Complete 20 Ethics 20 Digests

1
LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

A. LAWYER 1. Duty to the Court/Negligence of a Lawyer In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani A.C. N . !"0#. A$%$&t '( 2000 Facts: Atty. Vicente Bayani was the lawyer for the appellant in a criminal case. He failed to submit his proof of service in his appellant's brief which subsequently caused the inability of the appellee to file his own brief. The B! was order to investi"ate on the matter and despite repeated notices# Bayani failed to submit the proof of service and his answer to the B!'s query. Hence# this administrative complaint. Held: $% &T'. Atty. Bayani's failure to submit proof of service of appellant's brief and his failure to submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the (upreme )ourt# a clear violation of the canons of professional ethics. t appears that Atty. Bayani has fallen short of the circumspection required of a member of the Bar. A counsel must always remember that his actions or omissions are bindin" on his clients. A lawyer owes his client the e*ercise of utmost prudence and capability in that representation. Further# lawyers are e*pected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and le"al procedure and anyone who deals with them has the ri"ht to e*pect not +ust a "ood amount of professional learnin" and competence but also a whole,hearted fealty to his client's cause. Havin" been remiss in his duty to the )ourt and to the Bar# Atty. Bayani was suspended from the practice of law for - months and until the time he complies with the .rder of the (upreme )ourt to submit the required proof of service. 2. Duty to Client/Accounting of Clients Money/Negligence Te )$*+ B. Ba&a& ,&. Atty. -i%$e* I. Ica.at A.C. N . /202. A$%$&t 2/( 2000 Facts: Atty. /i"uel cawat was the lawyer for Teodulfo Basas and some other laborers in their complaint a"ainst their employer. The 0&1) rendered an adverse decision. Basas and his fellow wor2ers# however# insisted that they appeal the decision. Atty. cawat# however# failed to file the required memorandum of appeal. Basas filed an administrative complaint# also alle"in" that Atty. cawat issued a receipt for an amount less than that which they had paid him. Held: $% &T'. 1espondent's failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the 0&1) 1ules of !rocedure reveals his poor "rasp of labor law. 1espondent practically admitted that he did not file the memorandum. His failure to file the memorandum clearly pre+udiced the interests of his clients. 1espondent manifestly fell short of the dili"ence required of his profession# in violation of )anon 34 of the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility# which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and dili"ence. 1ule 34.5- further provides that a lawyer shall not ne"lect a le"al matter entrusted to him# and his ne"li"ence in connection therewith shall render him liable. For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the money he received from his clients# respondent also violated 1ule 36.53 of the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility which states that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. The )ourt fined Atty. cawat in the amount of !h! 755# with a warnin" that a repetition of the same offense or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely. 3. Duty of Lawyer to Client/Proper Con uct Te ) 1 R. Ri,e1a ,&. Atty. Se1%i An%e*e& A.C. N . 2!1'. A$%$&t 2'( 2000 Facts: Atty. (er"io An"eles was the le"al counsel of Teodoro 1ivera and 8 others in a civil case. 1ivera and his 8 co,plaintiffs received a favorable decision. Atty. An"eles received almost !h! 75#555 from one of the defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the +ud"ement a"ainst the latter. Atty. An"eles# however# never told his clients of the amount he had received and never

remitted the same to him# leavin" them to discover such fact on their own. 1ivera and his co, plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint for disbarment a"ainst Atty. An"eles. Held: $% &T'. Atty. An"eles was not disbarred but the )ourt ruled that his act amounted to serious misconduct. The )ourt has repeatedly stressed the importance of inte"rity and "ood moral character as part of a lawyer9s equipment in the practice of his profession. For it cannot be denied that the respect of liti"ants for the profession is ine*orably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. The )ourt is not oblivious of the ri"ht of a lawyer to be paid for the le"al services he has e*tended to his client but such ri"ht should not be e*ercised whimsically by appropriatin" to himself the money intended for his clients. There should never be an instance where the victor in liti"ation loses everythin" he won to the fees of his own lawyer. For deceit in dealin" with his client# Atty. An"eles was suspended from the practice of law for 3 year. A2$i*in 3. Pi4ente*( 51. ,&. Atty&. Ant ni -. L* 1ente an) Li%aya P. Sa*ay n A.C. N . /6'0. A$%$&t 2'( 2000 Facts: Attys. Antonio &lorente and &i"aya (alayon were election officers of the )./:&:) and held the position of )hairman and Vice,)hairman respectively for the !asi" )ity Board of )andidates. The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 3;;7 elections. Then (enatorial candidate Aquilino !imentel# <r. alle"ed that the respondents tampered with the votes received by them by either addin" more votes for particular candidates in their (tatement of Votes =(oV> or reducin" the number of votes of particular candidates in their (oV. !imentel filed an administrative complaint for their disbarment. 1espondents ar"ued that the discrepancies were due to honest mista2e# oversi"ht and fati"ue. 1espondents also ar"ued that the B! Board of $overnors had already e*onerated them from any offense and that the motion for reconsideration filed by !imentel was not filed in time. Held: $% &T'. 1espondents do not dispute the fact that massive irre"ularities attended the canvassin" of the !asi" )ity election returns. The only e*planation they could offer for such irre"ularities is that the same could be due to honest mista2e# human error# and?or fati"ue on the part of the members of the canvassin" committees who prepared the (oVs. There is a limit# we believe# to what can be construed as an honest mista2e or oversi"ht due to fati"ue# in the performance of official duty. The sheer ma"nitude of the error renders the defense of honest mista2e or oversi"ht due to fati"ue# as incredible and simply unacceptable. ndeed# what is involved here is not +ust a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous fi"ures in one or two (oVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the e*pense of the petitioner in complete disre"ard of the tabulation in the election returns. A lawyer who holds a "overnment position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the dischar"e of his duties as a "overnment official. However# if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility or the lawyer9s oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part# such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here# by certifyin" as true and correct the (oVs in question# respondents committed a breach of 1ule 3.53 of the )ode which stipulates that a lawyer shall not en"a"e in @unlawful# dishonest# immoral or deceitful conduct.A By e*press provision of )anon 6# this is made applicable to lawyers in the "overnment service. n addition# they li2ewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to @do no falsehood.A The )ourt found the respondents "uilty of misconduct and fined them !h! 35#555 each and issued a stern warnin" that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished. !. Misrepresentation an Non"pay#ent of $%P Dues S *i4an -. Sant &( 51. ,. Atty. 71anci&c R. L*a4a& A.C. N . /#/'. 5an$a1y 20( 2000 Facts: )omplaint for misrepresentation and non,payment of bar membership dues. t appears that Atty. &lamas# who for a number of years now# has not indicated the proper !T1 and B! .1 0os. and data in his pleadin"s. f at all# he only indicated @ B! 1iBal 87;565A but he has

been usin" this for at least - years already. .n the other hand# respondent# who is now of a"e# averred that he is only en"a"ed in a @limitedA practice of law and under 1A CD-8# as a senior citiBen# he is e*empted from payment of income ta*es and included in this e*emption is the payment of membership dues. Held: $% &T'. 1ule 3-;,A requires that every member of the nte"rated Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for si* months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 3,year# default shall be a "round for removal of the delinquent9s name from the 1oll of Attorneys. t does not matter whether or not respondent is only en"a"ed in @limitedA practice of law. /oreover# the e*emption invo2ed by respondent does not include e*emption from payment of membership or association dues. n addition# by indicatin" @ B! 1iBal 87;565A in his pleadin"s and thereby misprepresentin" to the public and the courts that he had paid his B! dues to the 1iBal )hpater# respondent is "uilty of violatin" the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility which provides: 1ule 3.53 E A lawyer shall not en"a"e in unlawful# dishonest# immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of 1ule 35.53 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood# nor consent to the doin" of any in courtF nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. &awyer was suspended for 3 year or until he has paid his B! dues# whichever is later. B. 58DGES 3. &ross $gnorance of the Law I491 9e1 I49 &iti n + t:e P$ni&:4ent + C nte49t 7*a,ian B. C 1te& ,. 5$)%e 7e*ina Ban%a*an A.-. N . -T5;'#;112'. 5an$a1y 1'( 2000 Facts: )omplainant was one of the co,accused in an adultery case filed before the sala of respondent <ud"e Ban"alan. n a letter,complaint# he moved for the voluntary inhibition of respondent +ud"e on the "round that the latter cannot be impartial over the criminal case because complainant previously filed an opposition to the appointment of respondent as 1T) +ud"e. For this# respondent +ud"e issued an order citin" )omplainant in direct contempt of court# averrin" further that his pleadin" contained dero"atory# offensive or malicious statements Gequivalent to misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or +ud"e as to interrupt the proceedin"s before the same within the meanin" of 1ule C3. Hhen complainant appealed said order in the same court# after postin" a notice of appeal# respondent +ud"e ordered him to submit a record on appeal. %pon failure to do so# respondent +ud"e issued a warrant of arrest a"ainst )omplainant for which he was arrested and +ailed for 3 day with a fine of !35.55. Thus# )omplainant char"es respondent +ud"e with "ross i"norance of the law# oppressive conduct and abuse of authority when the latter held him in contempt of court on account of the statements he made in his letter,complaint which statements# complainant insists# are absolutely privile"ed in nature. )omplainant further alle"es that he filed a notice of appeal from the order of contempt but respondent directed him to submit a record on appeal despite the fact that the same is not required under the rules. Held: $% &T'. <ud"e B was fined in the amount equivalent to 3,month salary with a stern warnin" that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more seriously. The )ourt said that while it is true that the complainant attached the administrative letter,complaint in his letter for respondent +ud"e to inhibit in the criminal case# it was used merely to support his contention in his motion for inhibition. A +ud"e is bound never to consider li"htly a motion for his inhibition that questions or puts to doubt# however insi"nificant# his supposed predilection to a case pendin" before him. Furthermore# the alle"ed offensive and contemptuous lan"ua"e contained in the letter,complaint was not directed to the respondent court. A +ud"e may not hold a party in contempt of court for e*pressin" concern on his impartiality even if the +ud"e may have been insulted therein. Hhile the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order in +udicial proceedin"s and to uphold

the due administration of +ustice# +ud"es# however# should e*ercise their contempt powers +udiciously and sparin"ly# with utmost restraint# and with the end in view of utiliBin" their contempt powers for correction and preservation not for retaliation or vindication. Anent the char"e of "ross i"norance of the law in requirin" complainant to submit a record on appeal# we find the respondent +ud"e's order to be not it accord with the established rule on the matter. )ontempt proceedin"s is not one of those instances where a record on appeal is required to perfect an appeal. Thus# when the law is elementary# so elementary# not to 2now it constitutes "ross i"norance of the law. Pay4ent + D c<et 7ee& in E*ecti n Ca&e& A*+1e) B. En =a& ,. 5$)%e E$&ta2$i >. Gac tt( 51. A.-. N . RT5;'';1!1". 5an$a1y 1'( 2000 Facts: <ud"e $acott is bein" administratively char"ed in this case with serious misconduct# inefficiency and "ross i"norance of the law. This complaint arose when respondent <ud"e dismissed an election case on the "round of non,payment of doc2et fees# althou"h the case was had been previously admitted and was deemed properly filed by the ori"inal <ud"e =inhibited himself due to relationship to one9s of the parties> whom <ud"e $acott replaced. <u"de $ issued the dismissal order relyin" on a case =/anchester vs. )A> which states that , a case is deemed commenced only upon the payment of the proper doc2et fees. To his opinion# the required fees in this case was not yet paid by the protestant. Hence# this complaint char"in" him primarily with "ross i"norance of the law. Held: $% &T'. Based on the facts and circumstances attendant to the case# the election protest was properly filed. n fact# the ori"inal <ud"e already made an order that from the deposit "iven by the protestant for the e*penses of reopenin" the questioned ballots# an amount shall be allocated for the payment of the required fees. /ore importantly# the )ourt held that the /anchester rulin" relied upon by respondent <ud"e does not apply to election cases. n a latter case = !ahilan># the evil sou"ht to be avoided in the /anchester case does not e*ist in election cases. Truth is# the filin" fee in an election case is fi*ed and the claim for dama"es# to which the doc2et fees shall be made to apply# is merely ancillary to main cause of action and is not even determinative of the court9s +urisdiction. Hhile it is true that not every error or mista2e of a +ud"e renders him administratively liable# in this case# it is clear that the respondent +ud"e was in utter disre"ard of established rules amountin" to "ross i"norance of the law. The !ahilan case was decided lon" before the respondent made a rulin" on the election case. Thus# the respondent +ud"e was duty bound to adhere to# and apply the recent rulin"# and he cannot fei"n i"norance thereof# because the )ode of <udicial :thics requires him to be an embodiment of# amon" other thin"s# +udicial competence. .n e of the principal duties of a +ud"e is to be abreast with law and +urisprudence since the administration of +ustice requires continuous study of the law and +urisprudence. A perusal of the challen"e order reveals that respondent +ud"e failed to live up to what is e*pected of him as a dispenser of +ustice. G1antin% + Bai* R 4$* T *entin ,. 5$)%e P *ica19i S. Ca4an ( 51. A.-. RT5;00;1!22 5an$a1y 20( 2000 Facts: 1espondent <ud"e is bein" char"ed with "ross i"norance of the law# "rave abuse of discretion# "rave abuse of authority# violation of )anons 3# 8# and - of the )anons of <udicial :thics and incompetence in connection with "rantin" bail to the accused in a criminal case for child abuse. The complaint alle"es that respondent <ud"e "ranted bail while pendin" the holdin" of a preliminary investi"ation. The defense moved to quash the information a"ainst the accused on the alle"ed absence of a preliminary investi"ation. )onsequently# respondent <ud"e ordered that a preliminary investi"ation be had by the state prosecutor. Iurin" the pendency of this# he "ranted bail in favor of the defendant after several notices of hearin" to the state prosecutor to which the latter failed to appear. After such "rant# complainant herein now accuses respondent of denyin" the prosecution the chance to adduce evidence to show that the "uilt of the accused was stron" and that bail should not have been "ranted in his favor.

