government-
owned or controlled corporations.

FINDINGS OF THE A judge embodies the law; she cannot be above it. She should not use it to advance
COURT her personal convenience, or to oppress others. She should be obedient to the rules
and directives enunciated by the Supreme Court for the effective administration of
justice; otherwise, she becomes an arrogant tyrant. Being a magistrate of the law,
she must comport herself in a manner consistent with the dignity of her judicial
office, and must not commit any act that erodes public confidence in the Judiciary.
In these consolidated administrative proceedings, we resolve the several charges of
gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, gross insubordination, oppression,
and conduct unbecoming of a judge leveled by various complainants, some of them
her fellow Judges, against. The court finds and pronounces and dismisses her from
the service effective immediately.
Page 73 of 104
RULING  Judge Yu is dismissed from her office.

Page 74 of 104
 2017 CASE

ANONYMOUS v. GLENN L. NAMOL

A.M. No. P-16-3614 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4630-P]
June 20, 2017
Ponente: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

FACTS  Edselbert "Jun-Jun" Garabato and Glenn Namol confederated and conspired in
money making activities by asking money from litigants whose cases have just been
dismissed or terminated in court by making it appear that these persons areobligated
to the court personnel of RTC, Branch 63, Bayawan City. Even though it is not
necessary, they helped each other in making false pretenses thereby besmirching the
integrity of the Supreme Court.

 This is evidenced by the admission of Garabato and Legal Researcher Roco in the
TSN taken on October 23, 2013 at 8:30am. The whole transcript of records is
marked as Annex 1-13 and being a public record it is now used by us as annexes and
made as an integral part of this complaint.

 This transcript of records was taken during a meeting called for by Judge Ananson E.
Jayme, Executive and Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 63, Bayawan City.

 Judge Jayme did not regularly come to court on Mondays and he would leave the
court for Dumaguete City on Thursdays.

OCA’s REPORT and  The OCA found Garabato guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
RECOMMENDATION best interest of the service for asking accused Bucad Pl0,000.00 for the processing of
his application for probation, out of which amount he accepted P3,000.00 as initial
payment.

 The OCA also found Namol and Garabato guilty of loafing in view of their admission
that they had left the court's premises without the authority of their superior for the
purpose of confronting Lasconia and Aragones regarding the allegations in the
complaint.

 As to the liability of Roco, the OCA found her liable for simple neglect of duty for her
failure to report the extortion incident involving Garabato and Bucad.

THE COURT’S  The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA
RULING
 Pursuant to Canon 2 of The New Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Jayme should have
caused the investigation of the unprofessional conduct committed by the court
personnel under his supervision.

 When Judge Jayme came to know of the extortion committed by Garabato against
Bucad, he merely called for a meeting between Garabato and the complainants.

 He was well aware of the extortion activity being committed within the court and yet
he failed to initiate any investigation for appropriate disciplinary action against the
erring employee.

 Hence, Judge Jayme should be required to explain why no disciplinary action should
be taken against him for his failure to take the appropriate disciplinary measure
against the erring court personnel.

Page 75 of 104
RULING  WHEREFORE, the counter complaint against Judge Ananson Jayme is hereby
ordered re-docketed as a separate administrative matter.

 Judge Ananson Jayme, Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Bayawan City, Negros
Oriental, is DIRECTED to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him for his inaction despite his knowledge of the illegal activity of respondent
Edselbert Anthony "Jun-Jun" A. Garabato.

Page 76 of 104
 2018 CASES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C.

CALIDA v. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
G.R. No. 237428
May 11, 2018
Ponente: Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam

FACTS  Republic of the Philippines through SolGen Calida filed for issuance of a writ of
quo warranto to declare the appointment of Respondent, Sereno, as Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court, null and void, and oust her from office

 Despite being as a professor at the UP College of Law for 20 years (1986 to

2006), and a legal counsel for various government agencies from 2003 to 2009
(i.e. PIATCO), she filed only 11 out of 25 SALNs that ought to have been filed as
a public officer based on the records of the UP HRDO and Ombusman.

 In August 2010, Respondent was appointed Associate Justice by President

Aquino.

 In 2012, during the Screening process by the JBC for the vacant Chief Justice
position, the Judicial and Bar Council required that all nominees for the CJ
position from the government, Respondent included, needed to submit all
previous SALNs (from Dec 2011) instead of the usual SALNs for the last two
years required for other judicial vacancies.

 On July 20, 2012, the JBC in a meeting discussed the nominees with incomplete
documentary requirements. Respondent has not submitted her SALNs for a
period of 10 years (1986-2006).

 Several other candidates had incomplete documents and the JBC agreed to
extend the deadline. However, Respondent failed to submit the additional SALNs
and instead replied through a letter stating that she submitted these while
employed by UP and that its infeasible to retrieve all these files from UP. She
stated that UP has cleared her of all accountabilities when she left UP in 2006
and that she was employed in the private sector from 2006 to 2010.

 The basis of the quo warranto proceedings is Respondent’s lack of proven

integrity because of her failure to file complete SALNs for all years in public
service and submit ALL SALNs from 2011 as part of the JBC requirements for the
nomination of Chief Justice in 2012. Such failure to file is a violation of a
constitutional duty as a public officer, and the failure to submit complete
requirements means that she wasn’t qualified to be nominated at the onset.

FINDINGS OF THE  Integrity is not only a prerequisite for an aspiring Member of the Court but is
SUPREME COURT likewise a continuing requirement common to judges and lawyers alike. The New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that judges must
not only maintain their independence, integrity and impartiality; but they must
also avoid any appearance of impropriety or partiality, which may erode the
people's faith in the Judiciary. Integrity and impartiality, as well as the
appearance thereof, are deemed essential not just in the proper discharge of
judicial office, but also to the personal demeanor of judges. This standard applies
not only to the decision itself, but also to the process by which the decision is
Page 77 of 104
 made.

 Section 1, Canon 2, specifically mandates judges to ensure that not only is their
conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of
reasonable observers. Clearly, it is of vital importance not only that
independence, integrity and impartiality have been observed by judges and
rejected in their decisions, but that these must also appear to have been so
observed in the eyes of the people, so as to avoid any erosion of faith in the
justice system. Thus, judges must be circumspect in their actions in order to
avoid doubt and suspicion in the dispensation of justice.

RULING  Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is
found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY
HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly,
Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.

RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION DATED MAY 11, 2018 IN G.R. NO. 237428
(REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C.
CALIDA V. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO)
A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC
July 17, 2018
Ponente: Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam

FACTS  The instant administrative matter is an offshoot of G.R. No. 237428 entitled
Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v.
Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.

 The Court observed that since the filing of the impeachment complaint, during
the pendency of the quo warranto case, and even after the conclusion of the
quo warranto proceedings, respondent continuously opted to defend herself in
public through speaking engagements before students and faculties in different
universities, several public forums, interviews on national television, and public
rallies.

 In short, respondent chose to litigate her case before the public and the media
instead of the Court.

 Worse, the Court was perturbed by the fact that respondent, not only being a
member of the Bar but one who was asserting her eligibility and right to the
highest position in the Judiciary, significantly participated in such detestable and
blatant disregard of the sub judice rule.

 Consequently, having great regard of judicial independence and its duty to

discipline member of the Bar to maintain the dignity of the profession and the
institution, the Court in its decision in the quo warranto case, ordered
respondent to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary (NCJC) for transgressing the sub judice rule and for

Page 78 of 104
 casting aspersions and ill motives to the Members of this Court.

FINDINGS OF THE  This Court cannot subscribe to respondent's position that she was merely a
SUPREME COURT party-litigant in the quo warranto case, not a counsel nor a judge, hence, should
not be judged on the exacting standards expected of a member of the Bar or of
the Court.

 Time and again, this Court has emphasized the high sense of morality, honesty,
and fair dealing expected an required of members of the Bar. Lawyers must
conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond
reproach anywhere and at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients
or the public at large. For the same reason, judges or Justices are held to a
higher standard for they should be the embodiment of competence, integrity,
and independence, hence, their conduct should be above reproach.

