[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1484 (A).

March 17, 2000]

JOSELITO RALLOS, JOSE INA RALLOS !ALLAR, SIMON RALLOS r"#r"$"%&'%( h'$ )"c"a$") *a&h"r +ARLOS RALLOS, TERESITA RALLOS ,A-, a%) JOSELITO RALLOS, complainants, vs. J.)(" IRENEO LEE /A0O JR., RT+, 1ra%ch 2, +"3. +'&4, respondent. Jurismis
[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1484. March 17, 2000]

E5"c.&'6" S"cr"&ar4 RONAL7O 1. 8AMORA, complainant, vs. J.)(" IRENEO LEE /A0O JR., RT+, 1ra%ch 2, +"3. +'&4, respondent. 7E+ISION
-AN/ANI1AN, J.9 Partiality and dishonesty have no room in the administration of justice, for they contradict its very essence. Indeed, like Caesars wife, a judge must not only be pure, but must also be beyond suspicion. Th" +a$" wo administrative cases were filed against Judge Ireneo !ee "ako Jr. of the #egional rial Court of Cebu City, $ranch %. &iled by '(ecutive )ecretary #onaldo $. *amora, the first is a !etter+Complaint charging him with ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. ,llegedly, respondent ordered the release of -%,... sacks of imported rice to the claimants, notwithstanding the pendency of sei/ure and forfeiture proceedings before the $ureau of Customs. he second was an ,dministrative Complaint filed by Joselito #allos, )imon #allos, Josefina #allos 0allar and eresita #allos 1ap. hey assailed the respondents 2rder dated 3arch 4%, 4555, which had falsely stated that complainants, who were petitioners in )pecial Proceedings Case 6o. 4%78+# entitled 9Intestate 'state of )imeon #allos,9 were present during the hearing on the said date. ,fter respondent filed his separate Comments to these two Complaints, the Court, in its )eptember 4, 4555 #esolution, docketed the two cases as administrative matters and referred them to :eputy Court ,dminstrator $ernardo . Ponferrada for investigation, report and recommendation. ,fter conducting hearings, the investigator submitted his findings and recommendations to this Court in a 3emorandum dated January ;, -.... Th" ac&$

he antecedent facts in the first case, as summari/ed by the investigator, are as follows>
<4=

92n :ecember ?, 455?, the 'conomic Intelligence and Investigation $ureau @'II$A of the $ureau of Customs @$2CA, the Philippine Coast "uard, and the Philippine 6ational Police @P6PA at the Port of Cebu withheld, for investigation, an estimated -%,... sacks of rice marked as B)nowman on board the vessel, 3C0 ,lberto. he sacks of rice allegedly came from Palawan to be unloaded in Cebu. !ikewise sei/ed on the same date were nine cargo trucks to be used for carrying the subject sacks of rice. Jjjuris 9 he 'II$ then wrote to the $ureau of Customs, Cebu, stating that upon further verification, no proper voyage clearance to sail from Palawan to Cebu was issued to the vessel, 3C0 ,lberto. he 'II$ then reDuested that a warrant of sei/ure and detention be issued over the rice shipment. 92n :ecember 5, 455?, the $ureau of Customs issued a Earrant of )ei/ure and :etention against> aA the vessel 3C0 ,lberto used in the illegal transport of imported staple riceF bA the imported staple rice consisting of -%,... sacks, more or less, with the B)nowman brandF and cA nine @5A motor+vehicle trucks used and utili/ed in the illegal transport of the rice. he warrant was also directed to the owner of the 3C0 ,lberto, ,63, Philippine )hipping Corporation, and the consignee of the rice shipment, 3ark 3ontelibano. 9 hereafter, the claimants 3ark 3ontelibano and 'lson 2gario, on :ecember 4., 455?, filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. he case, entitled B'lson 2gario and 3ark 3ontelibano vs. $ureau of Customs, 'II$, Philippine 6avy, 3aritime Command, Philippine 6ational Police, Philippine Coast "uard and ,ll 'nforcement ,gencies was docketed as Civil Case 6o. C'$ -G.77 and assigned to $ranch %, #egional rial Court of Cebu City, which is the sala of respondent judge. he complaint alleged that the acts of defendants in intercepting the subject sacks of rice <were= unlawful, illegal and merely based on suspicion. hus, plaintiffs prayed for the Duashal of the warrant of sei/ure and detention @dated :ecember 5, 455?A issued by the Collector of Customs, and for the release of the goods. 9 he $ureau of Customs filed a motion to dismiss on :ecember 44, 455?, alleging that the trial court ha<d= no jurisdiction over the complaint. ( ( ( justice ( ( (.....( ( (.....( ( (