Held: 0.T $% &T'. There was no denial of due process. t was not necessary to hold hearin" so that the prosecution could show that evidence of "uilt of the accused was stron" since a preliminary investi"ation had been ordered by the court. At that point# bail was still a matter of ri"ht. 1espondent +ud"e# 2nowin" that bail was indeed a matter of ri"ht at that sta"e# nevertheless set the hearin" for the petition for bail four times. However# complainant failed to appear and present evidence to show that the "uilt of the accused was stron". t thus appears that complainant is actually the one who was remiss in the performance of his duties. )onsiderin" that the case was referred to the .ffice of the !rovincial !rosecutor for preliminary investi"ation# the accused could be considered as entitled to bail as a matter of ri"ht. Thus# respondent +ud"e9s decision "rantin" bail to the accused was proper and in accordance with law and +urisprudence. I&&$ance + an O1)e1 + Re*ea&e 5e&$&a Santia% ,&. 5$)%e E)$a1) 5 ,e**an & -a1%a1ita Sanc:e? ,&. 5$)%e E)$a1) 5 ,e**an & A.-. N . -T5;00;120'. A$%$&t 1( 2000 Facts: <esusa (antia"o and /ar"arita (ancheB were complainants in two different criminal cases before the /T) of (an ldefonso# Bulacan and the 1T) of 1osales# !ampan"a# respectively. The suspects in each of the criminal cases were cau"ht by authorities and detained. However# both suspects were released by order of <ud"e :duardo <ovellanos# presidin" +ud"e of the /)T) of Alcala,Bautista# !an"asinan. The complainants questioned both .rders for 1elease issued by <ud"e <ovellanos# alle"in" that the requirements for the bailbond had not been fulfilled and that the said +ud"e had no +urisdiction to order the release. Held: $% &T'. There are two defects in the .rders for 1elease si"ned by <ud"e <ovellanos. First# in both cases# the detainees had not re"istered the bailbond in accordance with the 1ules of )riminal !rocedure. .ne may not be "iven provisional liberty if the bailbond is not re"istered with the proper office. (econdly# <ud"e <ovellanos did not have +urisdiction to order the release of the detainees. The 1ules of )riminal !rocedure provide that when a suspect is arrested outside of the province# city or municipality where his case is pendin"# he may either apply for bail with the court where his case is pendin" or with any 1T) in the province# city or municipality where he was arrested. f a 1T) +ud"e is not available# he may apply for bail with any /T) or /)T) in the place where he was arrested. n this case# <ud"e <ovellanos entertained motions for bail and ordered release for suspects whose cases were not pendin" in his court nor were they arrested within his +urisdiction. As an advocate of +ustice and a visible representation of the law# a +ud"e is e*pected to 2eep abreast with and be proficient in the interpretation of our laws. A +ud"e should be acquainted with le"al norms and precepts as well as with statutes and procedural rules. %nfamiliarity with the 1ules of )ourt is a si"n of incompetence which "oes a"ainst )anon -# specifically 1ule -.53# of the )ode of <udicial )onduct. Havin" accepted the e*alted position of a +ud"e# <ud"e <ovellanos owes the public and the court he sits in proficiency in the law. He must have the basic rules at the palm of his hands as he is e*pected to maintain professional competence at all times. <ud"e <ovellanos was suspended for 3 year without pay issued the warnin" that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely. G1ant + a - ti n + 1 Rec n&i)e1ati n G* 1ia L$ca& ,. 5$)%e A4e*ia A. 7a@1 & A.-. N . -T5;'';1226. 5an$a1y "1( 2000 Facts : )omplainant &ucas was the defendant in an e+ectment case pendin" before respondent +ud"e. (he alle"es that <ud"e Fabros "ranted the plaintiff9s motion for reconsideration after the case had been dismissed the case for failure of plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the !reliminary )onference. (he averred that it is elementary# under (ection 3;=c> of the 1ules of (ummary !rocedure# that a motion for reconsideration is prohibited# but respondent +ud"e# in violation of the rule# "ranted the motion for reconsideration. (he added that# notwithstandin" the fact that the respondent herself had pointed out in open court that the case is "overned by the 1ules on (ummary !rocedure# the +ud"e ordered the revival of the case out of malice# partiality

and with intent to cause an in+ury to complainant. Thus# the instant complaint# char"in" respondent +ud"e with $ross "norance of the &aw and $rave Abuse of Iiscretion Held: 0.T $% &T'. The () held that respondent +ud"e not "uilty of "ross i"norance of the law and "rave abuse of discretion. As a rule# a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleadin" under (ection 3; of the 1evised 1ule on (ummary !rocedure. This rule# however# applies only where the +ud"ment sou"ht to be reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. Here# the order of dismissal issued by respondent +ud"e due to failure of a party to appear durin" the preliminary conference is obviously not a +ud"ment on the merits after trial of the case. Hence# a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleadin" contemplated under (ection 3; =c> of the present 1ule on (ummary !rocedure. Thus# respondent +ud"e committed no "rave abuse of discretion# nor is she "uilty of i"norance of the law# in "ivin" due course to the motion for reconsideration sub+ect of the present I49 &iti n + P1 9e1 Pena*ty 7e*ici)a) Da)i? n ,&. 5$)%e Anicet Li1i & A.-. N . -T5;00;12'!. A$%$&t 1( 2000 Facts: Felicidad IadiBon was the complainant in a prosecution for Falsification of a !ublic Iocument =Art. 3C8# 1!)> which was tried and decided by <ud"e Aniceto &irios of the /T) of 0aval# Biliran. <ud"e &irios convicted the accused# !ablo (uBon# and sentenced him to a strai"ht penalty of C months imprisonment and imposed a !h! 3#555 fine. IadiBon questioned the punishment meted by the said +ud"e# alle"in" that the strai"ht penalty of C months is way below the penalty provided by law. <ud"e &irios defended his decision# statin" that he had to appreciate the miti"atin" circumstance that (uBon was already C5 years of a"e. Held: $% &T'. As +ud"e of thirty,three =--> years# respondent should have 2nown that the ndeterminate (entence &aw provides for the imposition of a prison sentence in the minimum and ma*imum term for offenses punishable by the 1evised !enal )ode or the special laws. The offense committed was Falsification by a !rivate ndividual and %se of Falsified Iocument punishable under Article 3C8 of the 1evised !enal )ode which provides for a penalty of imprisonment of prision correccional in its medium and ma*imum periods =ran"in" from 8 years# D months and 3 days to 6 years> and a fine of not more than Five Thousand !esos =!7#555.55>. 1espondent <ud"e appreciated one =3> miti"atin" circumstance =old a"e># which is merely an ordinary miti"atin" circumstance. The imposition of a strai"ht penalty of seven =C> months by respondent <ud"e is clearly erroneous. Hhile a +ud"e may not always be sub+ected to disciplinary action for every erroneous order or decision he renders# that relative immunity is not a license to be ne"li"ent or abusive and arbitrary in performin" his ad+udicatory prero"atives. t is true that a +ud"e may err in fi*in" the minimum and ma*imum terms of an indeterminate sentence. However# the unawareness of or unfamiliarity with the application of the ndeterminate (entence &aw and duration and "raduation of penalties merit disciplinary action from reprimand to removal. :very +ud"e should 2now that in applyin" the ndeterminate (entence &aw for offenses penaliBed under the 1evised !enal )ode# the indeterminate sentence should have a fi*ed minimum and ma*imum. And when the law is so elementary# not to 2now it or to act as if one does not 2now it constitutes "ross i"norance of the law. <ud"e Aniceto &irios was fined in the amount of !h! 7#555 and issued stern warnin" that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely by the )ourt. A99*icati n + R$*e& + P1 ce)$1e A*+ n& C. O1ti? ,&. 5$)%e A*eA L. 3$i1 ? A.-. N . -T5;00;12!' A$%$&t /( 2000 Facts: Alfonso .rtiB initiated a criminal complaint a"ainst nocencia HernandeB for malicious mischeif and "rave threats. The case was assi"ned to <ud"e Ale* JuiroB# presidin" +ud"e of Branch 6; of the /T) of !asi" )ity. Before trial# however# <ud"e JuiroB ruled that the case would be "overned by ordinary rules of procedure rather than the summary rules of criminal procedure because the case fell within the e*ceptions in !.I. 3754. .rtiB filed an administrative

complaint a"ainst <ud"e JuiroB# ar"uin" that the summary rules not the ordinary rules should be followed for his case. Held: $% &T'. %nder the 1evised !enal )ode# "rave threats is penaliBed with imprisonment of 3 month and 3 day to 6 months =arresto mayor> and a fine not e*ceedin" !h! 755# if the threat is not sub+ect to a condition =Article 848>. /alicious mischief# on the other hand# is penaliBed with imprisonment of 8 months and 3 day to 6 months =arresto mayor in its medium and ma*imum periods> if the value of the dama"e caused e*ceeds !h! 3#555 =Article -8;>. n this case# the alle"ed dama"e to complainant was estimated to be !h! 75#555. Thus# the sub+ect criminal cases should have been tried under the 1evised 1ule on (ummary !rocedure# considerin" that such rule is applicable to criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense char"ed is imprisonment not e*ceedin" 6 months or a fine not e*ceedin" !h! 3#555 or both# irrespective of other imposable penalties# accessory or otherwise or of the civil liability arisin" therefrom K(ection 3 B=D># 1evised 1ule on (ummary !rocedureL. 1espondent +ud"e# therefore# erred in applyin" the ordinary rules of procedure instead of the rules of summary procedure. A +ud"e has a duty to e*hibit more than +ust a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. n fact# the )ode of <udicial )onduct mandates that +ud"es must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. He must have the basic rules at the palm of his hand and be proficient in the interpretation of laws and procedural rules. <ud"e JuiroB was reprimanded# with a stern warnin" that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. I&&$ance + a W1it + EAec$ti n Te1e&ita 5a& n ,&. 5$)%e B1icci Y%ana A.-. N . RT5;00;1!/". A$%$&t /( 2000 Facts: Teresita <ason was the defendant in an e+ectment case before the /T) of !asi" )ity. Havin" received an adverse +ud"ement# <ason appealed the decision to Branch 37- of the 1T) of !asi" )ity# presided by <ud"e Briccio '"ana. 1espondent +ud"e affirmed the decision of the /T) and subsequently issued a Hrit of :*ecution for the +ud"ement. The (heriff of Branch 37e*ecuted upon some personal properties of <ason and "ave a 0otice to Vacate. <ason filed an administrative complaint a"ainst <ud"e '"ana# ar"uin" that the Hrit of :*ecution should have been issued by the court of ori"in and not the appellate court. Held: $% &T'. The case should have been remanded bac2 to the /T) for e*ecution. The rule is that if the +ud"ment of the metropolitan trial court is appealed the re"ional trial court and the decision of the latter is itself elevated to the )ourt of Appeals# whose decision thereafter become final# the case should be remanded throu"h the re"ional trial court to the metropolitan trial court for e*ecution. The only e*ception is the e*ecution pendin" appeal which is not evident from the records of this case. A +ud"e is called upon to e*hibit more than +ust a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rulesF it is imperative that he be conversant with basic le"al principles. )anon D of the )anons of <udicial :thics requires that the +ud"e should be studious of the principles of law. )anon 34 mandates that he should administer his office with due re"ard to the inte"rity of the system of the law itself# rememberin" that he is not a depository of arbitrary power# but a +ud"e under the sanction of law. <ud"e '"ana was fined !h! 35#555 for "ross i"norance of the law. C n)$ctin% Hea1in%& + 1 P1 @ati n Ca1* & B. C1ee1 ,&. 5$)%e C nc 1)i 7a@i**a1 A.-. N . -T5;'';1210. A$%$&t 1/( 2000 Facts: 1espondent <ud"e )oncordio Fabillar# actin" presidin" +ud"e of the ;th /)T) of $iporlos,Juinapundan# :astern (amar# convicted )arlos )reer of "rave coercion. )reer appealed the conviction to the 1T) where it was affirmed. )reer subsequently filed a /otion for 1econsideration. )reer was then apprehended and +ailed by order of <ud"e Fabillar. )reer alle"ed that respondent +ud"e made him si"n an application for probation which the said +ud"e denied. The 1T) subsequently reversed the conviction of )reer and ordered his release. )reer filed an administrative complaint a"ainst <ud"e Fabillar# char"in" the latter with "ross i"norance of the law for conductin" hearin"s for probation despite his pendin" appeal.

