11. ATTY. ENRICO M.

CABRERA, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE JAMES B. PAJARES, Regional Trial Court, Naga City, respondent

In September 1984, Judge Pajares intimated to him that he needed money. Following his
counsel's advice, Atty. Roberto Verdadero, Cabrera expressed his willingness to help the
judge financially and, the following day after their meeting, gave him P1,000.00.

However, after two months, Judge Pajares again told him that he needed money. Cabrera
said the judge saw him in front of the Han of Justice in Naga City and called him. It was
then, that he decided to denounce the judge to the authorities. Cabrera asked the
assistance of the NBI in entrapping Judge Pajares.

Judge Pajares claims that he took the envelope because he thought the money was
intended for the surveyor who had been appointed to prepare a survey plan of the land in
dispute. Judge Pajares says that when he realized it was for the surveyor he threw the
envelope back to Cabrera telling him, 'Bakit mo sa akin 'yan ibibigay? Ikaw ang magbigay
niyan kay Surveyor Palaypayon.

Issue: Whether Judge Pajares accepted the envelope containing Pl,000.00

knowing that it is for his personal gain.

Yes. Respondent judge accepted the money and that he knew it was being given to him by
reason of his office.

The Court has time and again stressed that members of the judiciary should display not only
the highest integrity but must at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to be
beyond reproach and suspicion.

Under the law, the judge is the visible representation of the law and justice. From him, the
people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him an intermediary of
justice between two conflicting interests. Thus, for the judge to return that regard, he must
be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the others to follow. He should be
studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law.

In this case, the respondent's claim that he thought the money was the complainant's share
of the surveyor's fees is inconsistent with his admission that the complainant had told him
of his decision not to settle the case.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge is hereby dismissed from the service.

12. PRUDENTIAL BANK complainant,
vs.
JUDGE JOSE P. CASTRO and ATTY. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA, respondents

Benjamin Grecia was disbarred by the collective judgement of the Court. According to the
petitioner, the Court's decision was violative of the 1987 Constitution due to lack of
certification by the Chief Justice that the conclusions of the Court were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the
Court.

Issue: Whether the Court erred in disbarring Benjamin Grecia

No. The Court did not err in disbarring Benjamin Grecia.
It is settled jurisprudence that after a member has given an opinion on the merits of the
case, a motion to disqualify a member of the Supreme Court cannot be considered because
the litigant cannot be permitted to speculate upon the action of the Court and raise an
objection of sort after the decision has been rendered.
The certification requirement refers to decisions in judicial, not administrative cases. From
the very beginning, resolutions/decisions of the Court in administrative cases have not been
accompanied by any formal certification. Even if such certification were required, it is
beyond doubt that the conclusions of the Court in its decision were arrived at after
consultation and deliberation.
Besides, being a per curiam decision, there is no ponente assigned although any member of
the Court may be assigned to write the draft. In such cases, formal certification is obviously
not required.
13. JORGE P. ROYECA, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE PEDRO SAMSON ANIMAS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First
Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I and the Heirs of Adan de las Marias,
represented by ADELA GARCES VDA. DE LAS MARIAS and JOHN DOES, respondents.

On July 26, 1974 in a pending civil case where petitioner was the plaintiff, he and his lawyer
were required to appear on August 9, 1974 and to explain why they should not be subjected
to disciplinary action.
It was set forth in the petition that they did so with an apology being offered by the
petitioner. Nonetheless, respondent judge was not appeased, and in the challenged order
issued on September 6, 1974, there was a finding of direct contempt, the sentence being
imprisonment for ten days and a fine of P200.00.
When the petitioners contended that there was an abuse of power on the part of the Judge,
the respondent Judge was insulted and said against the petitioner that he has a "polluted
and stupid mind," and was a "self-anointed local tyrant," and one who has "assumed the
posture of a crocodile which, while displaying tears, will grab through any victim within his
reach without questions asked."

Issue: Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in

sentencing the petitioner of direct contempt

Yes. The respondent judge committed a grave abuse of his discretion.

The grievance alleged by petitioner is the grave abuse of such inherent judicial power
compounded by the order assailed containing choice and colorful epithets derogatory to his
person.
It cannot be denied either that unless exercised with restraint and judiciousness, the power
to judge direct contempt lends itself to manifestations of whim, caprice and arbitrariness.
There is a compelling and exigent need for judges to take the utmost care lest prejudice,
innate or covert hostility to personality of counsel, or previous incidents lead them to
characterize conduct susceptible of innocent explanation as slights on the dignity of the
court.
In this case, from the standpoint of the conduct and demeanor expected of a judge, he
could have avoided resort to intemperate language which only revealed his emotional state.
Respondent Judge was well-advised to refrain in the future by the Court from resort to the
language of verification.
According to the Court, he may not be fully aware of it, but to do so only detracts from the
respect due a member of the judiciary.
14. BUENAVENTURA B. MARTINEZ, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE TEODORO O. PAHIMULIN, respondent.

Atty. Martinez appeared as counsel for a civil case in a trial. He was cross-examining a
witness for the defendant, when the opposing counsel objected in such a way that he was
suggesting to the witness the answer to the question. The complainant asked respondent
Judge to stop him from coaching the witness. Judge Pahimulin told complainant that
opposing counsel was 'still talking.' When Atty. Martinez objected on the coaching, the
respondent judge told him “'You are a disrespectful lawyer. You talk too much.”

When the complainant was about to make an explanation, the respondent told him: 'Get
out. I do not want to hear you.”

Issue: Whether the respondent was liable

Yes. The respondent judge was liable.

Under the law, the respect and dignity of the Court had to be upheld.

Both the complainant and the respondent were remiss in the observance of their duties in
maintaining the high esteem and regard for the court.

The complainant should have heeded the admonition. The respondent should not have lost
his temper when he was continuedly interrupted by the complainant. Instead of shouting at
the complainant, he should have maintained his composure.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge is hereby reprimanded for his uncontrolled passion and
lack of proper decorum.