 At this point, this Court leaves an essential reminder to members of the Bar and
the Bench alike: all lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of
the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession and
the integrity of the judicial institution to which they owe fidelity according to the
oath they have taken, hence, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly
in all circumstances.

RULING  Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is found GUILTY of violating CANON 13, Rule 13.02,
and CANON 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Sections 3, 7, and 8 of
CANON 1, Sections 1 and 2 of CANON 2, Sections 2 and 4 of CANON 3, and
Sections 2 and 6 of CANON 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary. Thereby, after deep reflection and deliberation, in lieu of
suspension, respondent is meted the penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of a similar offense or any offense violative of the
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility shall merit a heavier
penalty of a fine and/or suspension or disbarment.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE LYLIHA AQUINO, REGIONAL

COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 24
A.M. NO. RTJ-15-2413
September 25, 2018
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  This case is a consolidation of four cases filed by the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) against four judges during the 2013 Philippine Judges
Association (PJA) Elections wherein there was an alleged controversy and some
violations were committed by the said judges.

 Several articles published in newspapers came to the attention of the Supreme

Court. The articles were focused on a fixer in the Judiciary going by the name of
“Arlene” Lerma. The OCA likewise received reports from other judges regarding
the intense campaigning for positions in the said 2013 elections where Ma'am
Arlene allegedly supported one of the candidates.

Page 79 of 104
 The Supreme Court issued a Resolution and created a committee to investigate
the anomalies surrounding the elections and the issue regarding Ma’am Arlene.
The Committee submitted its report and cited four Regional Trial Court (RTC)
judges, namely, Judge Lyliha A. Aquino (Aquino) of RTC-Manila, Branch 24;
Judge Rommel O. Baybay (Baybay) of RTC-Makati, Branch 132; Judge Ralph S.
Lee (Lee) of RTC-Quezon City, Branch 83; and Judge Marino E. Rubia (Rubia) of
RTC-Biñan, Laguna, Branch 24. All judges are candidates in the 2013 PJA
elections and have probable violations of the Guidelines on the Conduct of
Elections of Judges' Associations and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary.

 The Supreme Court issued another resolution which directed the investigation of
each of the above-named RTC judges to be raffled separately to a Court of
Appeals (CA) Associate Justice. The investigation of Judge Aquino was raffled to
Court of Appeals Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (Reyes); that of Judge Baybay Court
of Appeals Justice Ramon A. Garcia (Garcia); that of Judge Lee to Court of
Appeals Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo (Leagogo); and that of Judge Rubia to
Court of Appeals Justice Romeo F. Barza (Barza).

 The assigned Investigating Court of Appeals Justices presented their findings

regarding the probable violations of:

 The Supreme Court En Banc Resolution which prescribes the Guidelines

in the Conduct of PJA Elections dated May 3, 2007:

 Section 4(a) on prohibited acts, such as provision of campaign materials

other than flyers and curricula vitae

 Section 4(d) on prohibited acts, such as providing free transportation or

free hotel accommodations to members of judges' associations

 Section 4(h) on prohibited acts, such as the use of court personnel in the
distribution of campaign materials and paraphernalia

 New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

 JUDGE AQUINO (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2413)

 Judge Aquino was the PJA Secretary-General running for re-election in

2013.

 Judge Aquino allegedly booked for the accommodations of PJA members

at Century Park Hotel for the 2013 PJA Convention, with said
accommodations being paid for by only one person.

 Judge Aquino used her close personal ties to then Deputy Court
Administrator (DCA) Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr. (Eugenio) to effect her
transfer from her original station at RTC-Tuguegarao City, Cagayan,
Branch 4 (a Family Court) to RTC-Manila, Branch 24 (a Commercial
Court), where one of the cases of Arlene was pending.

 Judge Aquino won a Chery car, sponsored by Arlene, at a raffle held

during the 2009 PJA Convention where said car turned out to be already
registered in Judge Aquino's name months before said raffle.

Page 80 of 104
 JUDGE BAYBAY (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2415)

 Judge Baybay allegedly provided cellular phones to be given away as

raffle prizes in events where RTC judges were the participants. The raffle
prizes were allegedly given in order to promote Judge Baybay as a
candidate for the presidency of the PJA.

 Judge Baybay also offered discounted hotel rooms in the Pearl Manila, a
hotel within the vicinity of the venue of The 2013 PJA Elections. These
rooms were given for free or at a discounted rate allegedly as a means of
securing the judges’ votes in order to ensure his victory as a candidate
for the presidency of the PJA.

 JUDGE LEE (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2414)

 Judge Lee also allegedly provided cellular phones to be given away as

raffle prizes for events where judges of the RTCs were participants. The
raffle prizes were likewise given in order to promote Judge Lee as a
candidate for the presidency of the PJA.

 A day after the PJA elections, Judge Lee distributed mugs to judges who
participated in the elections. The mugs had his name printed on it,
showing him as President of the PJA. Judge Lee bought these mugs prior
to the election, and the budget came from his campaign funds.

 Judge Lee allegedly reserved 180 rooms of the Century Park Hotel in
Manila for the accommodations of judges during the 2013 PJA Elections.
When certain judges were about to pay for their rooms at the check-out
counter, they were informed that the rooms were already paid for. Judge
Lee allegedly facilitated the reservation of these rooms allegedly as a
means of securing votes for the said elections.

 JUDGE RUBIA (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2416)

 Judge Rubia ran as a candidate for Executive Vice-President of the PJA in

the 2013 PJA elections.

 While the reports on Ma'am Arlene were pending investigation, Judge

Rubia was dismissed from the service on June 10, 2014 for gross
misconduct and conduct unbecoming a judge as he violated Canons 2, 3,
and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to three cases
pending before his sala.

 Judge Rubia provided campaign materials such as kits containing a

collared t-shirt and a cap with the seal of the PJA. More than 200 kits
were given away and distributed to RTC judges throughout the country.

 During the 2013 PJA elections, Judge Rubia allegedly offered free hotel
accommodations in the Heritage Hotel for certain judges. These offers
took place in meetings within regional chapters of the PJA and through
informal means such as verbal offers or social media.

Page 81 of 104
FINDINGS OF THE  Court of Appeals Justice Reyes’ investigation of Judge Aquino’s violations
ASSIGNED CA
JUSTICES  Judge Aquino acted with impropriety in booking the hotel accommodations of
judges in the 2013 Convention. As one running for re-election as Secretary-
General, her act of booking hotel reservations for the participants gave her
undue advantage. It was noted that judges see this as a practice among
Secretaries-General. However, such practice or perception, no matter how widely
held by judges, should not diminish the high expectations on judges, whose
conduct must not only be beyond reproach, but also perceived to be so. The fact
that it has been the practice will not make an improper act proper. As a judge
whose conduct is subject to constant scrutiny, Judge Aquino should have
avoided committing acts that might be perceived as inappropriate, undue or
unfair.

 It would have been more prudent if Judge Aquino avoided ruling on a motion
where Arlene was a party because their social relationship could reasonably tend
to raise suspicion that it was an element in the determination of Arlene's case.
This may erode the trust of litigants in the judge's impartiality and eventually
undermine the people's faith in the administration of justice. Judges must not
only render just, correct and impartial decisions but should do so in such a
manner as to be free from any suspicion as to the judge's fairness, impartiality
and integrity. Judge Aquino could have avoided socializing with Arlene or having
any association with her, in view of the cases in her court where Arlene is
personally interested.

 Regarding the Chery car, Judge Aquino did not buy the said car. She "won" it in
a raffle during a PJA convention. Arlene's presence in the PJA events, coupled
with the unusual nature of the raffle in 2009―the prize being a car and the first
and only time that such item was raffled off in PJA―should have alerted Judge
Aquino and placed her on guard as to the possible source of the prize.

 Justice Reyes recommended that Judge Aquino be WARNED to be circumspect in

the performance of her duties as Secretary-General of the PJA; be ADMONISHED
for failing to inhibit herself in cases involving Arlene Lerma and avoid suspicion
and appearance of impropriety by reason of their social relations; and be FINED
in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 20,000.00) for accepting a
Chery car in the 2009 PJA Raffle. She should also be STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. It is
further recommended that Judge Aquino be ordered to return the Chery vehicle
she won in the said raffle, for proper disposition.