Held: $% &T'. The rule is that no application for probation shall be entertained or "ranted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the +ud"ment of conviction. At the time complainant applied for probation# an appeal had already been perfected. Althou"h respondent <ud"e eventually denied the application# the fact still remained that he had acted on it by as2in" the probation officer to conduct a post,sentence investi"ation instead of outri"htly denyin" the same as so e*plicitly mandated by the law. .bservance of the law# which he is bound to 2now and sworn to uphold# is required of every +ud"e. Hhen the law is sufficiently basic# a +ud"e owes it to his office to 2now and to simply apply itF anythin" less than that would be constitutive of "ross i"norance of the law. <ud"e Fabillar was suspended from service for 6 months without pay and ordered to pay a !h! 85#555 fine. He was further warned with the most severe penalty for another infraction by him. O1)e1 + Ac2$itta* 71e)e&4in)a Daya. n ,. 5$)%e -aAi4in A. Ba)i**a A.-. N . -T5;00;1"0'. Se9te4@e1 6( 2000 Facts: /s. Fredesminda Iayawon char"ed <ud"e /a*imino A. Badilla of the /unicipal Trial )ourt of !ili# )amarines (ur# with G$ross "norance of the &aw and ncompetenceG relative to )riminal )ase for estafa. )omplainant averred that respondent <ud"e acquitted the accused and declared her to only be liable civilly# despite Alamos9 admittance in open court that she had received the sub+ect "oods from complainant to be sold on commission basis with the obli"ation to remit the proceeds of the sale or to return the items# if unsold# but had failed to comply seasonably therewith despite demand. )omplainant stressed that these admissions# to"ether with the findin" that the accused had acted in bad faith# were clearly sufficient to convict the accused of the crime of estafa. Held: $% &T'. A +ud"e is called upon to e*hibit more than +ust a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rulesF so lon" as he remains on the bench# it is imperative that he continues to be conversant with the basic law and maintain the desired professional competence. The )ourt finds it fit# however# to reduce the recommended fine of !7#555.55 to !8#555.55 considerin" that no nefarious motive on the part of respondents +ud"e has been shown. I&&$ance + H *) De9a1t$1e O1)e1 Re: H *);De9a1t$1e O1)e1 Date) A$%$&t '( 1''' I&&$e) @y 5$)%e Sa*,a) 1 B. -en) ?a( -CTC( P 1 ;San 71anci&c ;Te)e*a;Pi*a1( P 1 ( Ce@$ O++ice + t:e C $1t A)4ini&t1at 1 ,. 5$)%e Sa*,a) 1 B. -en) ?a A.-. N . 00;1201;-T5. Se9te4@e1 1/( 2000 Facts: /T) <ud"e /endoBa issued a Hold Ieparture .rder in )riminal )ase 0o. T,3456# entitled G!eople of the !hilippines v. Arnie !ena .sabel.G pendin" before him in the /unicipal )ircuit Trial )ourt# !oro,(an Francisco,Tedela,!ilar# !oro# )ebu. The (ecretary ur"ed the )ourt Administrator to loo2 into the fact that the order in question was issued in violation of (upreme )ourt )ircular 0o. -;,;C dated <une 3;# 3;;C. Held: $% &T'. )ircular 0o. -;,;C limits the authority to issue hold,departure orders to the 1e"ional Trial )ourts in criminal cases within their e*clusive +urisdiction. )anon -# 1ule -.53 of the )ode of <udicial )onduct e*horts +ud"es to be Gfaithful to the law and maintain professional competence.G The )ourt has not been remised in remindin" +ud"es to e*ert dili"ent efforts in 2eepin" abreast with developments in law and +urisprudence. 0eedless to state# the process of learnin" the law and the le"al system is a never,endin" endeavor# hence# +ud"es should always be vi"ilant in their quest for 2nowled"e so they could dischar"e their duties and responsibilities with Beal and fervor. 8. 'a(itual )ar iness

Ant ni Y$;A&en&i ,&. 5$)%e 71anci&c D. Vi**an$e,a A.-. N . -T5;00;12/!. 5an$a1y 1'( 2000 Facts: )omplainant char"es <ud"e Villanueva for serious misconduct and?or inefficiency particularly violatin" the )anons of <udicial :thics on 91 49tne&& an) 9$nct$a*ity. <ud"e V had been consistently late for D7 minutes to 3 3?8 hours durin" scheduled hearin"s# thus delayin" the cause of complainant where he was the plaintiff in a rec2less imprudence case. Iue to his tardiness# )'s lawyer had also been compelled to e*tend trial even beyond the prescribed period provided for by law. Held: $% &T'. Habitual tardiness amounts to serious misconduct and inefficiency in violation of the )anons of <udicial :thics. (everal () )irculars have been issued which en+oin +ud"es to be punctual in the performance of their +udicial duties# reco"niBin" that the time of liti"ants# witnesses# and attorneys are of value# and that if the +ud"e is not punctual in his habits# he sets a bad e*ample to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction in the administration of +ustice. Furthermore# 1ule -.57 of the )ode of <udicial )onduct mandates: GA +ud"e shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.G -. &ross $nefficiency an Duty/Lia(ility o*er Court Personnel Atty. -a1tin Panta*e n ,. 5$)%e Te +i* G$a)i? A.-. N . RT5;00;1!2! 5an$a1y 2!( 2000 Facts: n this case# respondent <ud"e is char"ed with $ross nefficiency# 0e"lect and Ielay in :levatin" the 1ecords of )ivil )ase 0o. 44,834C# to which the complainant was the plaintiff9s counsel. After receivin" an adverse decision# complainant filed a 0otice of Appeal within the re"lementary period and consequently# respondent <ud"e issued an order for the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court. However# despite constant follow,up by counsel# three years have passed and the records of the case have not been transmitted. n his Answer# respondent +ud"e contends that the court steno"rapher misplaced the transcript of the testimony of one of the witnesses# hence the record could not be transmitted to the )ourt of Appeals. He further averred that complainant should have invited his attention by filin" the proper motion or by writin" a personal letter informin" him of the non,transmittal of the records within three months from the date of his order of transmittal. Held: $% &T'. A +ud"e cannot hide behind the incompetence of his subordinates. He should be the master of his own domain and ta2e responsibility for the mista2es of his sub+ects. The non,transmission of the records by reason of inefficiency of the staff cannot e*onerate respondent +ud"e from administrative liability. As administrative officer of the court# a +ud"e is e*pected to 2eep a watchful eye on the level of performance and conduct of the court personnel under his immediate supervision who are primarily employed to aid in the administration of +ustice as required by )anon -# 1ule -.5; of the )ode of <udicial )onduct. n the case of +e, -u ge .ernan o Ag a#ag# the )ourt stated: @he =+ud"e> sits not only to +ud"e liti"ated cases with the least possible delay but that his responsibilities include bein" an effective mana"er of the court and its personnel. He is presumed to be co"niBant of his responsibilities as a worthy minister of the law. At the very least# he is e*pected to 2eep abreast with his doc2et.A )ertainly# a delay of three years in the transmission of court records to the appellate court# where only a period of -5 days is required# is ine*cusable. Actin% 5$)%e Reyna*) B. Be** &i* ,. Dante )e*a C1$? Ri,e1a( S:e1i++ III( B1anc: "/( -et1 9 *itan T1ia* C $1t( 3$e? n City A.-. N . P;00;1/2/. Se9te4@e1 2!( 2000 Dante )e*a C1$? Ri,e1a( S:e1i++ III( B1anc: "/( -et1 9 *itan T1ia* C $1t( 3$e? n City ,&. Actin% 5$)%e Reyna*) B. Be** &i* ( B1anc: "/( -et1 9 *itan T1ia* C $1t( 3$e? n City. A.-. N . -T5;00;1"16. Se9te4@e1 2!( 2000
10

Facts: (heriff Iante 1ivera alle"edly falsified his !ersonal Iata (heet. For this# respondent <ud"e accused him of dishonesty and subsequently prevented him from reportin" for wor2. Afterwhich# respodent <ud"e filed an administrative complaint a"ainst the sheriff. Held: $% &T'. A +ud"e has no authority or power to prevent an employee from reportin" for wor2. f indeed complainant 1ivera committed falsification in the accomplishment of his personal data sheet# the most that <ud"e Bellosillo could have done was to file an administrative char"e a"ainst complainant 1ivera# which he later on did but after the complainant 1ivera filed an administrative char"e a"ainst him =<ud"e Bellosillo> for conduct unbecomin". Hhile a +ud"e may have supervision over his employees# he should not however e*ercise his authority over them in an oppressive or despotic manner. <ud"e Bellosillo should have realiBed that it is the (upreme )ourt which has the authority to discipline?dismiss his subordinate. The most that he can do is merely to file an administrative complaint a"ainst the errin" employee. !. $#partiality an $#propriety of a -u ge Issuance of Conflicting Orders Danie* B S$91e4a D$4 ,. 5$)%e R 4e V. Pe1e? A.-. N . -T5;00;12/2 5an$a1y 20( 2000 Facts: (pouses Iumo filed this administrative complaint a"ainst respondent <ud"e !ereB for "ross i"norance of the law# "rave abuse of discretion and patent partiality. 1espondent /T) <ud"e issued a Hrit of :*ecution to enforce the decision of a case involvin" quietin" of title and recovery of ownership of real property. However# said writ was returned unsatisfied because the herein complainants was the actual owners and occupants of the questioned property without bein" impleaded in the ori"inal case. (ubsequently# respondent <ud"e issued an order statin" that complainants shall not be affected by said writ because they were not made parties to the case. Iespite such order# he moved on to issue a Hrit of !ossession in favor of the ori"inal plaintiff =:spinas>. As a consequence# :spinas used such Hrit of !ossession a"ainst the herein complainants in order to e+ect them from their property and deprived them from the en+oyment of the same. The cru* of this controversy therefore is the issuance of respondent <ud"e of conflictin" orders# which accordin" to complainants# showed patent partiality over :spinas# the ori"inal plaintiff in the case for quietin" of title. Held: $% &T'. First of all# respondent <ud"e is "uilty of i"norance of the law. As a municipal trial court +ud"e# he obviously had no +urisdiction over the action for quietin" of title and recovery of ownership filed by :spinas a"ainst the ori"inal defendants. t must be stressed that the case was 0.T for e+ectment over which /T)9s have ori"inal +urisdiction# but for quietin" of title and?or ownership fallin" within the e*clusive +urisdiction of re"ional trial courts. The question of +urisdiction if so basic and elementary a matter that a +ud"e9s i"norance of it is simply ine*cusable. (econdly# the +ud"e9s act of issuin" conflictin" orders is li2ewise ine*cusable. After declarin" that the Hrit of :*ecution cannot be made enforceable a"ainst herein complainants as they were not made parties to the case# he reversed himself nevertheless by issuin" the Hrit of !ossession. %nder said writ of possession# it was patent that he was contradictin" his previous rulin" by orderin" therein @to e+ect all adverse occupants#A which of course# was so broad to affect all persons includin" herein complainants. The issuance of said writ "ave rise to the suspicion of partiality or bias in favor of :spinas. The presumptions of re"ularity and "ood faith in the performance of +udicial functions on respondent9s part are ne"ated by the circumstances of record. Hhile a +ud"e cannot be made liable for any criminal# civil# or administrative char"e for an erroneous decision rendered in "ood faith and in the absence of fraud# it is imperative that he should have basic 2nowled"e of the law. <ud"es must 2eep abreast of the laws and +urisprudence to be able to render +ustice and maintain public confidence in our le"al system. /ore importantly# +ud"es should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. )anon 8 of the )ode of <udicial )onduct provides that: @a +ud"e should also avoid impropriety
11

and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.A A +ud"e should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the inte"rity and impartiality of the +udiciary. =1ule 8.53# )anon 8>. Le 9 *) G. Dace1a( 51. ,&. 5$)%e Te ) 1 A. Di? n A.-. N . RT5;00;1!#". A$%$&t 2( 2000 Facts: &eopoldo Iacera# <r. was the complainant in a prosecution for Jualified Theft filed with Branch -C of the 1T) of $eneral (antos )ity with <ud"e Teodoro IiBon presidin". The prosecutor later filed a /otion to Iismiss on the "rounds that Iacera had e*ecuted and si"ned an Affidavit of Iesistance from pursuin" the prosecution. Iacera# however# opposed the /otion to Iismiss# alle"in" that <ud"e IiBon had unduly influenced him to si"n the Affidavit of Iesistance and that he had not been fully appraised of the consequences of his actions in doin" so. The (upreme )ourt assi"ned an Associate <ustice of the )ourt of Appeals to investi"ate into the matter. Held: 0.T $% &T'. The investi"ation did not find any conclusive evidence that <ud"e IiBon was personally biased in favor of either party in the disposition of the case in question. t must be noted that respondent +ud"e did not actually dismiss the case upon motion of the prosecutor and even voluntarily inhibited himself upon motion of Iacera to disqualify him. However# the investi"ation did reveal that <ud"e IiBon had made telephone calls to Iacera and even had discussions with him inside his chambers in order to verify the truth about the Affidavit of Iesistance. Hhile there is no clear proof of malice# corrupt motives or improper considerations# the acts of respondent in callin" and meetin" with the complainant still leave much to be desired and are deservin" of reprimand. A +ud"e is not only required to be impartialF he must also appear to be impartial. FraterniBin" with liti"ants tarnishes this appearance. )anon of the )ode of <udicial )onduct basically provides that +ud"es should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the inte"rity and impartiality of the +udiciary. t is clear that the acts of the respondent +ud"e have been less than circumspect. He should have 2ept himself free from any appearance of impropriety and should have endeavored to distance himself from any act liable to create an impression of indecorum. The complaint filed by Iacera a"ainst <ud"e IiBon# <r.# was dismissed for lac2 of merit. However# respondent <ud"e was admonished to refrain from ma2in" calls to any parties,liti"ant and?or counsel with cases pendin" in his sala and sternly warned that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. Wi**ia4 R. A)an ,&. 5$)%e Anita A@$ce= ;L$?an A.-. N . -T5;00;12'0. A$%$&t "( 2000 Facts: Hilliam Adan was the complainant in 8 criminal cases for $rave .ral Iefamation tried and decided by <ud"e Anita Abuce+o,&uBano of the /)T) of &opeB <aena# /isamis .ccidental. 1espondent +ud"e convicted the accused and sentenced them accordin"ly. %pon /otion for 1econsideration# however# respondent +ud"e reversed her decision and rendered a +ud"ement for acquittal. Adan questioned the reversal of the conviction# alle"in" that <ud"e Abuce+o, &uBano had modified her +ud"ement because havin" received new information from the accused# she conducted a personal ocular inspection of the place where the crime was committed without the presence of the parties involved. Held: $% &T'. 1espondent <ud"e should have 2nown that an e*,parte ocular inspection without notice to nor presence of the parties and after the case had already been decided was hi"hly improper. f respondent <ud"e had entertained doubts that she wished to clarify after the trial had already terminated# she should have ordered motu proprio the reopenin" of the trial for the purpose# with due notice to the parties# whose participation therein is essential to due process. Thus# it is error for the +ud"e to "o alone to the place where the crime was committed and ma2e an inspection without previous 2nowled"e or consent of the parties. The conduct of the e*,parte inspection# the result of which apparently influenced her to reconsider her earlier decision# was hi"hly improper as she# in effect# admitted additional evidence without "ivin" the prosecution a chance to ob+ect to its introduction or to controvert the same. Her actions show an i"norance of the law and proper procedure to be followed for a situation such as this. Furthermore# respondent +ud"e has opened herself to char"es of partiality and bias by meetin" with the
12