9 he $ureau of Customs also pointed out that the appropriate sei/ure proceeding was already instituted on :ecember 5, 455?, by virtue of the issuance of the warrant of sei/ure and detention. his had the effect of depriving the trial court of jurisdiction over the matter. 92n :ecember -?, 455?, a hearing was held by respondent judge on both the motion to dismiss of the $ureau of Customs and the complainants application for a writ of preliminary injunction. he parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. 9In a #esolution dated January 44, 4555, the respondent judge denied the $ureau of Customs motion to dismiss and granted complainants prayer for writ of preliminary injunction, the dispositive portion of which reads> ( ( (.....( ( (.....( ( ( 9In the subject resolution, the respondent judge also ruled that the $ureau of Customs ha<d= no jurisdiction because the goods involved <were= neither imported nor smuggled and were apprehended outside the customs /one. ,s further basis, it was ruled that plaintiff was able to present a certification issued by the 6ational &ood ,uthority that the subject rice came from Palawan. :efendants, on the other hand, submitted no evidence that the subject bags of rice were imported or smuggled. he issuance of the warrant of sei/ure and detention being arbitrary and without probable cause, it did not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction. JksmH I J 9 he $ureau of Customs filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was subseDuently denied in the trial courts 2rder dated January -%, 4555. In this resolution, respondent judge ordered the defendants to release the -%,... sacks of rice without delay, the dispositive portion of which reads> ( ( (.....( ( (.....( ( ( 9 he $ureau of Customs, through the 2ffice of the )olicitor "eneral, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of ,ppeals, docketed as C,+".#. )P 6o. %4.%4, assailing the #esolutions dated January 44 and -%, 4555 of the respondent judge. 9In the meantime, on ,pril %, 4555, the :istrict Collector of Customs of Cebu City rendered a :ecision in the sei/ure proceedings @Cebu )ei/ure Identification Case 6o. 47+5?A declaring the -%,... sacks of B)nowman rice as smuggled and ordering their forfeiture. 92n ,pril 4%, 4555, the Court of ,ppeals issued a :ecision denying the petition for certiorari field by the $ureau of Customs and affirmed the
<-=

Duestioned #esolutions dated January 44 and -%, 4555 issued <by= respondent judge. 9In view of the Court of ,ppeals decision, respondent judge issued another #esolution dated ,pril -8, 4555 reiterating the release of the -%,... sacks of rice, the dispositive portion of which reads> ( ( (.....( ( (.....( ( ( 9, petition for review was then filed by the $ureau of Customs before the )upreme Court Duestioning the :ecision of the Court of ,ppeals. Kpon application, a emporary #estraining 2rder was subseDuently issued by the )upreme Court on 3ay 47, 4555, Benjoining the Presiding Judge of the #egional rial Court, 7th Judicial #egion, $ranch %, Cebu City or any of his representatives and the respondents from enforcing or causing to be enforced the Duestioned #esolution dated 44 January 4555, the 2rder dated -% January 4555, and the #esolution dated -8 ,pril 4555, as well as all subseDuent orders issued by the #egional rial Court, $ranch %, Cebu City in Civil Case 6o. C'$+-G.77 entitled 'lson 2gario and 3ark 3ontelibano vs. $ureau of Customs, et. al. ( ( (.....( ( (.....( ( ( 9#espondent judge was reDuired to comment on the administrative complaint. !e(juris 4...........In his Comment dated July -4, 4555 @'(h. ?A, the judge in essence, sought to justify the issuance of the Duestioned orders on the following propositions> a........... he Earrant of )ei/ure and :etention issued by the $ureau of Customs of the Port of Cebu on :ecember 5, 455? was based merely on a suspicion and not anchored on probable cause. Lence, the issuance of the Earrant was not valid and, therefore, of no legal effect. b........... hat the $ureau of Customs <of the Port of= Cebu ( ( ( abused its authority or function in sei/ing the M-% thousand bags of riceM on the basis of a suspicion that they were smuggled goods or illegally imported. he issuance of the Earrant of )ei/ure and :etention was arbitrary. c........... hat the #egional rial Court Judge in the e(ercise of his jurisdiction, can issue an injunction to stop or prevent a purported enforcement of a criminal law which is not in accordance with an orderly administration of justice, and also to stop and prevent the $ureau of Customs from using the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and arbitrary manner.9
<G=