 Court of Appeals Justice Garcia’s investigation of Judge Baybay’s violations:

 There was sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence to adjudge Judge
Baybay guilty of violating (1) Section 4 (a) of the Guidelines on the
Conduct of Elections of Judges' Associations in relation to his donation of
cellular phones for raffle during the 2013 PWJA Convention; and (2)
Section 4(d) of the same Guidelines in relation to the billeting of judges
at The Pearl Manila Hotel for the period of October 8 to 10, 2013.

 For said violations, Investigating Court of Appeals Justice Garcia

recommended that Judge Baybay be penalized with suspension of six
months from office without salary and other benefits during the same
period.

Page 82 of 104
  Court of Appeals Justice Leagogo’s investigation of Judge Lee’s violations:
 There was no evidence to sustain the probable violations of Judge Lee
concerning the cellular phones and mugs under Section 4(a) as the mugs
were distributed on the day after the 2013 PJA elections when Judge Lee
was already proclaimed PJA President. Hence, the said mugs cannot be
considered as election campaign materials designed to induce the judges
to vote for him as President.

 There was also no substantial evidence that would support the probable
violation regarding the hotel room reservations for the judges allegedly
made by Judge Lee. There was no testimony given during the further
investigation that it was Judge Lee who reserved the hotel rooms for
judges or that he facilitated or paid for the hotel accommodations of the
judges as a means of securing their votes.

 The other possible violations of Judge Lee which were respectfully

submitted by Justice Leagogo for the consideration and disposition of the
Supreme Court.

 Court of Appeals Justice Barza’s investigation of Judge Rubia’s violations:

 Investigating Court of Appeals Justice Barza considered Judge Rubia's
violation of Section 4(a) of the Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of
Judges' Associations as gross misconduct, punishable by dismissal from
service. However, since Judge Rubia was already dismissed from service,
Investigating Court of Appeals Justice Barza recommended instead that
Judge Rubia be ordered to pay a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00.

 Substantial evidence support the charge that Judge Rubia violated

Section 4(a) of the Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of Judges'
Associations by distributing campaign materials other than his curriculum
vitae or biodata and acceptable flyers. It is undisputed that Judge Rubia
distributed campaign kits to different RTCs around the country.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court adopted the findings of the Investigating CA Justices but also modified
COURT some of them.

 The rulings of the Court on the charges against the four judges are summarized
as follows:

 Judge Aquino failed to maintain the appearance of propriety in booking room

accommodations for judges for the 2013 PJA Convention and election even when
she was running for re-election as PJA Secretary-General;

 Judge Lee is guilty of violating Section 4(a) of the Guidelines on the Conduct of
Elections of Judges' Associations for his use and distribution of prohibited
campaign materials such as desk calendars, posters, and tarpaulins;

 Judge Baybay is guilty of violating Section 4(a) of the Guidelines on the. Conduct
of Elections of Judges' Associations for giving away cellphones as raffle prizes at
the 2013 PWJA Convention during the campaign period which were deemed
prohibited campaign materials, as well as Section 4 (d) of the same Guidelines
for providing hotel room accommodations with 25% discount to select judges

Page 83 of 104
 during the 2013 PJA Convention and election; and

 Judge Rubia is guilty of violating Section 4(a) of the Guidelines on the Conduct
of Elections of Judges' Associations for distributing prohibited campaign
materials, particularly, campaign kits consisting of a bag, cap, t-shirt, and printed
materials.

 In In re: Solicitation of Donations by Judge Benjamin H. Virrey, the Court held

that a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Public confidence in the judiciary is
eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. A judge must avoid all
impropriety and the appearance thereof. Being the subject of constant public
scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that
might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. A magistrate must
comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official and
otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to
him as the epitome of integrity and justice.

RULING  Judge Aquino is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in her actions so as to

maintain propriety and the appearance of propriety in her judicial as well as non-
judicial activities;

 Judge Baybay is found GUILTY of violating Sections 4(a) and 4(d) of the
Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of Judges' Associations and ORDERED to
pay a FINE of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php 30,000.00);

 Judge Lee is found GUILTY of violating Section 4(a) of the Guidelines on the
Conduct of Elections of Judges' Associations and is ORDERED to pay a FINE of
Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (Php 21,000.00); and

 Judge Rubia is found GUILTY of violating Section 4(a) of the Guidelines on the
Conduct of Elections of Judges' Associations and is ORDERED to pay a FINE of
Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (Php 21,000.00).

RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT (WITH ATTACHED PICTURES) AGAINST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO
A.M. No. 17-11-06-CA
March 13, 2018
Ponente: Justice Samuel R. Martires

FACTS  An anonymous letter-complaint accused Justice Normandie B. Pizarro of habitually

gambling in casinos, "selling" decisions, and immorally engaging in an illicit
relationship

 Justice Pizarro admitted that he was indeed the person appearing on the subject
photographs sitting at a casino table. According to him it is only a little parlor
fashion game without big stakes and without their identities introduced or made
known

 Furthermore, he also denied having a mistress, and that these are only baseless

Page 84 of 104
 accusations with an intent to destroy his character

FINDINGS OF THE  These accusations pertaining to Judge Pizarro, however, with the only exception
COURT of gambling in casinos, are not supported by any evidence or by any public record
of indubitable integrity. Thus, the bare allegations of corruption and immorality do
not deserve any consideration. It lacks merit. While the law and justice abhor all
forms of abuse committed by public officers and employees whose sworn duty is
to discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence,
accountability, and loyalty, the Court must protect them against unsubstantiated
charges that tend to adversely affect, rather than encourage, the effective
performance of their duties and functions.

 As regards the accusation of habitually playing in casinos, it is clear that the

anonymous complaint was not supported by public records. However, he admitted
that he was the same person playing in a casino sometime in 2009 in Clark,
Pampanga, as shown by the photographs attached to the anonymous complaint.

 The OCA reminded the judges and court personnel to strictly comply with the
prohibition against gambling under Circular No. 4 issued by the Court on 27
August 1980 which reads: Persons not allowed to play – Government officials
connected directly with the operation of the government or any of its agencies."

 With respect to Circular No. 4 and Administrative Matter No. 1544-0. It is clear
from the words of these issuances that the prohibition from entering and
gambling in casinos is applicable only to judges of inferior courts and court
personnel. It does not cover justices of collegial courts since they are neither
judges of the inferior courts nor can they be described as personnel of the court.

 However, the inapplicability of the aforestated Court issuances to justices of

collegial courts does not necessarily mean that Justice Pizarro is absolutely
cleared of his evident and admitted act of playing in casinos. Justice Pizarro is
covered by the term “government official connected directly with the operation of
the government.” Indeed, one of the functions of the government, through the
Judiciary, is the administration of justice within its territorial jurisdiction. Justice
Pizarro, as a magistrate of the CA, is clearly a government official directly involved
in the administration of justice; and in the performance of such function, he
exercises discretion. Thus, by gambling in a casino, Justice Pizarro violated the
prohibition from gambling in casinos as provided under Section 14(4)(a) of P.D.
No. 1869.

 In City Government of Tagbilaran v. Hontanosas, Jr, it was held that such

transgressions violated Canons 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary. A judge's personal behaviour outside the court, and not
only while in the performance of his official duties, must be beyond reproach, for
he is perceived to be the personification of law and justice.

RULING  Justice Normandie B. Pizarro is GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a member of

the judiciary, and is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of P100,000.00.

Page 85 of 104
 BERNARDITA F. ANTIPORDA v. FRANCISCO A. ANTE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR
A.M. No. MTJ-18-1908 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-2674-MTJ)
January 16, 2018
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  This administrative case was filed by complainant Bernardita F. Antiporda against
respondent Judge Francisco A. Ante, Jr.

 March 2, 2014: Complainant alleged that respondent suddenly confronted her for
glaring at him, and approached her, slapped her face several times and whipped
her with a dog chain. He also pointed a 45-caliber pistol at complainant and the
witnesses of the incident.

 Complainant admitted having glared at the respondent. She said she only did
because she discovered that the respondent had maliciously reported to the
Office of the City Engineer of Vigan that her house was being renovated without
the necessary building permit inspite of the fact that she secured one. She added
that it was actually the respondent who had building code violations, as the
drainage pipes in his house were left exposed outside the firewall abutting her
property.