accused privately. 0o matter how noble her intentions may have been# it was improper for respondent +ud"e to meet the accused without the presence of complainant. 1espondent <ud"e has failed to live up to the norm that +ud"es should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. (he thus violated )anon 8 of the )ode of <udicial )onduct which provides that a +ud"e should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. <ud"e Abuce+o,&uBano was fined !h! 35#555 and issued a stern warnin" that any similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. /. &ross Miscon uct a#ounting to 0iolation of a Constitutional +ight/ 1erious/&ra*e Miscon uct Atty. Na9 *e nS. Va*en?$e*a ,. 5$)%e Reyna*) Be** &i** A.-. N . -T5;00;12/1 5an$a1y 20( 2000 Facts: 1espondent <ud"e is bein" char"ed with "ross violation of the constitutional ri"ht of sub+ect accused to assistance by counsel of her own choice# "ross misconduct# oppression# partiality and violation of the )ode of <udicial :thics. n a B! 88 case# <ud"e alle"edly "ranted bail to the accused despite not bein" accompanied and represented by her counsel at that time. t appears that <ud"e "ranted bail without the assistance of the counsel of record# Atty. ValenBuela and he even su""ested that the latter should be replaced by another counsel. A"hast by such decision# Atty. V filed his 0otice of Hithdrawal# in conformity with his client9s decision# /eriam )olapo. (ubsequently# he filed the instant administrative complaint a"ainst respondent <ud"e. To support his position# he attached an Affidavit alle"edly e*ecuted by his client )olapo. However# durin" the hearin" of the case# he failed to present )olapo as Hitness as she was alle"edly out of the country althou"h she was willin" to testify at that time. Held: 0.T $% &T'. .n the issue of "rantin" bail without the assistance of counsel# the )ourt held that it was valid and sufficiently based on the /anifestation filed by Atty. ValenBuela. Hith re"ard to the alle"ed act of respondent <ud"e su""estin" to the accused that she should chan"e her counsel =complainant Atty. V> and recommendin" a different lawyer# the )ourt found that the evidence adduced by the complainant was insufficient to substantiate the char"es a"ainst him. The only evidence offered by complainant was the Affidavit of his client /eriam )olapo# and it cannot be the basis of a findin" of "uilt even in an administrative case. The complainant9s failure to present his principal witness# in the absence of other evidence to prove his char"es was fatal and said Affidavit cannot be "iven credence and is inadmissible without the said affiant bein" placed on the witness stand. The employment or profession of a person is a property ri"ht within the constitutional "uaranty of due process of law. This applies also to <ud"es. 1espondent +ud"e cannot therefore be ad+ud"ed "uilty of the char"es a"ainst him without affordin" him a chance to confront the said witness# /eriam )olapo. .therwise# his ri"ht to due process would be infrin"ed. E1*in)a Sy ,&. Dani* N 1@e1te A.-. N . 00;1"'0;P. A$%$&t 1( 2000 Facts: n her civil case versus Antoinetta $alveB# complainant :rlinda (y obtained a writ of preliminary attachment a"ainst all properties of the former. (he alle"ed# however# that respondent Ianilo 0orberte# (heriff of Branch 387 of the 1T) of Maloo2an )ity# tipped off $alveB about the said writ. (he further alle"ed that 0orberte actively assisted $alveB in the removal of her personal property from the latter's residence. (y filed a complaint with Branch 387 of the 1T) of Maloo2an )ity which was submitted for investi"ation. Held: $% &T'. The investi"ation revealed that 0orberte was positively identified and seen by the complainant (y and 8 other witnesses in the act of helpin" $alveB remove her personal property from her residence. 0orberte's alibi did not prove to be credible. The offense of serious or "rave misconduct refers to such misconduct that shows the element of corruption# clear intent to violate the law or fla"rant disre"ard of established rules. n tippin" off and assistin" $alveB# 0orberte's actions are an attempt to circumvent a valid court order. :ven if 0orberte did not tip off $alveB# his mere presence at the scene is punishable. Bein" an officer of the )ourt#
13

respondent sheriff should have refrained from actuations thou"h innocent and in "ood faith which may result in suspicion of impropriety and may consequently taint the "ood ima"e of the +udiciary. The nature and responsibilities of officers of the +udiciary are not mere idealistic sentiments but true wor2in" standards and attainable "oals that should be matched with actual deeds. They are e*pected to serve with the hi"hest de"ree of responsibility# inte"rity# loyalty and efficiency and to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum at all times. 0orberte was suspended for 3 month without pay and issued the warnin" that similar conduct in the future will be punished more severely. In Re: P1 ce)$1e a) 9te) @y 5$)%e Danie* Lian%c CA.-. N . '';11;1!0;-TC. A$%$&t 1( 2000D Facts: 1T) <ud"e !edro (un"a of (an Fernando# !ampan"a received information about irre"ularities in the disposition of +ueten" cases before the /T)'s of the said re"ion. %pon investi"ation# <ud"e (un"a discovered that of the 77 +ueten" cases filed in <uly 3;;;# 7- were assi"ned to Branch 3 of the /T) of (an Fernando presided by <ud"e Ianiel &ian"co. 0otin" that statistical improbability that 7- out of 77 +ueten" cases should be assi"ned to only 3 Branch# <ud"e (un"a demanded a written e*planation as to how such a situation had come about. n his letter# <ud"e &ian"co e*plained that it has been his practice to automatically ta2e over all +ueten" cases without the need for rafflin". The reason he cited is that the accused in such cases are deprived of their liberty and that by automatically assi"nin" these cases to his branch# the accused can file motions for bail and the same can be entertained immediately without waitin" for the raffle. n short# because of the need for provisional liberty# all +ueten" cases are considered to be automatically raffled to his branch so that he may entertain motions for bail and the accused can be immediately released upon filin" of the bond. The (upreme )ourt ordered further investi"ation of the case and placed <ud"e &ian"co on preventive suspension. Held: $% &T'. <ud"e &ian"co clearly violated (upreme )ourt )ircular 0o. C which provides: GAll cases file with the Court in stations or groupings where there are two or #ore (ranches shall (e assigne or istri(ute to the ifferent (ranches (y raffle. No case #ay (e assigne to any (ranch without (eing raffle .G There is no connection at all between respondent9s alle"ed desire to facilitate the release of such accused on bail and his questionable act of retainin" the records of the cases for direct assi"nment to his own sala. For after "rantin" bail to the accused# his alle"ed purpose of immediately e*tendin" provisional liberty to the accused shall already have been served. There is thus no need or +ustification to retain the records of the cases and consider them @raffled offA to his own sala. The questioned acts of respondent <ud"e &ian"co constitute a clear breach of his duty as a +ud"e. The )ode of <udicial )onduct mandates that: @A 2u ge shoul so (eha*e at all ti#es as to pro#ote pu(lic confi ence in the integrity an i#partiality of the 2u iciary. A 1espondent +ud"e9s manner of automatically assi"nin" +ueten" cases to its own branch without the benefit of raffle# casts doubt on his inte"rity as a +ud"e and erodes the confidence of the people in the +udicial system. A +ud"e9s official conduct and his behavior in the performance of +udicial duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. <ud"e &ian"co was suspended from service for 6 months without pay and issued the warnin" that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely. 6. Neglect of Duty/A(use of Authority >enai)a S. Be& ,. 5$)%e 5$an Da%$4an A.-. N . -T5;'';1211. 5an$a1y 20( 2000 Facts: n a )omplaint,Affidavit dated Iecember 38# 3;;C# Nenaida (. Beso char"ed <ud"e <uan <. Ia"uman# <r. with solemniBin" marria"e outside of his +urisdiction and of ne"li"ence in not retainin" a copy and not re"isterin" the marria"e contract with the office of the &ocal )ivil 1e"istrar. n his comment# the respondent +ud"e alle"ed that the marria"e of the complainant had to be solemniBed in )albayo" )ity thou"h outside his territory as municipal <ud"e of (ta. /ar"arita# (amar because : 3> physically indisposed and unable to report to his station in (ta.
14

/ar"aritaF 8> complainant said she had to fly abroad that same dayF -> that for the parties to "o to another town for the marria"e would be e*pensive and would entail serious problems of findin" a solemniBin" officer and another pair of witnesses or sponsorsF D> if they failed to "et married on Au"ust 84# 3;;C# complainant would be out of the country for a lon" period and their marria"e license would lapse and necessitate another publication of noticeF 7> if the parties "o beyond their plans for the scheduled marria"e# complainant feared it would complicate her employment abroad. Held: $% &T'. The authority of a +ud"e to solemniBe marria"e is only limited to those municipalities under his +urisdiction. )learly# )albayo" )ity is no lon"er within his area of +urisdiction. Additionally# there are only three instances# as provided by Article 4 of the Family )ode# wherein a marria"e may be solemniBed by a +ud"e outside his chamberKsL or at a place other than his sala# and the circumstances of this case do not fall in any of these e*ceptions. /oreover# as solemniBin" officer# respondent <ud"e ne"lected his duty when he failed to re"ister the marria"e of complainant to Bernardito 'man. (uch duty is entrusted upon him pursuant to Article 8- of the Family )ode which provides: 3$t shall (e the uty of the person sole#ni4ing the #arriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the #arriage certificate referre to in Article 5 an to sen the uplicate an triplicate copies of the certificates not later than fifteen ays after the #arriage6 to the local ci*il registrar of the place where the #arriage was sole#ni4e . 7773 &astly# a +ud"e is char"ed with e*ercisin" e*tra care in ensurin" that the records of the cases and official documents in his custody are intact. There is no +ustification for missin" records save fortuitous events. The records show that the loss was occasioned by carelessness on respondent <ud"e9s part. This )ourt reiterates that +ud"es must adopt a system of record mana"ement and or"aniBe their doc2ets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. t is# in fact# incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recordin" and filin" system in his court because he is after all the one directly responsible for the proper dischar"e of his official functions. 8. Pro#pt Disposition of Cases/ $nefficiency/A(use of Authority State P1 &ec$t 1 R 4$* T *entin ,&. 5$)%e Ni* -a*anya n A.-. N . RT5;'';1///. A$%$&t "( 2000 Facts: <ud"e 0ilo /alanyaon# presidin" +ud"e of Branch -5 of the 1T) of )amarines (ur# dismissed 7 separate criminal cases for lac2 of evidence and also refused to issue warrants of arrest on the "round of lac2 of probable cause. Actin" (tate !rosecutor for )amarines (ur 1omulo Tolentino assailed the orders for dismissal and the refusal to issue the warrants for arrest alle"in" that <ud"e /alanyaon had abused his authority and 2nowin"ly rendered un+ust orders. Tolentino also complained that several motions had been filed before respondent +ud"e and have yet to be resolved and decided upon. ssues: =3> Iid <ud"e /alanyaon e*ercise "rave abuse of discretion and act in e*cess of +urisdiction in dismissin" the criminal casesO =8> Has <ud"e /alanyaon "uilty of unreasonable delay for failin" to act on the motions filed by (tate !rosecutor TolentinoO Held: =3> 0.. The alle"ations that respondent +ud"e had violated )anons 3# 8 and - of the )anons of <udicial )onduct are without merit. $ood faith and absence of malice# corrupt or improper consideration are sufficient defenses protectin" a +udicial officer char"ed with i"norance of the law and promul"ation of an un+ust decision from bein" held accountable for errors of +ud"ment on the premise that no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of +ustice can be infallible. There is no proof of "rave abuse of discretion. These char"es were dismissed by the )ourt. =8> ':(. The motions?incidents were left unacted upon from - to 7 months and were still pendin" when the administrative complaint was filed a"ainst respondent. 1espondent
15

