Professional Documents
Culture Documents
July 2021
JUDGES
• Impropriety and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct
In the case at bar, there is sufficient basis to find respondent judge guilty of impropriety for
sending the parties’ respective counsels his text message supposedly explaining his judgment. It
was certainly unnecessary for respondent [j]udge to elaborate on the rationale for his
disposition because his promulgated judgment should already speak for itself. Respondent
[j]udge’s supposed intent to discourage the parties from appealing cannot justify his text
message to their lawyers because his judgment itself had already included such a discussion on
this matter.
x x x It is of no moment that he sent his message after the decision was promulgated
because the termination of the case will not preclude public criticism for acts which may render
the disposition of a case suspect. [A.M. No. RTJ-20-2600 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4952-RTJ),
January 12, 2021] https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/19492/
• Gross ignorance of the law and procedure; violation of Administrative Circular No. 7-99
Here, if respondent judge had just heeded the information provided by the DOH regarding the
existence of the earlier decision of Judge A, she would have been more circumspect in the
eventual issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction realizing the ruse propagated by AAA to
get a favorable judgment. Surely, as the OCA correctly pointed out, respondent judge’s
eventual issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction causes confusion as to which order the
parties should follow: the initial decision of Judge A denying the application of the writ or the
subsequent decision of respondent judge? This could have easily been avoided if only
respondent judge observed the aforementioned doctrine.
xxxx
Likewise, the Court is convinced that respondent judge failed to comply with
Administrative Circular No. 7-99. She utterly failed to notice that the contract between AAA and
the DOH had long been extinguished. As such, the same cannot be the source of any right to be
protected by injunction. Also, as correctly ruled upon by Judge A, the acts sought to be enjoined
have already been accomplished. The settled rule is that an injunction would not lie where the
acts sought to be enjoined had become fait accompli—an accomplished or consummated act. It
xxxx
The OCA also found respondent process server to have violated Administrative Circular
No. 12 when he served summons outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the court without first
notifying and seeking the assistance of the sheriff of the place where the service shall be made
in Civil Case No. XX-XXX19. When OCA directed him to explain why he made the service of
summons outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the court and whether he was authorized by
the judge to make the personal service, he failed to submit an explanation. [A.M. No. RTJ-21-
2606 (Formerly A.M. No. 20-12-164-RTC), February 9, 2021]
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/18866/
COURT PERSONNEL
• Grave misconduct due to use of a prohibited drug
In this case, respondent court personnel’s use of marijuana has been proven not only by the
result of the NBI drug test but also by his own admission. As in Castor, the Court finds
respondent court personnel guilty of grave misconduct for his admitted drug use, which, as
discussed above, is a flagrant violation of RA 9165 and is, in fact, a crime in itself.
xxxx
Let this case serve as another reminder to all court personnel whose conduct is
expected, at all times, to “be characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else, be
above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the Judiciary.” The Court
would never countenance any conduct, act, or omission of any court personnel that violates the
norm of public accountability and diminishes, or even just tends to diminish, the faith of the
people in the Judiciary. [A.M. No. 2020-10-SC (Formerly A.M. No. 21-01-05-SC), March 16,
2021] https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/19133/