 On the other hand, respondent claimed that it was complainant who attempted
to kill him by ordering three men to attack him with bolos. He denied that he
slapped and whipped her with a dog chain, and alleged that complainant
harbored a grudge against him for having reported her illegal house renovation
to the Engineering Department of the City Hall of Vigan.

 November 11, 2014: In order to “restore the good relationship existing” between
her and the respondent, complainant asked the court to dismiss the
administrative complaint against respondent, saying that what happened
between her and the respondent was not intentional and it was purely accident.

 May 4, 2015: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in a Memorandum

denied complainant's request, as the mere desistance or recantation of a
complainant in an administrative complaint against any member of the bench
does not necessarily result in the dismissal thereof. Then, OCA referred the
matter to Executive Judge Marita Bernales Balloguing of the Regional Trial Court
of Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, for investigation, report, and recommendation.

 November 15, 2016: Judge Balloguing, in her Reports, recommended that

respondent be found guilty of acts unbecoming of a judge and be sanctioned
with either a fine or suspension.

OCA’s REPORT and  The OCA found that respondent's behavior during the incident left much to be
RECOMMENDATION desired, having failed to exercise more tolerance and self-restraint in dealing
with complainant. Had he done so, he could have prevented the incident from
further escalating. As such, respondent's infliction of physical injuries on
complainant amounts to grave misconduct, which contravenes the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

Page 86 of 104
COURT’s FINDINGS  Judge Ante, Jr. violated Canons 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

 A judge should always conduct himself in a manner that would preserve the
dignity, independence and respect for himself/herself, the Court, and the
Judiciary as a whole. He must exhibit the hallmark judicial temperament of
utmost sobriety and self-restraint. He should choose his words and exercise more
caution and control in expressing himself. In other words, a judge should
possess the virtue of gravitas. Judges are required to always be temperate,
patient, and courteous, both in conduct and in language.

 As aptly pointed out by the OCA, this is not the first administrative complaint
charging respondent with grave misconduct. In Jocelyn Briones v. Judge
Francisco A. Ante, Jr., the Court suspended respondent for three (3) months on
the charges of grave misconduct, acts unbecoming of a judge, and abuse of
authority for having hit complainant therein with a monobloc chair and shouted
invectives at her. Thereat, respondent had already displayed a predisposition to
use physical violence and intemperate language which reveals a marked lack of
judicial temperament and self-restraint – traits which, aside from the basic
equipment of learning in the law – are indispensable qualities of every judge.
Sadly, it seems that respondent has not learned to mend his ways and hence,
should be with the full force of the law.

RULING  Judge Francisco A. Ante, Jr. is found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct. Accordingly,
considering respondent’s retirement on November 7, 2017, his retirement
benefits are hereby FORFEITED, except accrued leave credits. He is further
DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement to any public office, including government-
owned or controlled corporations.

OCA VS. Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, OIC Ophelia G. Sullen and Process server
Rizalino Rinaldi B. Pontejos, All of the RTC, BR90, Dasmarinas, Cavite
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-3-55-RTC)
January 16, 2018
Ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno
x-----------------------------------------------------------x
OCA, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE FERNANDO L. FELICEN, CLERK OF COURT V ATTY. ALLAN
SLY M. MARASIGAN, SHERIFF IV ANSELMO P. PAGUNSAN, JR., COURT
STENOGRAPHERS ROSALIE MARANAN AND TERESITA P. REYES, COURT
INTERPRETER IMELDA M. JUNTILLA, AND PROCESS SERVER HIPOLITO O. FERRER,
ALL OF THE RTC, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE; PRESIDING JUDGE NORBERTO J.
QUISUMBING, JR., CLERK OF COURT ATTY. MARIA CRISTITA A. RIVAS-SANTOS,
LEGAL RESEARCHER MANUELA O. OSORIO, SHERIFF IV FILMAR M. DE VILLA, COURT
STENOGRAPHERS MARILOU CAJIGAL, WENDILYN T. ALMEDA AND HELEN B.
CARALUT, COURT INTERPRETER ELENITA T. DE VILLA, AND PROCESS SERVER ELMER
S. AZCUETA, ALL OF THE RTC, BRANCH 21, IMUS, CAVITE; PRESIDING JUDGE CESAR
A. MANGROBANG, CLERK OF COURT VI ATTY. REGALADO E. EUSEBIO, CLERK OF
COURT V ATTY. SETER M. DELA CRUZ-CORDEZ, LEGAL RESEARCHER DEVINA A. REYES
BERMUDEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHERS PRISCILLA P. HERNANDEZ, NORMITA Z. FABIA,
MERLY O. PARCERO, AND JOYCE ANN F. SINGIAN, COURT INTERPRETER MICHELLE A.
ALARCON, AND PROCESS SERVER ELMER S. AZCUETA, ALL OF THE RTC, BRANCH 22,

Page 87 of 104
 IMUS, CAVITE; EXECUTIVE JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, CLERK OF COURT
ZENAIDA C. NOGUERA, SHERIFF IV TOMAS C. AZURIN, OIC LEGAL RESEARCHER
OPHELIA G. SULUEN, COURT STENOGRAPHERS JESUSA B. SAN JOSE, ROSALINA A.
COSTUNA, AND MARIA LOURDES M. SAPINOSO, COURT INTERPRETER MERLINA S.
FERMA, AND PROCESS SERVER RIZALINO RINALDI B. PONTEJOS, ALL OF THE RTC,
BRANCH 90, DASMARIÑAS, CAVITE
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302 [FORMERLY A.M. No. 11-7-125-RTC]
x-----------------------------------------------------------x
RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER- COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER,
BRANCH 90, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DASMARIÑAS CITY, CAVITE, RELATIVE TO
CIVIL CASE NO. 1998-08
A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC

FACTS  A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301:

 An administrative complaint for gross irregularity in the conduct of the
proceedings in annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage cases. The
complaint was born of a judicial audit conducted at the RTC of Dasmarinas,
Cavite, BR 90, on 15-17 September 2010.

 Gross irregularity was raised because Courts had became “havens for paid-
for annulment”

 11 October 2011, in a resolution the Court ordered the respondent Judge

Faller, OIC Suluen and Process server Pontejos to explain the irregularities
observed by the judicial audit team.

 8 December 2011, the respondents submitted their explanation and

attached court relevant orders cited by judicial audit team, was then
referred by the Court to OCA for evaluation.

 A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302:

 A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302 stemmed from a report on a judicial audit conducted
on 3-11 February 2011 and treated as an administrative complaint against
the judges and personnel of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite,
Branches 20, 21 and 22 (RTC Imus 20, 21 and 22); and RTC Dasmariñas 90

 A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC:

 A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC stemmed from an anonymous complaint against
Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller (Judge Cabrera-Faller) of RTC Dasmariñas 90
relative to the irregularity of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1998-08 for
declaration of nullity of marriage.

OCA’s FINDINGS  A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301:

 Recommended that respondent Judge Cabrera-Faller be fined in the amount
of P10,000 for her failure to comply fully with the Resolution dated 11
October 2011 because she did not take appropriate action on all the cases
enumerated in the Comi's Resolution, in defiance of the directive given to
her. For the same reason, it also recommended that OIC Suluen be fined in
the amount of P20,000.

 As regards Process Server Pontejos, the OCA observed that while he signed
the joint compliance or explanation dated 8 December 2011, he gave no
Page 88 of 104
 explanation regarding his practice of making a substituted service of
summons without compliance with the mandatory requirements for validly
effecting it. Thus, it recommended that he be suspended for three months
without salary and other benefits for his utter failure to comply with the
Resolution dated 11 October 2011.

 The OCA recommended the foregoing penalties not for the irregularities
observed by the audit team, but for the failure of Judge Cabrera-Faller, OIC
Suluen and Process Server Pontejos to comply fully, if at all, with the
Resolution dated 11 October 2011. Noting this deficiency, the Court opted to
defer the imposition of penalties and instead require complete compliance
with the Resolution. In addition, the irregularities discovered involved
petitions for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, which are
among the subjects of A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302 and A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC.
Hence, the Court consolidated the two cases with the instant administrative
matter, which has a lower, and therefore earlier, docket number.