should be aware of his duties as an arbiter of +ustice. %nder 1ule -.57 of the )ode of <udicial )onduct# a +ud"e shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Hhile the prosecutor in this case is not without fault# the respondent cannot escape responsibility for his inaction of the pendin" motions before him. :ven assumin" ar"uendo that the various motions filed by the prosecutor were considered to be mere scraps of paper or without merit# the +ud"e must nevertheless resolve on those matters promptly by "rantin" or denyin" them. t is the duty of the +ud"e to rule upon the motions filed before him even if his actions are merely to deny them. 1espondent +ud"e was found "uilty for his failure to resolve pendin" motions and?or incidents and# accordin"ly# a penalty of reprimand was imposed upon him with the warnin" that a repetition of the same or similar violation will be dealt with a more severe penalty by the )ourt. 5$an L$?a11a%a ,&. H n. A4a1 -. -ete 1 A.-. N . 00;1!#2. A$%$&t "( 2000 Facts: <uan &uBarra"a was the plaintiff in a civil case assi"ned to Branch D3 of the 1T) of )amarines 0orte. After the said plaintiff had rested his case and presented his evidence# the case was transferred to the newly,created Branch 6D of the 1T) of )amarines 0orte# presided by <ud"e Amaro /eteoro. t was only 8 years later that <ud"e /eteoro proceeded with the presentation of the defendant's evidence. The case was finally submitted for decision a year later. After an elapse of more than C months without a decision on the case# &uBarra"a filed an administrative complaint a"ainst <ud"e /eteoro. 1espondent +ud"e pleaded for the understandin" and compassion of the )ourt# citin" that his branch had more than -55 cases pendin" before it# that he had trouble recruitin" and trainin" competent personnel and that he had suffered a stro2e. Held: $% &T'. /ore than one year had already elapsed since the submission of the case and respondent <ud"e has not decided the same despite the /otion for :arly decision filed the complainant. The )ourt has consistently held that the failure of a +ud"e to decide a case within the required period is not e*cusable and constitutes "ross inefficiency and non,observance of said rule is a "round for administrative sanction a"ainst the defaultin" +ud"e. 1ule -.57 of )anon - of the )ode of <udicial )onduct admonishes all +ud"es to dispose of the court's business promptly and to decide cases within the periods fi*ed by law. The failure to render a decision within the ;5,day period constitutes serious misconduct in dero"ation of the speedy administration of +ustice. Hhen circumstances arise that would prevent the +ud"e from disposin" a case within the re"lementary period# all that he has to do is to file an application with the )ourt as2in" for a reasonable e*tension of time within which to resolve the case. However# the record of this administrative matter does not show that respondent made an attempt to ma2e such a request. nstead# he preferred to 2eep the case pendin"# thereby invitin" suspicion that somethin" sinister or corrupt is afoot. That he was burdened with a heavy case load and is a stro2e victim# serve only to miti"ate the penalty# not to e*onerate him. <ud"e /eteoro was fined !85#555 with the warnin" that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. He was further directed to decide the sub+ect case within a non,e*tendible period of -5 days from receipt of resolution# and to submit to the .ffice of the )ourt Administrator a copy of his decision within 35 days from promul"ation thereof. Re9 1t n t:e 5$)icia* A$)it C n)$cte) in t:e RTC( B1anc:e& 0# an) '0( 3$e? n City A.-. N . '';11;/2";RTC. A$%$&t 16( 2000 Facts: .n (eptember 37 to 3C# 3;;;# the .ffice of the )ourt Administrator conducted an audit and physical inventory of pendin" cases in Branches 4C and ;4 of the 1e"ional Trial )ourt of JueBon )ity# presided over by <ud"e :lsie &i"ot,Telan and <ud"e <usto /. (ultan# respectively. The audit team reported that <ud"e &i"ot,Telan had a well,mana"ed doc2et. <ud"e (ultan# however# was a different story. .f the 7C cases submitted for decision# -D were already beyond the re"lementary period# some of which involve detention prisoners. t was observed that the said branch "ave the least preference to cases submitted for decision# and it has no effective doc2et system and recordin" of cases. n fact# the Branch )ler2 of )ourt had not submitted the required doc2et and inventory of cases for a number of years. 1ecords did not show that <ud"e
16

(ultan ever requested for an e*tension of time within which to decide the cases submitted before him. Held: $% &T'. The )ourt reiterates that failure to decide cases within the required period is ine*cusable and constitutes "ross inefficiency which is a "round for administrative sanction a"ainst the defaultin" +ud"e# either by a fine or suspension from the service# dependin" on factors that tend to a""ravate or miti"ate his liability. This is in accordance with the mandate that the +ud"e shall dispose of the business of the court promptly and decide cases within the prescribed periods. )onformably# the rules require the courts to decide cases ready for decision within - months from date of submission. The )ourt is not unmindful of the Herculean tas2 trial +ud"es are faced with the perennial clo""ed doc2ets of the lower courts. However# this should not be an e*cuse for them to abdicate their duty to dispense +ustice. <ud"es must adopt a system of record mana"ement and or"aniBe their doc2ets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. Furthermore# if the caseload of the +ud"e prevents the disposition of cases within the re"lementary periods# he should as2 this )ourt for a reasonable e*tension of time to dispose of the cases involved. This is to avoid or dispel any suspicion that somethin" sinister is "oin" on. The )ourt fined <ud"e (ultan !h! 85#555 to be ta2en from his retirement benefits. D 4in%a D. 3$i**a*;Lan ,&. 5$)%e A*icia L. De* & Sant & A.-. N . -T5;00;126'. A$%$&t 2/( 2000 Facts: The dau"hter of complainant Iomin"a Juillal,&an was the defendant in a Forcible :ntry case before <ud"e Alicia Ielos (antos of the /T) of Ii"os# Iavao del (ur. The complainant alle"es that respondent +ud"e failed to decide the case within the mandatory -5,day period as provided by the 1ules on (ummary !rocedure. <ud"e Ielos (antos avers that she was on sic2 leave and therefore could not be e*pected to decide upon the case within the said period. Held: $% &T'. There is no doubt that a case of Forcible :ntry falls within the 1ules of (ummary !rocedure and as stated therein# must be decided within -5,days. 1espondent should have rendered +ud"ment in the forcible entry case before she went on leave. Ielay in the disposition of cases covered by the 1evised 1ule on (ummary !rocedure defeats the very purpose of said rule# which is the e*peditious and ine*pensive determination of cases. Failure to decide such cases on time renders the rationale for the rule meanin"less and inutile. 1espondent appears to be remiss in her duties as +ud"e when she failed to render +ud"ment in the case as mandated by the rules. %nder 1ule -.57 of the )ode of <udicial )onduct# she is required to dispose of the court9s business promptly and to decide cases within the required time frame. He have time and a"ain reminded +ud"es to comply with the rules re"ardin" the period to decide cases# in pursuance of the )ourt9s oft,repeated policy of speedy disposition of quality +ustice for all. <ud"e Ielos (antos was fined !h! 3#555 and issued a warnin" that similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely. C @ C. De*a C1$? ,. 5$)%e R ) *+ -. Se11an A.-. N . RT5;00;1!02. Se9te4@e1 /( 2000 Facts: )omplainant contends# amon" others# that it too2 one =3> year and five =7> months instead of three months to render a decision in civil case. The civil case was submitted for decision on April 3;;6# but the decision thereon was only promul"ated on .ctober 4# 3;;C. Held: $% &T'. t is not disputed that it too2 respondent <ud"e one =3> year and five =7> months# after )ivil )ase 0o. ;54 was submitted for decision# to decide it which is way beyond the three, month period mandated by the )onstitution. (ection 37 =3> of Article V of the )onstitution provides that all cases filed before the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three =-> months from date of submission. The )ode of <udicial )onduct li2ewise provides that a +ud"e @should administer +ustice impartially and without delayA K1ule 3.58.L and directs a +ud"e to @dispose of the court9s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.A K1ule -.57.L t is an oft,repeated ma*im that +ustice delayed is often +ustice denied. Thus# any delay in the administration of +ustice may result in deprivin" the liti"ant of his ri"ht to a speedy
17

disposition of his case and will ultimately affect the ima"e of the +udiciary. A delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of +ustice# brin"s the court into disrepute and ultimately erodes public faith and confidence in the +udiciary. R *an) S$**a ,. H n. R ) *+ C. Ra4 & A.- N . -T5;00;1"1'. Se9te4@e1 2#( 2000 Facts: Ir. 1olando A. (ulla char"in" respondent <ud"e 1odolfo ). 1amos# presidin" +ud"e of the /unicipal Trial )ourt of <aro# &eyte# with unreasonable delay or refusal to render a decision in criminal )ase 0o. 4383. The case was submitted for decision in April 3;;C. But as of /ay 83# 3;;;# date of complainant9s letter# and despite constant requests for its early resolution# respondent <ud"e 1amos has not rendered any decision in the said case. Held: $% &T'. This )ourt has consistently impressed upon +ud"es the need to decide cases promptly and e*peditiously pursuant to 1ule -.57# )anon - of the )ode of <udicial )onduct and (ection 37=3> and =8># Article V of the )onstitution. <ud"es are presumed to be aware of 1ule -.53 of the )ode of <udicial )onduct which calls for a +ud"e to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. 1ule -.57 admonishes all +ud"es to dispose of the court9s business promptly and decide cases within the period fi*ed by law. 9. Negligence/$nco#petence of a -u ge N 14a E&%$e11a ,&. 5$)%e G$i**e14 L =a A.-. N . RT5;00;1!2". A$%$&t 1!( 2000 Facts: 0orma :s"uerra was the complainant in a criminal case for Falsification of a !ublic Iocument tried before <ud"e $uillermo &o+a of Branch 86 of the 1T) of /anila. )omplainant alle"ed that <ud"e &o+a failed to decide the case within the ;5,day re"lementary period and further accused him of falsifyin" his certificate of service in order to ma2e it appear that he had decided the case. <ud"e &o+a countered by statin" that he had indeed decided upon the case but rather# the decision was +ust not dated. Held: $% &T'. A careful study of the facts shows that <ud"e &o+a is "uilty only of ( /!&: 0:$& $:0): and not of the administrative complaint filed a"ainst him. There is no clear proof that the respondent +ud"e falsified his certificate of service simply because his decision was dated. :ven assumin" that there was a sli"ht delay in decidin" the case# it must be ta2en into consideration that <ud"e &o+a has a heavy case load =almost 455 cases pendin"> and that this is the first offense by a +ud"e who provided lon" and consistent service to the <udiciary. The )ourt fined <ud"e &o+a !h! 8#555 and issued a warnin" that similar conduct in the future will be more severely punished. ;. Duty of Court :#ployees -a1ta B$catcat ,. E)%a1 B$catcat an) Gene 5a1 A.-. N . P;'";'0!. 5an$a1y 20( 2000 Facts:/arta T.Bucatcat =complainant> char"ed her husband# :d"ar '. Bucatcat# and $ene (. <aro =respondents># )ourt nterpreter respectively# of the Third /unicipal )ircuit Trial )ourt of $andara# (amar# with immorality. )omplainant avers that she is the le"al wife of respondent Bucatcat. (he claims that respondents are havin" an illicit relationship with each other. /oreover# respondents alle"edly have two =8> children to"ether and that respondent <aro# at the time of the filin" of the letter,complaint# was pre"nant with their third child. Held: $% &T'. There is sufficient evidence to hold respondents liable for immorality for maintainin" an illicit relationship with each other. :very employee of the +udiciary should be an e*ample of inte"rity# upri"htness and honesty. &i2e any public servant# he must e*hibit the hi"hest sense of honesty and inte"rity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealin"s with other people# to preserve the court9s "ood name and standin". t cannot be overstressed that the ima"e of a court of +ustice is mirrored in the
18

conduct# official and otherwise# of the personnel who wor2 thereat# from the +ud"e to the lowest of its personnel. )ourt employees have been en+oined to adhere to the e*actin" standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the "ood name and inte"rity of courts of +ustice. 1espondents I (/ ((:I from service. 58NE 1''0;1''' A. 58DGES 1. &oo .aith in +en ering Decisions Atty. Ant ni T. G$e11e1 ,. H n. A)1ian Vi**a4 1 C2'6 SCRA 00D Facts: )arlos and his counsel# $uerrero# char"ed respondent with "ross i"norance of the law and 2nowin"ly renderin" an un+ust +ud"ment after they lost a civil and a criminal case tried by respondent. They were also thwarted on appeal. However# in the pleadin"s before the )A# they used abusive lan"ua"e in describin" the respondent9s acts# hence# respondent +ud"e cited them for direct contempt# which was later set aside by the (). Held: )ase dismissed. The order of direct contempt may only be considered as an error of +ud"ment. A +ud"e may not be administratively char"ed for mere errors of +ud"ment# in the absence of showin" of any bad faith# malice or corrupt purpose. /oreover# +ud"es cannot be held to account criminally# civilly# or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by them in "ood faith. I49a1tia*ity Re: In:i@iti n + 5$)%e E))ie R. R =a& C2'2 SCRA "06D Facts: Atty. 1o+as was appointed a +ud"e. .ne of the criminal cases he inherited was one in which he acted as prosecutor. He e*plained that his delay in inhibitin" himself from presidin" on that case was because it was only after the belated transcription of the steno"raphic notes that he remembered that he handled that case. He also says that the counsels did not ob+ect and he never held @full,blownA hearin"s anyway. Held: <ud"e is filed P reprimanded. The 1ules of )ourt prevent +ud"es from tryin" cases where they acted as counsel without the consent of the parties. This prevents not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the +ud"e. A +ud"e should ta2e no part in a proceedin" where his impartiality mi"ht reasonably be questioned. He should administer +ustice impartially P without delay. The prohibition does not only cover hearin"s but all +udicial acts =e.". orders# resolutions> some of which <ud"e 1o+as did ma2e. Ca1*it D. La? ,. 5$)%e Ant ni V. Ti n% C"00 SCRA 21/D Facts: <ud"e Tion" was accused of failin" to inhibit himself in a criminal case because he was related within the fourth de"ree of affinity to the accused. The +ud"e claims he did so in the hopes that his presence would allow the parties to settle amicably. Held: <ud"e reprimanded. A +ud"e should ta2e no part in a proceedin" where his impartiality mi"ht reasonably be questioned. Also# 1ule 3-C# 1ules of )ourt# provides that no +ud"e or +udicial officer shall sit in any case in which he# inter alia# is related to either party within the si*th de"ree pf consan"uinity or affinity# or to counsel within the fourth de"ree computed accordin" to the rules of the civil law. %nder this provision# the !residin" <ud"e is mandated to disqualify himself from sittin" in a case. He cannot e*ercise his discretion whether to inhibit himself or not. 2. 1pee y A #inistration of -ustice Ba*ta?a1 D. A4i n ,. 5$)%e R @e1t S. C:i n%& n C"01 SCRA 61/D
19