 A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302:

 29 June 2011, the OCA narrated its findings on the judicial audit conducted
on 3-11 February 2011 at RTC Imus 20, 21 and 22; and RTC Dasmariñas
90. According to the OCA, the four branches have generally violated A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC and specific provisions of the Rules of Court in handling
petitions for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, adoption, and
correction of entries.

 10 April 2012, thru Resolution the Court considered the irregularities found
by the audit team sufficient to warrant the conduct of a full investigation.
Accordingly, the Report was treated as an administrative complaint against
the judges and personnel of the four branches, and they were required to
comment on the findings.

 The OCA was directed to submit its evaluation, report and recommendation
to the Court. Meanwhile, until the conclusion of the investigation, the
presiding judges of the four branches were prohibited from acting on all
cases for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, adoption, and
correction of entries.

 The investigation, conducted from 22 April to 8 May 2013, covered the

decided cases for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage filed
from the year 2008 to 2011.Thereafter, the OCA submitted an Investigation
Report dated 13 February 2014

COURT OF APPEAL  A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301:

INVESTIGATING  4 October 2016 Amended Report, Associate Justice Victoria Isabel Paredes
JUSTICE agreed with OCA’s finding and recommend that the respondent Judge be
fined.

 Respondent OIC Suluen is recommended to be fined for lack diligence in the

performance of administrative functions amounting to simple neglect of
duty.

 Respondent Pontejos is recommended to be fined for failure to comply with

requirements set in Monotoc v. CA amounted to simple neglect of duty, for
serving summonses on the immediate relatives of respondents which is
Page 89 of 104
 unacceptable.

 A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302:

 On the allegation of improper venue, Judge paredes found only Judge
Felicen liable.

 On the improper service of summons, Judge paredes clears all four judges.

 Pontejos, Pagunsan, Azcueta, and sheriff De Villa failed to comply with

guidelines of Monotoc, they are guilty of simple neglect of duty, fined with a
stern warning

 Clerk of Court Cordez and Marsigan were found guilty of simple neglect of
duty, fined with a stern warning.

 Judge Felicen, Judge Mangrobang, and Judge Cabrera-Faller are fined for
being guilty of abuse of authority for failing to dismiss CC No. 2785-09 for
improper venue and for granting petitions for declaration of nullity and
annulment of marriage for extraordinary speed.

 Charges against Judge Quisumbing is recommended to be dismissed.

 Charges against Social Worker Serilo is recommended to be dismissed.

 Cahrges against Clerk of Court Eusebio be dismissed for being able to

explain.

 A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC:

 Judge Paredes holds the considred opinion that the purported graft and
corruption reported in the anonymous complaint is just a figment of the
letter writer’s imagination. Thus, charges against Judge Cabrera-Faller is
dismissed.

FINDINGS OF THE  Improper Venue

COURT  A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), which took effect on 15
March 2003, provides that petitions shall be filed in the Family Court of the
province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing
for at least six months prior to the date of filing. In the case of nonresident
respondents, it shall be filed where they may be found in the Philippines, at
the election of the petitioner.

 In OCA v. Flores, this Court has ruled that a deliberate disregard of the
foregoing rule may be shown by the judge's inexplicable persistence in
trying and resolving cases despite glaring circumstances that "should have
created doubt as to the veracity of the residential addresses declared in the
petitions."

 Improper Service of Summons

 Section 6 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC provides that the service of summons
shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Under that Rule, the
summons may be served by the sheriff, the deputy sheriff, or other proper
court officer, or, for justifiable reasons, by any suitable person authorized
by the court issuing the summons. Whenever practicable, the summons

Page 90 of 104
 shall be served by handing a copy thereof to respondents in person or, if
they refuse to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to them. However, if
the service cannot be done personally for justifiable causes and within a
reasonable time, it may be effected by (a) leaving copies of the summons
with some other person of suitable age and discretion then residing at
respondent's house; or (b) leaving copies of the summons with some
competent person in charge of the respondent's office or regular place of
business.

 The purpose of a summons is twofold: to acquire jurisdiction over the

person of respondents and to notify them that an action has been
commenced, so that they may be given an opportunity to be heard on the
claim being made against them. The importance of the service and receipt
of summons is precisely the reason why the Court has laid down very strict
requirements for undertaking substituted service of summons. As we said in
Manotoc, to allow sheriffs and process servers to describe the facts and
circumstances of substituted service in inexact terms would encourage
routine performance of their precise duties. It would be quite easy for them
to shroud or conceal carelessness or laxity in such broad terms.

 Lack of Collusion Report

 Under Section 8(1) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the respondent is required to
submit an Answer within 15 days from receipt of the summons. If no
answer is filed, the court shall order the public prosecutor to investigate
whether collusion exists between the parties.

 Within one month from receipt of the order of the court, the public
prosecutor shall submit a report to the court stating whether the parties are
indeed in collusion. If it is found that collusion exists, the public prosecutor
shall state the basis of that conclusion in the report. The court shall then set
the report for hearing; and if convinced that the parties are in collusion, it
shall dismiss the petition. If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion
exists, the court shall set the case for pretrial.

 Failure to Serve Copies of the Decisions on Respondents

 If a counsel or party moves to another address without informing the court
of that change, the former's failure to receive a copy of the decision sent to
the last known address will not stay the finality of the decision. It is a
different matter, however, if from the very inception of the proceedings
there is already doubt as to the genuineness of a party's given address.

 Considering that this Court continuously reminds our judges to resolve

cases with dispatch, we cannot be so quick to reprove the practice of the
four respondent judges herein. After all, as we said in Santos-Concio v.
Department of Justice:

“Speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer

cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of
functions. For one's prompt dispatch may be another's undue haste. The
orderly administration of justice remains as the paramount and constant
consideration, with particular regard of the circumstances peculiar to each
case.”
 However, the surrounding circumstances in these cases for the declaration
Page 91 of 104
 of nullity and annulment of marriage render the speed with which they were
decided suspect.

 Lack of Registration with the Local Civil Registrar

 Under Section 19(3) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, a decision of the court
granting the petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage
becomes final upon the expiration of 15 days from notice to the parties.
Entry of judgment shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new
trial, or appeal, is filed by any of the parties, the public prosecutor, or the
Solicitor General. If the parties have no properties, the court shall forthwith
issue the corresponding decree of declaration of absolute nullity or
annulment of marriage upon the finality of the decision. Otherwise, upon
the finality of the decision, the court shall observe the procedure prescribed
for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the
spouses, including custody, support of common children, and delivery of
their presumptive legitimes.

 Questionable Raffling of Cases

 The finding that most of the case8 were filed and raffled on the same day,
without more, cannot make the judges and court personnel administratively
liable. Under Supreme Court Circular No. 7-74 dated 23 September 1974,
the notice of the day and hour of the raffle should be posted prominently on
the bulletin boards of the courts and at a conspicuous spot on the main
door of the session hall of the executive judge. Thus, it is not impossible for
counsels to habitually choose the date of the raffle as the date on which to
file their petitions for whatever reason.

 Other Irregularities
 In A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301, other irregularities committed in RTC Dasmariñas
include the continuation of proceedings even without the appearance of the
Solicitor General, the continuation of the pretrial despite the non-submission
of pretrial briefs by the parties, the lack of formal offer of evidence in two
cases submitted for decision, the non-attachment of the minutes to the
records, the submission of unsigned and photocopied psychological
evaluation reports of the psychiatrist/psychologist, and the submission of an
unsigned jurat in the judicial affidavit of the petitioner in one case.

 These irregularities speak for themselves and require no in-depth

discussion. In Maquilan v. Maquilan, we enunciated that the appearances of
the Solicitor General and/or the public prosecutor in proceedings for the
declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage are mandatory. Under A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC, the failure of the petitioner to file a pretrial brief or even
comply with its required contents has the same effect as the failure to
appear at the pretrial, which means the dismissal of the case. While an oral
offer of evidence is allowed by the Rules of Court, the offer should be
reflected at least in the minutes of the proceedings or in the court order
issued at the end of each proceeding covering what transpired during the
court session. As against the finding of the judicial audit team that no
formal offer of evidence was made in two cases submitted for decision, no
minutes of the proceedings or court order was submitted by Judge Cabrera-
Faller to controvert the finding.