Facts: A is a policeman char"ed with murder. Iurin" the trial# < ordered that he be represented by counsel de officio because A9s attorney was ill. A then char"ed < with i"norance of the law P oppression because the fact that the counsel de officio did not 2now the particulars of the case meant that A would be denied due process. Held: )omplaint dismissed. The )ode of <udicial )onduct mandates that a +ud"e should administer +ustice impartially and without delay. A +ud"e should always be imbued with a hi"h sense of duty P responsibility in the dischar"e of his obli"ation to promptly administer +ustice. n this case# the reason < appointed a F&A$ lawyer was because A9s lawyer had postponed several hearin"s because he was ill or out of town. Also# A had various lawyers durin" the said case who always postponed the hearin"s for various reasons such as illness# lac2 of 2nowled"e of the case or unavailability for trial. These are all le"al but clearly dilatory means used by the complainant to delay the case for D years. < should be commended for his efforts to e*pedite the case. 7e T. Be1na1) ,. 5$)%e A4e*ia A. 7a@1 & C"0# SCRA 20D Facts: B accused F of inaction in an unlawful detainer case for C months when the rules on summary procedure call for a decision in -5 days. F does not deny the inaction but says B has no standin" as she is only the attorney,in,fact of the plaintiffs to the civil case. Held: F 0:I. <ud"es must decide cases e*peditiously# especially in summary proceedin"s. (he should either as2 for additional time to decide or devise an efficient filin" system to e*pedite decision. Finally# standin" or personal interest of the complainant is immaterial in administrative cases which involves the public "ood. D * 1e& G 4e? ,. 5$)%e R ) *+ A. Gat)$*a C2'" SCRA /""D Facts: $omeB is the complainant in 8 different criminal cases before <ud"e $atdula. Hhen she petitioned the () to chan"e the venue of 3 of the cases# 1espondent suspended the scheduled hearin"s in both cases. Hhen required by the () to show cause why disciplinary action should not be ta2en a"ainst him# he delayed his comment thereto. He eventually e*plained that the suspension of hearin" was made because the request for chan"e of venue was pendin" in the (). Held: <ud"e $atdula acted vindictively P oppressively# apparently ir2ed by the request of petitioner. He need not have suspended both hearin"s as the chan"e of venue only involved one case. His delay in commentin" on the chan"e of venue also effectively delayed both cases by 7 months. His acts are not free from the appearance of impropriety# let alone beyond reproach# as required by )anon - of the )anons of <udicial :thics. Re: Ca&e& Le+t 8n)eci)e) @y 5$)%e Na1ci& -. B$4an*a%( 51. C"06 SCRA !0D Facts: %pon retirement# B left C criminal and - civil cases undecided within the ;5,day period required by section 37# Article V of the )onstitution. He said his failure was due to a serious illness. Held: F 0:I. /embers of the bench have a duty to administer +ustice without undue delay. Failure to do so within the re"lementary period constitutes a ne"lect of duty warrantin" administrative penalties. f hindered by illness# a +ud"e should inform the .ffice of )ourt Administrator and as2 for additional time to decide in order to avoid the sanctions. However# if there is no malice or bad faith# and the +ud"e is prevented by factors beyond his control# the penalty will be miti"ated. Re: Re9 1t n t:e 5$)icia* A$)it C n)$cte) in t:e Re%i na* T1ia* C $1t E B1anc: 2/( I9i*( >a4@ an%a )e* S$1F B1anc: 2( I&a@e*a( Ba&i*anF an) -$nici9a* Ci1c$it T1ia* C $1t( La@a& n( >a4@ an%a )e* N 1te C"0" SCRA 200D
20

Facts: <ud"e Apostol had a bac2lo" of 845 cases. Also# there had been no actions on 864 other cases assi"ned to him. <ud"e says he has constant medical problems and no le"al researchers to help him. These and the peace and order problems in his locality prevent him from e*peditin". Held: Fined for "ross ne"lect of duty. The )ode of <udicial )onduct provides that a +ud"e should administer +ustice without delay and dispose of the court9s business promptly and decide cases within the re"lementary periods. f his health problems were preventin" him from doin" his duty# he should have retired early so a healthier successor could act on the case load. Re: Re9 1t n t:e 5$)icia* A$)it C n)$cte) in t:e RTC( B1anc: 60 + Ca4i*an%( Ta1*ac C"0! SCRA 61D Facts: <ud"e 1 was due for compulsory retirement. The .)A found that he had many pendin" cases# some of which were undecided beyond the ;5,day period. Held: F 0:I but penalty miti"ated. 1ule -.57 of )anon - en+oins all +ud"es to attend promptly to the business of the court and decide cases within the time fi*ed by law. A +ud"e is mandated to render +ud"ment not more than ninety =;5> days from the time the case is submitted for decision. Failure to render the decision within the prescribed period of ninety =;5> days from submission of a case for decision constitutes serious misconduct and "ross inefficiency. However# since after bein" reminded of this# <ud"e 1 cleared most of his doc2et =even those not overdue for decision> before retirin"# the fine is miti"ated. Atty. Ra$*a A. Sanc:e? ,. 5$)%e A$%$&tine A. Ve&ti* C2'0 SCRA 1D Facts: )omplainant char"ed 1T) <ud"e Vestil with falsifyin" his monthly certificate of service submitted to the () by statin" that he has no pendin" case submitted for decision or resolution that has "one beyond the 0 0:T' =;5> day period allowed by law when in fact there were numerous civil P criminal cases which the respondent failed to resolve within the said period. 1espondents say most of the cases were either inherited P substantially heard by other +ud"es# or that they require further study or whose steno"raphic notes were yet to be transcribed E and these are e*cepted from bein" included the certificate by a proviso contained therein. Held: 1espondent <ud"e suspended and fined. <ud"es are mandated to decide cases seasonably. <ud"es who cannot comply with such mandate should as2 for additional time# e*plainin" in their request the reasons for the delay. 0either the proviso nor the fact that notes are to be transcribed is a valid defense for not decidin" within the required time. The () has consistently held that the failure of a +ud"e to decide a case within the required period is not e*cusable and constitutes "ross inefficiency P the non,observance of said rule is "round for administrative sanction a"ainst the defaultin" +ud"e. B. LAWYERS 1. Assisting in the 1pee y A #inistration of -ustice Ete1na* Ga1)en& -e4 1ia* Pa1< C 19 1ati n ,&. C $1t + A99ea*& C2'" SCRA 622D Facts: <ud"ment was rendered a"ainst the petitioner orderin" it to reconvey the cemetery to the ri"htful owners. Iespite the final decision of the ()# petitioner was able to prevent the e*ecution for 3C years# and thus render the +ud"ment ineffectual. They filed several petitions and motions for reconsideration with the trial court and the )A despite the fact that it would never prosper as the trial court9s decision had lon" become final before the said petitions were filed. Held: !etition denied. Hhile lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the client and Beal in the defense of their client9s ri"ht# they are also officers of the court# bound to e*ert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of +ustice. They should not misuse the
21

rules of procedure to defeat the ends of +ustice or unduly delay a case# impede the e*ecution of a +ud"ment or misuse court processes. The facts and the law should advise them that a case such as this should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already con"ested +udicial doc2ets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencin" liti"ations that for sheer lac2 of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts. D$ty t P1 tect C*ientG& Inte1e&t De,e* 94ent Ban< + t:e P:i*i99ine& an) A&&et P1i,iti?ati n T1$&t ,. C $1t an) C ntinenta* Ce4ent C 19 1ati n C"02 SCRA "62D + A99ea*&
Facts: ))) filed an in+unction suit to prevent the IB! and A!T from foreclosin" on its mort"a"es. Iurin" trial# IB! P A!T were unable to appear for cross,e*aminin" )))9s witnesses because the respective counsels were unprepared# unavailable or ill. The lower court decided this as a waiver# hence +ud"ment was rendered for ))). IB! P A!T filed this petition alle"in" denial of due process. Held: !etition denied. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunity to participate in the proceedin"s but did not do so. )ounsel for A!T was absent on several occasions because of withdrawal of previous counsel# unreadiness to conduct the cross, e*aminations and serious illness. The withdrawal of A!T9s previous counsel in the thic2 of the proceedin"s would be a reasonable "round to see2 postponement of the hearin". However# such necessitates a duty on the part of the new counsel to prepare himself for the ne*t scheduled hearin". The e*cuse that it was due to the former counsel9s failure to turn over the records of the case to A!T# shows the ne"li"ence of the new counsel to actively recover the records of the case. )ounsel should have ta2en adequate steps to fully protect the interest of his client# rather than pass the blame on the previous counsel. A motion to postpone trial on the "round that counsel is unprepared for trial demonstrates indifference and disre"ard of his client9s interest. A new counsel who appears in a case in midstream is presumed and obli"ed to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedin"s that have transpired prior to his ta2eover. Also# even if counsel had been ill with den"ue# he chose not to notify his co, counsels who could have conducted the cross,e*amination. 2. .alsehoo /.oru#"shopping/Dilatory )actics Ban H$a 8. 7* 1e& ,. Atty. En1i2$e S. C:$a C"06 SCRA /6!D Facts: )hua was char"ed with many offenses. The evidence was found to support the char"es that he notariBed a for"ed deed of sale# that he caused to be published an advertisement of a (:) decision in order to brin" ridicule and shame upon a corporation# that he filed a civil case 2nowin" that the reliefs he prayed for were probably "ranted in the (:) case E thus belyin" his certification a"ainst forum shoppin". He has also been previously reprimanded for bribin" a +ud"e and for consistently usin" dilatory tactics to prolon" a liti"ation. Held: I (BA11:I. He has thus violated 1ules 35.53# 38.58# 38.5D =foistin" or commission of falsehood# forum,shoppin" and causin" in court proceedin"s># )anon 3; =failin" to resort to lawful means in representin" his client># 8C# -.53 and 3-.58 =causin" undue publication of a pendin" action>. He had an active role in committin" fraud since he falsely stated that the person ma2in" the deed of sale appeared before him and stated that the same was his free act and deed, when evidence shows the si"nature was for"edF also# he prolon"ed a family dispute by usin" dilatory tactics and placin" an advertisement in order to ridicule his opponents E in violation of 1ule 3.5D that lawyers should encoura"e their clients to end a controversy by a fair settlement. A lawyer must uphold the inte"rity of the profession. He brin"s honor to it by honesty and fair dealin" and by performin" his duties to society# the bar# the courts and his clients. 3. &oo Moral Character T 4a& Ca@$*i&an ,. 5$)%e A)1ian N. Pa%a*i*a$an C2'# SCRA !'"D
22