 Therefore, respondent Judge violated the Canons of the New Code of

Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary specifically Canon 2 Sec 1,2, & 3
Page 92 of 104
 and Canon 6 Sec 3,5 & 7.

RULING  GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Page 93 of 104
 2019 CASES

PRESIDING JUDGES TOMAS EDUARDO B. MADDELA III AND MERINNISA O. LIGAYA,

Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branches 5 and 1, Respectively, Olongapo City,
Zambales v. PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, Regional Trial Court, Branch
73, Olongapo City, Zambales
A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ)
August 14, 2019
Ponente: Court En Banc

FACTS  A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ]

 This administrative case stemmed from a Letter-Complaint dated October 4,
2011 filed by Hon. Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III (Judge Maddela) and
Hon. Merinnisa O. Ligaya (Judge Ligaya), Presiding Judges of Branches 5
and 1, respectively, of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Olongapo
City, Zambales, addressed to Hon. Richard A. Paradeza (Exec. Judge
Paradeza), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo
City. The subject of the complaint is the alleged failure and neglect of Judge
Norman V. Pamintuan (respondent), Presiding Judge of Branch 73, Regional
Trial Court of Olongapo City, Zambales, to perform the solemnization of
marriage of applicants after their requests had been raffled to him, pursuant
to Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 87-2008 Re:
Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the
Judiciary.

 In their joint letter-complaint, Judge Maddela and Judge Ligaya alleged that
the Office of the Clerk of Court-RTC referred and endorsed the requests for
solemnization of marriage to other judges because respondent was, on the
scheduled dates, either absent or unavailable due to either high blood
pressure, flu, loose bowel movement, or fever. They further averred that,
being among the judges to whom said requests were consequently referred,
they were confronted with verbal complaints from the couples intending to
get married and from their parents and relatives who found themselves
being ushered out of the courtroom after being told that respondent was
absent.

 Judge Maddela and Judge Ligaya contended that respondent's alleged

failure to solemnize the marriages raffled to him constitutes "shirking from
judicial duty." This is pursuant to OCA Circular No. 87-2008, which
mandates the strict observance by judges in multiple sala courts of the
raffling of requests for solemnization of marriage due to numerous
anomalies discovered during various judicial audits in the lower courts. The
circular provides in paragraph (c) that "[u]nless for valid reasons, the
refusal of a judge to participate in the raffle of request for solemnization of
marriage shall be construed as shirking from judicial duty.
 In his Letter-Comment6 dated February 8, 2012, respondent denied that his
failure to solemnize various marriages raffled to his sala was part of a
"vicious pattern of neglect." He insisted that unavoidable circumstances
happened; his sickness was beyond his control and never intentional. He
declared that despite his then pending surgery for his multinoduled-thyroid
and hypertension, stage II, he returned to work on November 15, 2011. He
also submitted that all absences due to his ailment were covered by the
Page 94 of 104
 necessary applications for leave of absence with attached medical
certificates. These applications were all duly approved by the then
incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC of Olongapo City.

 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 [formerly A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC]

 In the course of the judicial audit conducted from January 26 to January 30,
2015, with Atty. Rullyn S. Garcia (Atty. Garcia) presiding, the other judges
of the first and second level courts in Olongapo City, as well as the Clerk of
Court of the RTC, Olongapo City, ventilated their complaints against
respondent.

 Exec. Judge Paradeza, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Olongapo City,

Zambales, Branch 72, executed an Affidavit-Complaint12 against
respondent in which he narrated the circumstances of the latter's attempt to
bribe him in exchange for a verdict against the accused in a criminal case.
He also stated that he intends to file an administrative case for grave
misconduct against respondent.

 In support of Exec. Judge Paradeza's accusation of bribery against

respondent, Atty. Jolm V. Aquino (Atty. Aquino), Clerk of Court of the RTC
of Olongapo City, Mr. Leo C. Dalit (Mr. Dalit), Officer-in-Charge/Legal
Researcher II of the RTC of Olongapo City, Branch 72, and Judge Jose L.
Bautista, Jr. (Judge Bautista), Assisting Presiding Judge of the RTC of
Olongapo City, Branch 73, executed their respective Affidavits.

 The judges present at the meeting on January 26, 2015 also claimed that
respondent solicited, through Ms. Tulio, monetary donations from lawyers in
Olongapo City, for the "1st JUDGE PAMINTUAN SHOOTFEST CUP" held in
December 2014. In another meeting held on January 27, 2015, Atty.
Manuel R. Rosapapan, Jr. (Atty. Rosapapan) and Atty. Leonardo W. Bernabe
(Atty. Bernabe), Chapter President and Chapter Secretary, respectively, of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), informed Atty. Garcia that they
and other members of their IBP Chapter received the solicitation letter from
Ms. Tulio. Atty. Bernabe also stated that respondent would deny motions for
reduction of bail so that the accused would be compelled to post a surety
bond for their temporary liberty. Both Atty. Rosapapan and Atty. Bernabe,
however, declined to execute sworn statements to attest to the fact of their
allegations.

 In its March 9, 2015 Resolution, the Court preventively suspended

respondent from the service, effective immediately, until further orders. It
also ordered respondent, within fifteen (15) days from notice, (1) to
comment on the January 28, 2015 Affidavit-Complaint21 of Exec. Judge
Paradeza, (2) show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken
against him for the conflict-of-interest activities charged against him, and
(3) to explain his failure to decide the sixteen (16) cases within the
mandated period despite his very minimal caseload.22 It also consolidated
A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 [formerly A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC] with A.M. No. RTJ-
19-2559 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ].

 On March 31, 2015, respondent filed an "Urgent Partial Motion for

Reconsideration on my Preventive Suspension."24 Therein, he urged the
Court to immediately recall the order for his preventive suspension and to
be detailed to the OCA, particularly under the supervision of Court
Page 95 of 104
 Administrator Jose Midas Marquez, pending investigation of the charges
against him. He also prayed that he be allowed to continue receiving his
monthly salary and emoluments pending resolution of his case.

 Respondent Judge Pamintuan insists that he did not commit bribery, much
less an attempt thereof, and thus cannot be held liable for the offense. He
argues that even if the allegations against him were true, they do not
amount to bribery as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code.

 Respondent Judge Pamintuan also denies the allegations that the following
activities presented a conflict-of-interest on his part: 1) the organization of
the Freddie Aguilar concert and solicitation of donations therefor; 2) the
celebration of the 60th birthday of his wife in a venue owned by a person
who apparently has a pending case for trafficking in the RTC of Olongapo
City; and 3) the organization of a shooting event in his name and request of
donations therefor. He argues that these activities have absolutely nothing
to do with his judicial functions, duties and responsibilities.

 Respondent Judge Pamintuan further denies the accusation of inefficiency in

the disposition of cases and argues that there is valid justification for those
that remained undecided beyond the mandated period notwithstanding his
light caseload. He alleges that the stenographer involved in the sixteen (16)
cases that remained undecided namely, Corazon Balilu, abruptly resigned
and left the country. Corazon Balilu allegedly did not complete and submit
the relevant transcripts of the cases, thus ultimately preventing him from
fully studying the records thereof prior to rendering the appropriate
decisions in accordance with due process.

OCA’s REPORT  The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that respondent "be
ADJUDGED GUILTY of gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, undue delay in rendering decisions, and violation of Supreme
Court rules, directives and circulars, and be METED the penalty of DISMISSAL
from the service, with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except his accrued
leave credits, and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the
government, including government¬-owned and controlled corporations."

FINDINGS OF THE  Investigating Justice Inting held that respondent is guilty of undue delay in
COURT rendering decisions. He found respondent's failure to decide the sixteen (16)
cases within the mandated period unjustifiable. He stated that, considering
respondent's light caseload, it is highly unreasonable that 88% of the cases
submitted for decision remained undisposed of despite the lapse of the
reglementary period. He did not accept the excuse proffered by respondent
about the delay being caused by the unexpected resignation of the
stenographer and her failure to complete and submit the relevant transcripts of
the cases. For him, respondent should have requested an extension of time
before the expiration of the reglementary period. Considering that the undue
delay involved not just one but numerous decisions, he found that the charge
amounts to a serious one. Hence, he recommended that respondent be
imposed the maximum penalty for the charge, which is suspension from office
without salary and other benefits for six (6) months.

 With respect to respondent's absences, Investigating Justice Inting found that,

despite being frequent, they cannot be said to be unjustified since
corresponding applications for leave of absences were filed and were approved
Page 96 of 104
 by the Executive Judge. Thus, he did not find respondent's failure to solemnize
the marriages raffled to him, on the dates specified, as tantamount to "shirking
from judicial duty" under paragraph (c) of OCA Circular 87-2008.

 The Investigating Justice found that the charge of bribery against respondent
was not proved. He observed that the evidence to support this charge consists
of pure allegations by Exec. Judge Paradeza, Atty. Aquino, Mr. Dalit, and Judge
Bautista. No other evidence was presented to corroborate and substantiate the
charge. Further, he noted that many of the allegations in the sworn statements
of the witnesses were not based on personal knowledge. He, thus,
recommended the dismissal of the complaint for bribery against respondent.

 On the alleged conflict-of-interest, the Investigating Justice found unsupported

by competent proof the allegations that respondent (1) personally followed up
on the case of a friend which was pending before the court of Judge David; and
(2) established, ran, and promoted a surety bonding company with the
assistance of Ms. Tulio.

 Further, respondent's act is violative of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, specifically, Canons 1, 2, and 4, of which Canon 2 reads:

CANON 2
Integrity

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.

SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the

people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done.

xxxx

RULING  Respondent JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, Presiding Judge of Branch 73,

Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Zambales, is hereby found GUILTY of
gross misconduct, undue delay in rendering decisions, and violation of Supreme
Court rules, directives, and circulars.

 He is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all

retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations, for his gross misconduct.

 Respondent is FINED P12,000.00 for his act of shirking from judicial duty by
failing to solemnize marriages raffled to him on account of his unexcused
absences. He is further FINED another P12,000.00 for his violation of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Both acts are considered as
violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. Lastly, he is FINED
P12,000.00 for his undue delay in rendering a decision.

Page 97 of 104
 RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST PRESIDING JUDGE ANALIE C. ALDEA-
AROCENA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, SAN JOSE CITY, NUEVA
ECIJA
A.M. No. MTJ-17-1889 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-2822-MTJ)
September 3, 2019
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  This case stemmed from an anonymous complaint against respondent Judge
Analie C. Aldea-Arocena of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1,
San Jose City, Nueva Ecija for conduct unbecoming of a judge and abuse of
authority.

 The anonymous complaint contained four accusations:

(1) Being frequently seen talking to litigants inside or outside the office,
and would utter prejudging remarks on cases pending before her court;

(2) Habitually telling accused to admit charge/s against them, because as

judge, she knew that accused would be convicted, and likewise
threatening them not to appeal their conviction because of loss of
probation;

(3) Hearing and deciding cases involving a cooperative where her husband
is a member of the board of directors, and mistreating defendants in
the Civil Cases involving the said cooperative; and

(4) Travelling to Singapore in March 2009 without filing the required

application for travel authority.

 The OCA ordered San Jose City RTC Executive Judge Cynthia Martinez-
Florendo to conduct an investigation into the matter, and confirmed all of the
accusations against respondent Judge, with adduced evidence in the form of
certifications and affidavits.

OCA’s REPORT  The OCA found the first and second accusations as unsubstantiated due to the
refusal of the persons interviewed to execute a sworn statement, however it
found merit as to the third and fourth accusations.

 With regards to the third accusation, the OCA did not find any impropriety as
to the alleged mistreatment of defendants, as evidenced by their signatures in
the compromise agreements. The OCA did find impropriety that respondent
Judge did not inhibit from the cases involving the cooperative.

 The OCA determined that respondent Judge is guilty of violation of: (1)
reasonable office rules and regulations; (2) Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court; and (3) Rule 3.12, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and
recommended a penalty of fine of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court resolved to adopt the OCA’s recommendation with modifications.
COURT

RULING  Respondent Judge is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all

Page 98 of 104
 retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and a total fine of
Php30,000.00

RE: INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE ALLEGED EXTORTION ACTIVITIES OF

PRESIDING JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., BRANCH 4, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BUTUAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE
A.M. No. RTJ-17-2486 (Formerly A.M. No. 17-02-45-RTC)
September 3, 2019
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a letter from Rev. Father
Antonio A. Saniel, Director of the Prison Ministry of the Diocese of Butuan
regarding the alleged extortionate activities committed by Judge Abul against
the detainees of the Provincial Jail of Agusan. Judge Abul had extorted money
from detainees accused of and undergoing trial for drug-related cases in
exchange for its dismissal for the amount of P200,000 – P300,000. This was
confirmed by affidavit of Reyes and Montilla,

 According to Reyes, who claimed to be an asset of the PDEA, a certain Naomi

Saranggani, wife of a detainee was summoned by Judge Abul to look for
detainees facing drug-related charges who want their cases to be favorably
resoved. Saranggani approached both Reyes and Montilla and offered the
services of Judge Abul.

 In his comment/answer, Judge Abul denied all accusations against him and
that the same were just for the purpose of blemishing his service in the
judiciary. He added that Rev. Fr. Saniel as well as Reyes and Montilla had no
personal knowledge about the alleged extortion activities.

 On September 17, 2017 while the administrative case was pending on review,
the Court received a letter from the respondent’s wife informing about the
death of Judge Abul as he was killed by an unidentified motorcycle-riding
shooter. However, the Court decided to continue the case. As a settled rule,
the death of a respondent does not preclude a finding of administrative
liability. Further, the Court did not see any existence of considering factor to
dismiss the case.

ISSUE  WON Judge Abul’s actuations amount to gross immoral misconduct

constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary

RULING  YES.

 The Code of Judicial Ethics mandate that the conduct of a judge must be free
of every whiff and impropriety not only in regard to his discharge of judicial
duties but also to his behavior outside his office and even as private
individual. Judges should be extra prudent in associating with litigants and
counsel who have matters pending before them in order to avoid even the
mere perception of possible bias or partiality.

 Judge Abul, by simple meeting and talking with the accused whose cases were
Page 99 of 104
 then pending in his sala, has already transgressed ethical norms and
compromised his integrity and impartiality as the trial judge. His actuations
flagrantly violated Sec 1 and 2 of Canon 2 ; Sections 1-3 of Canon 3; and Sec
1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

 Judge Abul’s actuations and behavior constituted grave misconduct which

exists where the requisites of corruption, clean intent to violate the law of
flagrant disregard of established rule are present. As an element of grave
misconduct, corruption consists in the act of an official for fiduciary person
who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to the duty or rights of the
other.

 The Court held the late Judge Abul GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT and
accordingly FORFEITS all benefits including retirement gratuity, exclusive of
his accrued leaves which shall be released to his legal heirs.

DISSENTING  Associate Judge Hernando:

OPINION  The death of the accused even after conviction but during the pendency of
his appeal shall result in the dismissal of the criminal case against the
said accused. This is triggered by the presumption of innocence as
provided by the Constitution. But unlike in administrative cases wherein
public official is involved, presumption of innocence is not guaranteed.
However, in this case, it should be dismissed by reason of the presence
of exceptional circumstances on the grounds of equitable and
humanitarian reasons. If the case will not be dismissed, then at least the
penalty of forfeiture of all benefits including retirement gratuity shall not
be imposed.

 Associate Judge Leonen: (Joined the able dissent of Associate Justice

Hernando):
 The death of Respondent Judge Abul prior to the promulgation and finality
of the decision moots the administrative case against him. Proceeding
further and imposing penalty that will be suffered by his widow violates
the principle of due process of law as provided by Sec 1, Art 3 of the
1987 Philippine Constitution. Thus, the administrative case of Judge Abul
should have been dismissed.