Facts: )abulisan filed an administrative complaint a"ainst respondent for "rave misconduct committed as follows : =3> peepin" into the bathroom where /arilyn ). Iumayas# a public health nurse# and dau"hter of the owner of the house where he was boardin"# was then ta2in" a bathF =8> havin" a mistress in the nei"hborin" townF and =-> allowin" local practitioners to write decisions for him. Held: 1espondent filed for voyeurism# other char"es dismissed for lac2 of evidence. !eople who run the +udiciary# particularly +ustices and +ud"es# must not only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law# but more importantly# they must possess the hi"hest de"ree on inte"rity and probity and an unquestionable moral upri"htness both in their public and private lives. By committin" the acts in question# respondent violated the trust reposed in him and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and ri"id standards of morality required in the +udicial profession. 15 Vict 1ian P. Re&$11ecci n ,. Atty. Ci1iac C. Say& n C"00 SCRA 12'D Facts: respondent was accused of havin" appropriated for his own benefit the amount of ! 8# 7555.55 representin" the amount which was delivered by the 1esurreccion to the respondent as compensation or settlement money of a case for homicide thru rec2less imprudence. (ayson did not turn over the amount to his client# the )omplainant in the criminal case# forcin" 1esurreccion to pay the same amount a"ain. (ayson was later convicted for estafa. Held: (ayson I (BA11:I. $ood moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the le"al profession# but it must also remain e*tant in order to maintain one9s "ood standin" in that e*clusive and honored fraternity. Acts of moral turpitude =i.e. done contrary to +ustices# honesty P "ood morals> such as estafa or falsification render one unfit to be a member of the le"al proession. Also# (ayson9s acts of delayin" the hearin"s before the .($ and the B! reinforce this view.
!. Abuse of Authority R &a*ia Vi**a1$e*( et a* ,. G1a9i* n( et a*: In t:e -atte1 + t:e Petiti n t Re4 ,e Atty. 5 &e A. G1a9i* n a& P1e&i)ent( IBP C"02 SCRA 1"0D Facts: $ was accused of 36 B! employees who sou"ht his removal as B! !resident for: mmorality# questionable disbursements of funds# dishonesty# failure to turn over B! donations from private individuals# refusal to turn over records and money pertainin" to the :mployees9 &oan (avin"s Association# Appropriation of .ffice !roperty# :*tendin" loans to B! employees# oppression?harassment# appointment of unworthy employees and relatives and or"aniBation of a secret society. The issue re"ardin" le"al ethics is whether the () can assume +urisdiction or should it be considered a labor dispute under the +urisdiction of the 0&1). Held: )har"es dropped. All the accusations of the petitioners were either unsubstantiated or refuted by controvertin" evidence. As to the issue of +urisdiction# the () has previously assumed administrative +urisdiction over the B! president. f the petitioners alle"e that the B! terminated them as an act of reprisal and with malice or bias# this would constitute "ross abuse of authority and serious misconduct E warrantin" the use of the ()9s supervisory powers over the B!. &astly# even if there was no wron"ful act# $ is ordered to transfer the funds of the savin"s and loan association to an account in their name to prevent the appearance and suspicion of impropriety. /. &ross $gnorance of the Law 5e&$& C n)$ct ,&. 5$)%e I*$4ina) C. - n? n C2'1 SCRA 61'D Facts: 1espondent +ud"e was char"ed with "ross i"norance of the law. He refused to suspend the mayor due to criminal char"es a"ainst the latter for the crime of unlawful appointment. The +ud"e opined that an official cannot be suspended for somethin" that has happened in a previous term. (ettled +urisprudence says this only applies to administrative# not criminal cases.
23

Held: Fined for !7555. Hhile +ud"es should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mista2es or errors of +ud"ment# it is imperative that they be conversant with basic le"al principles. A +ud"e is called upon to e*hibit more than +ust cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rulesF it is imperative that he be conversant with the basic le"al principles and aware of well,settled and authoritative doctrines. Also# if he did the act deliberately# he violated )anon 34 of the )anons of <udicial :thics directs a +ud"e to administer his office with due re"ard to the inte"rity of the system of the law itself# rememberin" that he is not a depository of arbitrary power# but a +ud"e under the sanction of law. An 1T) +ud"e cannot overturn a settled doctrine laid down by the (upreme )ourt# otherwise# liti"ation would be endless. 5. &ross $##oral Con uct 5$*ieta B. Na1a% ,&. Atty. D 4ina) 1 -. Na1a% C2'1 SCRA /!1D Facts: Atty. 0ara"9s spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the B! alle"in" that her husband courted one of his students# later maintainin" her as a mistress and havin" children by her. Atty. 0ara" claims that his wife was a possessive# +ealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint out of spite. B! disbarred him# hence# this petition. Held: 0ara" failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony "iven a"ainst him and it was proved that his actions were of public 2nowled"e and brou"ht disrepute and sufferin" to his wife and children. $ood moral character is a continuin" qualification required of every member of the bar. Thus# when a lawyer fails to meet the e*actin" standard of moral inte"rity# the (upreme )ourt may withdraw his or her privile"e to practice law. =)anons 3PC# 1ule C.5-# )ode of :thics for &awyers> t is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law# but a continuin" qualification for all members. Hence when a lawyer is found "uilty of "ross immoral conduct# he may be suspended or disbarred. $rossly immoral means it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a hi"h de"ree or committed under such scandalous or revoltin" circumstances as to shoc2 the common sense of decency. As a lawyer# one must not only refrain from adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandaliBes the public by creatin" a belief that he is floutin" those moral standards. Re4e)i & Ta9$ca1 ,&. Atty. La$1 L. Ta9$ca1 C2'" SCRA ""1D Facts: 1espondent was previously dismissed as )F +ud"e for maintainin" and cohabitin" with his mistress. Iespite this# he later married the same woman and had children with her. He even made statements displayin" contempt for the () and moc2in" the law and said court. !etitioner# his lawful wife# filed a letter,complaint for disbarment a"ainst her husband. B! disbarred him. Held: Iisbarred =ratio is the same as the 0ara" case>. A +ud"e is a visible representation of the law and# more importantly of +ustice. .rdinary citiBens consider him as a source of stren"th that fortifies their will to obey the law. A +ud"e should avoid the sli"htest infraction of the law in all actuations# lest it be a demoraliBin" e*ample to others. &i2ewise# an attorney is also invested with public trust. As officers of the court# lawyers must ensure the faith and confidence of the public that +ustice is administered with di"nity and civility. A hi"h de"ree of moral inte"rity is e*pected of a lawyer in the community where he resides. The )ourt may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct whether in his professional or private capacity# which shows him to be wantin" in moral character# in honesty# probity# and "ood demeanor# thus provin" unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. The power to disbar# however# is one to be e*ercised with "reat caution and only in a clear case of misconduct which seriously affects the standin" and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Meepin" a mistress# enterin" into another marria"e while a prior one subsists# as well as abandonin" and?or mistreatin" complainant and their children# show his disre"ard of family obli"ations# morality and decency# the law and the lawyer9s oath. (uch "ross misbehavior over a lon" period of time
24

clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent9s character# his moral indifference to scandal in the community# and his outri"ht defiance of established norms. G1 && -i&c n)$ct E1*in)a A* nt ;71ayna ,. 5$)%e A@)$*4a=i) A&ti: C"00 SCRA 1''D Facts: <ud"e Asith did not act on the case of the herein complainant for over 8 years despite the orders and directives of the .ffice of the )ourt Administrator to resolve it without delay. n addition# when as2ed to e*plain his actions before the ()# respondent failed to reply. Held: A <ud"e who deliberately and continuously refuses to comply with the resolution of the () is "uilty of "ross misconduct P insubordination. t is "ross misconduct P even without outri"ht disrespect for the () for the respondent +ud"e to e*hibit indifference to the resolutions requirin" him to comment on the accusations contained in the complaint a"ainst him. Furthermore# failure to render a decision beyond the ;5 day period from its submission constitutes serious misconduct to the detriment of the honor P inte"rity of his office P in dero"ation of a speedy administration of +ustice. R 4$* 7. -an$e* ,. 5$)%e De4et1i ). Ca*i4a% C"0# SCRA 6!#D Facts: / char"ed ) with sellin" him a stolen car# for which he was arrested. Held: )A(: I (/ ((:I. 0o evidence to substantiate the char"es. The () also said that to warrant dismissal for misconduct# it must be shown that the misconduct is serious and has a direct relation to his official duties amountin" to misadministration# or intentional ne"lect and failure to dischar"e said duties. The +udicial acts complained of must be so corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law. 7e*ici)a) L. O1 nce( et a*. ,. C $1t + A99ea*&( et. a*. C2'0 SCRA 1""D Facts: Iurin" a dispute over land# Flaminiano ille"ally too2 possession of the property in liti"ation usin" abusive methods. (he was aided by her husband# a lawyer. The ille"al entry too2 place while the case was pendin" in the )A P while a writ of preliminary in+unction was in force. Held: Atty. Flaminiano9s acts of enterin" the property without the consent of its occupants P in contravention of the e*istin" writ or preliminary in+unction P ma2in" utterances showin" disrespect for the law P this )ourt# are unbecomin" of a member of the Bar. Althou"h he says that they @peacefullyA too2 over the property# such @peacefulA ta2e,over cannot +ustify defiance of the writ of preliminary in+unction that he 2new was still in force. Throu"h his acts# he has flouted his duties as a member of the le"al profession. %nder the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility# he is prohibited from counselin" or abettin" @activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessenin" confidence in the le"al system.A Re: Lea,e& + A@&ence Wit: $t A991 ,a* + 5$)%e E1ic T Ca*)e1 n( -$nici9a* T1ia* C $1t 5$)%e + Ca*$49it( B$*acan C"02 SCRA '2D Facts: Administrative case a"ainst <ud"e ) for incurrin" leaves of absence for an almost strai"ht period of - years. His e*cuse is that he was sufferin" from a lin"erin" illness of mali"nant hypertension. However# despite the fact that medical certificates were presented in his favor# most were made by his personal doctor =an orthopedic doctor>. Also# the tests "iven by the )ourt physician contradict the dia"nosis "iven by his doctor. Held: $uilty of "ross misconduct and abandonment of office# +ud"e dismissed. <ud"e ) should have been more conscious of his court duties# as well as more cautious of his actuations# than he has shown in the performance of his functions and the dischar"e of his responsibilities to the )ourt and the citiBenry. Further# he should have been aware that# in frequently leavin" his station# he has caused "reat disservice to many liti"ants and has denied them speedy +ustice. From the record it could be fairly concluded that he had habitually abandoned his sala for no
25

+ustifiable e*cuse at all. The doctrine of res ipsa lo;uitor # that the )ourt may impose its authority upon errin" +ud"es whose actuations# on their face# would show "ross incompetence# i"norance of the law# or misconduct# is patently applicable to the instant case. Re9$@*ic + t:e P:i*i99ine& ,&. C $1t + A99ea*& C2'6 SCRA 1#1D Facts: !etitioner filed a case for recission a"ainst the Juetulios and Abadillas alle"in" that the former sold the land that had already been e*propriated. The Juetulios did not file an answer# but at the hearin" on the motion for default# co,defendant Hernando was permitted by the +ud"e to appear as counsel for the defendants and file an answer. Held: )ase reinstated. :vidently# when respondent Hernando appeared before the trial court and filed the Answer?/otion to dismiss# he was still under suspension from the practice of law. A suspended lawyer# durin" his suspension# is certainly prohibited from en"a"in" in the practice of law# and if he does so# he may be disbarred. The reason is that# his continuin" to practice the profession durin" his suspension constitutes a "ross misconduct and a willful disre"ard of the suspension order# which should be obeyed thou"h how erroneous it may be until set aside. I491 91iety 7*a,ian B. C 1te& ,. 5$)%e E4e1it -. A%ca i*i C2/' SCRA /2"D Facts: 1espondent was char"ed with impropriety and "ross i"norance of the law. n a case for ille"al lo""in"# he dismissed the case and returned ille"ally cut timber to the defendants because the search warrant was invalid. He was also seen in eatin" and drin2in" in the company of said defendants# and this supposedly influenced his decision. Held: <ud"e A"caoili is fined and suspended. 1espondent erred in returnin" the seiBed articles E even thou"h the warrant was invalid# ille"al articles =ille"ally cut lumber> are not returned to the possessor. He also violated )anon 8# 1ule 8.53 of the )ode of <udicial :thics E i.e. to avoid impropriety or even or even the appearance of impropriety. :ven thou"h it was not proven that he was influenced by the defendants =the dismissal was proper># he should not have fraterniBed with liti"ants who had a pendin" case before him. To do so erodes public confidence in the inte"rity and independence of the +udiciary. A +ud"e must avoid even the semblance of impropriety. Ca1* & Di ni&i ,. H n. > &i4 V. E&can C"02 SCRA /11D Facts: : posted an advertisement for waitresses and sin"ers to wor2 at his restaurant at the 1T) bulletin board. He also conducted interviews for this in his sala. He was later cau"ht when a reporter from @Hoy $isin"QA taped an interview which revealed that he intended to operate a drin2in" pub with scantily clad waitresses. Held: (%(!:0I:I. 1ules 8.55# 7.58 and 7.5- provide that a +ud"e should avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety. He should also refrain from financial and business dealin"s that tend to reflect adversely on the court9s impartiality# interfere with the proper performance of +udicial activities# or increase involvement with lawyers and liti"ants. He should also mana"e financial interests so as to minimiBe the number of cases "ivin" "rounds for disqualification. Finally# the halls of +ustice should not be used for unrelated purposes. Bena*+1e 5. Ga*an% ,. 5$)%e A@e*a1) H. Sant & C"0# SCRA !02D Facts: ( was a +ud"e and the publisher?columnist for a tabloidF he was also a writer for another paper. $ char"es him with usin" his columns to ventilate his views. He has repeatedly used insultin" and inflammatory lan"ua"e a"ainst the "overnor and the provincial prosecutor and le"al adviser. Held: <%I$: I (/ ((:I. Hhile ( has the ri"ht to free speech# his writin" of vicious editorials compromise his duties as +ud"e in the impartial administration of +ustice. They reflect both on his office and on the officers he ridicules. The personal behavior of a +ud"e in his professional and
26

everyday life should be free from the appearance of impropriety. mproper conduct erodes the public confidence in the +udiciary. Ben=a4in Sia La ,&. H n. 7e*i4 n C. A@e*i*a III C2'! SCRA 26#D Facts: in a family dispute over a parcel of land# respondent +ud"e committed acts of forcible entry# attempted to deny complainant of possession despite a lease in the latter9s favor. He also "ave firearms to his men in order to assault complainant9s wor2ers. 1espondent also fled from police when called in for questionin". Held: 1espondent I (/ ((:I. A +ud"e is the visible representation of the law and the embodiment of the people9s sense of +ustice and that# accordin"ly# he should constantly 2eep himself away from any act of impropriety# not only in the performance of his official duties but also in his everyday actuations. 0o other position e*acts a "reater demand on moral ri"hteousness and upri"htness of an individual than perhaps a seat in the +udiciary. A +ud"e must be the first to abide by the law and to weave an e*ample for the others to follow. S9 $&e& Bene)ict B R &e G )ine? ,. H n. Ant ni A*an C"0" SCRA 2!'D A*an an) S:e1i++ A*@e1t Rica1)
Facts: $ char"ed A with committin" irre"ularities in a civil case for sum of money. n said case# a writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the effects seiBed were 2ept in <ud"e A9s house. The court investi"ator found that the writ was improperly issued because the alle"ations of fraud and attempts to abscond in the affidavit were bare assertions and not substantiated by the facts. Held: F 0:I. The writ was issued in error. But in order to merit a disciplinary sanction# the error or mista2e committed by a +ud"e should be patent# "ross# malicious# deliberate# or done in bad faith. Absent a clear showin" that the +ud"e has acted arrantly# the issue becomes +udicial in character and would not properly warrant the imposition of administrative punishment. <ud"e A is fined for storin" the effects in his house and their intent to char"e stora"e fees. <ud"es should avoid impropriety of the appearance of impropriety. G1e% 1i B Te1e&ita L 1ena ,. 5$)%e A) *+ Enc 4ien)a C"02 SCRA 6"2D Facts: (pouses &orena were evicted from the property of <ud"e :9s brother. They refused to vacate. The mayor invited the parties to a conciliation meetin" but they still refused. The owners allowed them to stay on the condition that they si"n a written promise to leave after the "race period. Hhen & refused# : phoned him and tried to convince him to si"n. & still refused# : then said: @m"a tarantado# mabulo2 2ayo sa 2alabosQA and slammed the phone down. & accuses : and his conspirators of abuse of authority for later throwin" them in +ail. Held: 1:!1 /A0I:I. Althou"h the char"es a"ainst : were refuted by evidence# the serious nature of the tas2s of +ud"es requires them to be circumspect in both their public and their private dealin"s. As they are @e*pected to rise above human frailtiesA they must# in all their activities# avoid not only impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety. Hence# : should not have called & by Khone E which "ave the impression of undue pressure and influence. He should not have cursed & over the phone as a +ud"e9s behavior must be beyond reproach. O++ice + t:e C $1t A)4ini&t1at 1 ,&. C5$)%eD 7* 1entin S. Ba11 n C2'# SCRA "#6D Facts: <ud"e Barron was arrested durin" an entrapment operation when he tried to solicit bribes from an American national in e*chan"e for rulin" in the latter9s favor in a pendin" case. Held: <ud"e dismissed. A +ud"e should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety# comportin" himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. The conduct of respondent shows that he can be influenced by monetary considerations. His act of demandin" and receivin" money from a party,liti"ant constitutes serious misconduct in office. t
27

is this 2ind of "ross and flauntin" misconduct# no matter how nominal the amount involved# which erodes the respect for the law and the courts. Sa1a: B. Ve)ana ,&. 5$)%e E$)a1* B. Va*encia C2'! SCRA 1D Facts: )omplainant is the court interpreter and a relative of respondent +ud"e. (he claims that he 2issed and fondled her when she went to his sala to inform him that the cases for the day were ready for trial. Held: 1espondent "uilty of violatin" )anons 8# - and 88 of the )ode of <udicial :thics. The )ode mandates that the conduct of a +ud"e must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his +udicial duties# but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. A public official is also +ud"ed by his private morals. A +ud"e# in order to promote public confidence in the inte"rity and impartiality of the +udiciary# must behave with propriety at all times. A +ud"e9s official life can not simply be detached or separated from his personal e*istence. Ne%*i%ence C 1a? n T. Re nt y ,. Atty. Li@e1at R. I@a)*it C"02 SCRA 60/D Facts: .n <anuary 84# 3;;4 the () found badlit administratively liable and suspended him from the practice of law for 3 year for failin" to appeal within the re"lementary period the decision rendered a"ainst his client. His reason was# an appeal would only be futile. () declared that it was hi"hly improper for him to have adopted such opinion. () said that a lawyer was without authority to waive his client9s ri"ht to appeal and that his failure to appeal within the re"lementary period constituted ne"li"ence and malpractice# proscribed by 1ule 34.5-# )anon 34 of the )ode of !rofessional 1esponsibility# which provides @=a> lawyer shall not ne"lect a le"al matter entrusted to him and his ne"li"ence in connection therewith shall render him liable.A This is a motion for reconsideration. Held: (uspension lowered to 8 months E his ar"uments are partly persuasive# he believed in "ood faith that his client9s case was wea2 and that she accepted his e*planation that the adverse decision was not worth appealin" anymore. Besides# it was only several years later that she complained when no more relief was available to her. Also# complainant had reasonable opportunity to hire another counsel for a second opinion whether to appeal from the +ud"ment or file a petition for relief# that he did not commit to handle his client9s case on appeal and that the testimonies of complainant and her brother were unpersuasive. This is also his first offense. Pe 9*e + t:e P:i*i99ine& ,. Se,i**en C "0/ SCRA !1'D Facts: n a criminal case for rape with homicide# the accused pleaded "uilty. However# the !A. lawyers assi"ned as counsel de officio did not perform their duty. The first did not advise his client of the consequences of pleadin" "uilty# the second left the courtroom durin" trial and thus did not cross,e*amine the prosecution witnesses. The third postponed the presentation of evidence for the defense# and when he did appear# he said he would rely solely on the plea in the mista2en belief that it would lower the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Held: )ase remanded. )anon 34 required every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication# competence and dili"ence. He must not ne"lect a le"al matter entrusted to him# and his ne"li"ence in this re"ard renders him administratively liable. n this case# the defense lawyers did not protect# much less uphold# the fundamental ri"hts of the accused. 0.B. )ase remanded because of error by the +ud"e in not usin" searchin" questions to find if the plea was made 2nowin"ly. R ) *+ P. Ve*a&2$e? ,. CA B PCIB CGR N . 12/0/'( 5$ne "0( 1'''D
28

Facts: As an incident in the main case# V appointed his counsel as attorney,in,fact to represent him at the pre,trial. )ounsel failed to appear# hence V was declared in default. The order of default was received by counsel but no steps were ta2en to have it lifted or set aside. Held: Bindin" on V. V was also "uilty of ne"li4"ence because after ma2in" the special power of attorney# he went abroad and paid no further attention to the case until he received the decision. Thus# no FA/: which will warrant a liftin" of the order. P1 9e1ty 8n)e1 Liti%ati n Re%a*a) Da1 y ,&. E&te@an A@ecia Facts: Iaroy was plaintiff in a forcible entry case. He hired Abecia as his lawyer and won. To satisfy the award for dama"es# a parcel of land of the defendant was sold to Iaroy at an e*ecution sale. The land was then sold to Iaroy9s relative# who then sold it to Abecia9s wife. He now claims that these sales are void because Abecia for"ed his si"nature on the deeds of sale. B! disbarred Abecia. Held: 1eversed. The evidence shows that Iaroy was a party to the sale at the time ot was made and did not @discoverA it ; years later as he claimed. He was not defrauded Rreal issue the parties thou"ht that because the land had been acquired at a public sale to satisfy a +ud"ment in a case in which respondent was complainant9s counsel# the latter could not acquire the land. The parties made this arran"ement to circumvent Art. 3D;3 of the )ivil )ode which prevents lawyers from acquirin" property and ri"hts that may be the ob+ect of any liti"ation in which they may ta2e by virtue of their profession. The prohibition in Art. 3D;3 does not apply to the sale of a parcel of land acquired by a client to satisfy a +ud"ment in his favor# to his attorney was not the sub+ect of the liti"ation. Hhile +ud"es# prosecutin" attorneys# and others connected with the administration of +ustice are prohibited from acquirin" @property or ri"hts in liti"ation or levied upon in e*ecutionA the prohibition with respect to attorneys in the case e*tends only to @property and ri"hts that may be the ob+ect of any liti"ation in which they may ta2e part by virtue of their profession.A 3$a*i+icati n& R$+e1t G$tie11e? an) -a1ite&& Pa&&i n ,&. 5$)%e E&tani&*a S. Be*an C2'/ SCRA 1D Facts: )oncerned citiBens of Binan &a"una char"ed respondent /T) +ud"e with conduct pre+udicial to the best interest of the service. They claim he committed per+ury for failure to disclose a previous char"e for two criminal offenses in his written application to the <B). Held: <ud"e is dismissed. :very prospective appointee to the +udiciary must apprise the appointin" authority of every matter bearin" on his fitness for +udicial office# includin" such circumstances as may reflect on his inte"rity and probity. These are qualifications specifically required of appointees to the +udiciary by Article V # (ec. C=-> of the )onstitution. The act of concealin" the two criminal cases a"ainst him is a clear proof of his lac2 of the said qualification and renders him unworthy to sit as a +ud"e, even if he was ultimately acquitted. He is not bein" chastened for havin" had a pendin" criminal case at the time of his application for a +udicial position but for his dishonesty and misrepresentation in the process of see2in" that office. 8n*a.+$* C n)$ct C*et D cena ,&. Atty. D 4ina) 1 3. Li4 n C2'! SCRA 262D Facts: 1espondent was petitioner9s lawyer in a civil case. Iurin" that case# he as2ed the petitioners to post a supersedeas bond to stay e*ecution of the appealed decision. !etitioners forwarded the money to &imon. &ater# the case was decided in their favor. They were unable to recover the money because the cler2 of court said no such bond had ever been filed. B! suspended him for one year. Hence this petition. Held: Iisbarred =see )anon 3.53 and 36.53>. 1espondent9s alle"ation that the money was payment of his fees was overcome by other evidence. The law is not a trade nor craft but a
29

profession. ts basic ideal is to render public service and to secure +ustice for those who see2 its aid. f it has to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal# lawyers should not only master its tenets and principles but should also# by their lives# accord continuin" fidelity to them. By e*tortin" money from his client throu"h deceit# &imon has sullied the inte"rity of his brethren in the law and has indirectly eroded the people9s confidence in the +udicial system. He is disbarred for immoral# deceitful and unlawful conduct. Vict 1 N$n%a ,. Atty. Ve1anci Vi1ay C"06 SCRA /0#D Facts: 0 accused V of notariBin" documents without a commission. t appears that in 3;4C and 3;;3 he notariBed deeds of sale of property between the ban2 he wor2s for and his minor son. At those times# he was not commissioned as a notary public. Held: (%(!:0I:I. 0otariBation is invested with public interest because- it converts a private document into a public one. 0otariBin" without commission is a violation of the lawyer9s oath to obey the laws =the 0otarial &aw> and by ma2in" it appear that he is so authoriBed is a deliberate falsehood which violates the lawyer9s oath and 1ule 3.53 =)!1> that a lawyer shall not en"a"e in unlawful# dishonest# immoral or deceitful conduct. Atty. P1$)enci Pentic &te& ,. P1 &ec$t 1 Di &)a) I@aHe? C"0/ SCRA 201D Facts: !ascual was sued for non,remittance of ((( benefits. (he "ave the contested amount to respondent# who was supposed to forward the same to the ((( and drop the char"es. 1espondent did not forward the amount. He only remitted the amount after his complaint for misconduct was filed with the B!. Held: 1:!1 /A0I:I. A hi"h sense of morality# honesty and fair dealin" is e*pected and required of a member of the bar. 1ule 3.53 provides that a lawyer shall not en"a"e in unlawful# dishonest# immoral or deceitful conduct. Hhile !ascual may not strictly be considered a client of respondent# the rules relatin" to a lawyer9s handlin" of funds of a client is still applicable# thus# lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. Also# even if he was actin" as a prosecutor# )anon 6 provides that these canons shall apply to lawyers in "overnment service in the dischar"e of their official tas2s. Att 1neyG& 7ee& Renat S. On% B 71ancia N. On% ,. C $1t + A99ea*&( In*an) T1ai*.ay&( Inc. B P:i*t1anc Se1,ice Ente191i&e( Inc. C"01 SCRA "0#D Facts: 1enato .n" was in+ured durin" a vehicular collision. He was awarded dama"es by the trial court. .n appeal# the )A# the awards for actual dama"es# moral dama"es P attorney9s fees were reduced because =3> the cost P feasibility of corrective sur"ery had not been adduced in evidence# =8> the document relied upon to prove actual dama"es was not formally offered in evidence and =-> no evidence but the bare assertion of counsel was put forward to prove dama"es for unearned income. Held: Attorney9s fees is an indemnity for dama"es ordered by a court to be paid by the losin" party to the prevailin" party# based on any of the cases authoriBed by law. t is payable not to the lawyer but to the client# unless the 8 have a"reed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The )ourt has established a set of standards in fi*in" the amount of attorney9s fees. )ounsel9s performance# however# does not +ustify the award of 87 percent attorney9s fees. The nature of the case was not e*ceptionally difficult# and his handlin" of the case was sorely inadequate# as shown by his failure to follow elementary norms of civil procedure P evidence. t is well,settled that such award is addressed to sound +udicial discretion and sub+ect to +udicial control.

Complete 20 Ethics 20 Digests

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Complete 20 Ethics 20 Digests

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

LE G AL E TH IC S DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

S-ar putea să vă placă și