MADELINE TAN-YAP v. HON. HANNIBAL R. PATRICK), PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL

CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), PRESIDENT ROXAS-PILAR, CAPIZ
A.M. No. MTJ-19-1925 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-2937-MTJ)
June 3, 2019
Ponente: Justice Mariano Del Castillo

FACTS  The administrative complaint stemmed from a Complaint for Recovery of

Possession and Damages filed by Nemesio Tan, father of complainant Madeline
Tan-Yap, against Robenson Benigla, father-in-law of respondent Judge
Hannibal R. Patricio where a Compromise Agreement was entered by the
parties pertaining to land ownership.

 At the time when Sheriff Alvarez and Process Server Dellava from Branch 19 of
Page 100 of 104
 RTC of Capiz went to implement the writ of execution, they were met by
respondent judge who prevented them from fencing Lot Numbers 703 and
706. Judge Patricio claimed that he and his wife Ruby, as owners of the
adjoining Lot No. 707, were not impleaded as defendants in the case and
were not notified of the relocation survey. He suggested that, if Sheriff Alvarez
and his men were to push thru with the implementation of the writ of
execution, "something untoward might happen". Hence, Sheriff Alvarez and
his men felt threatened and decided to leave the place.

 Thereafter, Ruby Patricio, filed with the RTC a Motion to Intervene and
Opposition to the Implementation of the Writ of Execution and Issuance of
Writ of Demolition dated March 16, 2015. She was assisted by respondent
judge himself, who affixed his signature above the printed name "JUDGE
HANNIBAL R. PATRICIO" on page three of the said motion. The motion was
denied by the RTC.

 The complainant contended that Judge Patricio violated the New Code of
Judicial Conduct: (1) when he unduly intervened in the implementation of the
writ of execution; (2) when he threatened Sheriff Alvarez and the latter's
companions and stopped them from carrying out the writ of execution; (3)
when he assisted his wife Ruby in filing a motion to intervene in Civil Case No.
V-09-11; and (4) when he abandoned his work station on the day of the
supposed implementation of the writ of execution.

 Judge Patricio denied that he threatened to stop Sheriff Alvarez from

implementing the writ of execution; that all he did was to engage Sheriff
Alvarez in a conversation to make sure there is no encroachment and that he
was only trying to protect his and his wife’s proprietary rights. He claimed that
the assistance he provided his wife was anchored on their interest in Lot No.
707, and not on any intention on his part to engage in the private practice of
law. Respondent judge denied that he abandoned his post on the day of the
supposed implementation of the writ of execution since he was on sick leave
that day.

OCA’s REPORT  The Court Administrator found that Judge Patricio improperly interfered with
the implementation of the writ of execution and that this interference
constituted conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.

 Judge Patricio, cannot however, be completely faulted for protecting his and
his wife's proprietary rights. Such action cannot be considered grossly
repugnant.

 OCA recommended that:

 The instant administrative complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular
administrative matter; and

 Presiding Judge Hannibal R. Patricio, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,

President Roxas-Pilar, Capiz, be FINED in the amount of P20,000.00 for
violation of Canon 4, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same
or any similar act would be dealt with more severely.

FINDINGS OF THE  The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the OCA but
COURT modifies its recommended penalty.
Page 101 of 104
  The Court finds respondent judge's rationalization of his actions unacceptable.
He could not insist on his opinion about the sketch plan as the same had
already been submitted to, evaluated, and passed upon by the court. As a
judge, he should know that it was incumbent upon him to resort to suitable
judicial remedies that he could avail of, and not to interfere with the
implementation of a lawful order of the court through recourse to an
unwarranted shortcut.

 As a holder of a judicial office that commands respect, respondent judge

should accord respect to another officer of the court, a sheriff who is
implementing a writ of execution. Uttering threats of violence is unbecoming
of a judge expected to display proper decorum. He should choose his words
and exercise more caution and control in expressing himself.

 Respondent judge violated Canon 2, Sections 1 and 2, and Canon 4, Sections 1

and 2, of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary which
provide:

CANON 2
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office
but also to the personal demeanor of judges.

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.

SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the

people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done.

 A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the

integrity of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety
in all activities. His personal behavior, not only while in the performance of
official duties but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for he is
the visible personification of law and justice.

RULING  Judge Hannibal Patricio was found GUILTY of three counts of Conduct
Unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, and considering that he was already
previously adjudged guilty of gross ignorance of the law, manifest bias, and
partiality in MTJ-13-1834 (Carbajosa v. Judge Hannibal R. Patricio) wherein he
was meted out a fine of P21,000.00, the Court meted out a fine in the amount
of P40,000.00, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
shall be dealt with more severely.

Page 102 of 104

 PRESIDING JUDGES TOMAS EDUARDO B. MADDELA III and MERINNISA O. LIGAYA,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCHES 5 and 1, RESPECTIVELY, OLONGAPO
CITY, ZAMBALES v. PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- x
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V.
PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES
A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ)
August 14, 2019
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS  Judge Maddela and Judge Ligaya contended that respondent's alleged failure
to solemnize the marriages raffled to him constitutes "shirking from judicial
duty. Respondent denied that his failure to solemnize various marriages raffled
to his sala was part of a vicious pattern of neglect. He insisted that
unavoidable circumstances happened; his sickness was beyond his control and
never intentional.

 Exec. Judge Paradeza, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Olongapo City, Zambales,
Branch 72, executed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent in which he
narrated the circumstances of the latter's attempt to bribe him in exchange for
a verdict against the accused in a criminal case.

 In addition to the allegation of bribery, the other judges present at the

meeting divulged that respondent engaged in other activities which presented
a conflict-of-interest situation on his part.

 Lastly, the judicial audit of the RTC of Olongapo City, Zambales, Branch 73,
revealed that of the eight hundred thirty-one (831) cases whose records were
presented to and examined by the audit team, only sixty-two (62) cases, or
7.46%, were being handled by respondent, while the rest, consisting of seven
hundred sixty-nine (769) cases or 92.54%, were being handled by Judge
Bautista. Of the sixty-two (62) cases handled by respondent, eighteen (18)
had been submitted for decision. Dismally, sixteen (16) of these cases, or
88%, had been awaiting decision beyond the mandated 90-day period.

 The Court preventively suspended respondent from the service, effective

immediately, until further orders.

OCA’s REPORT  OCA recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of gross misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, undue delay in
rendering decisions, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and
circulars, and be meted the penalty of dismissal from the service, with
forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, and with
prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.

FINDING OF THE  The Court finds the OCA's recommendation to be well-taken.

COURT
 Respondent shirked from his judicial duty in failing to solemnize marriages
raffled to him on account of his unexcused absences. This constitutes violation
of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars.

Page 103 of 104

  Respondent is administratively liable for gross misconduct. There is substantial
evidence that he attempted to bribe Exec. Judge Paradeza to influence the
outcome of the case of People v. Terrie.

 Respondent violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippines
Judiciary by engaging in conflict-of-interest activities.

 Respondent is guilty of gross inefficiency and undue delay in rendering

decisions assigned to him.

 In sum, respondent is adjudged administratively liable for gross misconduct,

undue delay in rendering decisions, and violation of Supreme Court rules,
directives, and circulars.

 the Court takes this opportunity to remind all members of the Bench to
conduct themselves in a manner beyond reproach. Appointment to the Bench
is a privilege, which requires, among other virtues, moral uprightness,
integrity, independence, and impartiality. Judges are behooved to conduct
themselves in a manner consistent with these ideals, lest public confidence in
the judiciary as an institution erodes. The Court will not hesitate to discipline
members of the Bench upon their failure to meet these exacting standards, as
it does in the instant case.

RULING  Respondent JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, Presiding Judge of Branch 73,

Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Zambales, is hereby found GUILTY of
gross misconduct, undue delay in rendering decisions, and violation of
Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars.

 He is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all

retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in any branch or agency of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, for his gross misconduct.

 Respondent is FINED P12,000.00 for his act of shirking from judicial duty by
failing to solemnize marriages raffled to him on account of his unexcused
absences. He is further FINED another P12,000.00 for his violation of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Both acts are considered
as violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. Lastly, he is
FINED P12,000.00 for his undue delay in rendering a decision.

Page 104 of 104