In the second case, :eputy Court ,dministrator Ponferrada summari/ed the facts as follows> 92n July -5, 455?, complainants, who are the legitimate children and compulsory heirs of the late )imeon #allos, filed a motion to remove andCor replace <the= administrator of the estate<,= ,tty. Juan . $orromeo. In an 2rder dated &ebruary 4., 4555, respondent judge did not categorically rule on the motion, and instead scheduled a hearing on 3arch 47, 4555. ( ( ( ( ( (.....( ( (.....( ( ( 9,tty. $orromeo, on 3arch 4., 4555, filed a motion to defer <the= hearing set for 3arch 47, 4555. Le scheduled the hearing of the motion on 3arch 4%, 4555 at ->G. p.m. 2n the said hearing date, ,tty. $orromeo appeared but complainants and counsel were not present. #espondent judge then issued the subject order @dated 3arch 4%, 4555A stating> Jle(j BEhen this case was called for hearing, only the administrator and his counsel appeared. he oppositors and their counsel <were= also around. B he administrator and his counsel called the attention of the court that their )upplemental Inventory, including the opposition thereto, ha<d= not been resolved yet and the favorable resolution of the court is very important for them so they can move further for the settlement of the estate. BEL'#'&2#', the )upplemental Inventory, including the opposition thereto, is considered submitted for the resolution of the court. B he administrator and his counsel are notified of this order in open court, including the oppositors and their counsel. B)2 2#:'#':. 92n the other hand, on 3arch 47, 4555, complainants and their counsel, ,tty. '(pedito $ugarin, Jr. went to $ranch % to attend the hearing, only to be informed that the case was not calendared. Kpon further inDuiry from the staff of respondent judge, they learned that <the= hearing of the case was conducted on 3arch 4%, 4555. hey obtained a copy of the 2rder of 3arch 4%, 4555 of respondent judge which stated that Moppositors @referring to the complainantsA and their counsel are also aroundM, and this was also stated in the transcript of records.

9 he complainants, on the basis of the 2rder dated 3arch 4%, 4555, filed the instant administrative complaint before the 2ffice of the Court ,dministrator. #espondent judge was reDuired to comment on the complaint. 9In his Comment, respondent judge admitted that the inclusion of the sentence Mthe oppositors and their counsel <were= also aroundM was mere error on his part. Le points out that the sentence is inconsistent with the first sentence Bonly the administrator appeared. Court( 96evertheless, he admits his error and states that it was not done intentionally, but was due to mental lapse and fatigue, considering that he heard numerous cases on said date. Le further alleged that complainants filed the instant administrative complaint because he did not act on their motion to remove andCor replace the administratorF that he could have rectified his error if only the complainants informed him of the sameF that Mthere was no malice on his part since he does not know personally the oppositors and the administratorF and that he is not a personal friend to their counselF that the subject order pertains only to the submission of the supplemental inventory and the opposition thereto for resolution of the court, so no damage or prejudice was done to the herein complainantsF that he has not even resolved the said incident because he is still reading the voluminous court records. #espondent judge also stated that he already voluntarily inhibited himself from hearing the case.9 I%6"$&'(a&or:$ R"co;;"%)a&'o% In his 3emorandum, :eputy Court ,dministrator Ponferrada recommended that respondent be suspended for si( months without pay for the first case and fined in the amount of P%,... for the second. In justifying the penalty for the first case, the investigator ratiocinated as follows> 9Eell+settled is the rule that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the property subject of the warrant of sei/ure and detention issued by the $ureau of Customs. In the case of 3ison vs. 6atividad, the Lonorable )upreme Court held that>
<;=

M he court a Duo has no jurisdiction over the res subject of the warrant of sei/ure and detention. he respondent judge, therefore, acted arbitrarily and despotically in issuing the temporary restraining order, granting the writ of preliminary injunction and denying the motion to dismiss, thereby removing the res from the control of the Collector of Customs and depriving him of his e(clusive original jurisdiction over the controversy. #espondent judge

e(ercised a power he never had and encroached upon the e(clusive original jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs. $y e(press provision of law, amply supported by well+settled jurisprudence, the Collector of Customs has e(clusive jurisdiction over sei/ure and forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts cannot interfere with his e(ercise thereof or stifle or put it to naught. 9 he 2ffice of the Court ,dministrator also issued Circular 8?+5; dated 6ovember G, 455;, which reiterated the provisions of Circular 6o. 4G+ 5G. 'sH m 9 he aforesaid circulars were again reiterated in ,dministrative Circular 6o. .7+55 dated June -%, 4555 issued by Chief Justice Lilario ". :avide informing judges of the lower courts to e(ercise utmost caution, prudence, and judiciousness in the issuance of temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunctions to avoid any suspicion that its issuance or grant was for considerations other than the strict merits of the case. ( ( (9 In the second case, respondent judge was found guilty of grave abuse of authority. he investigator e(plained> 9$ased on the evidence presented during the investigation, respondent judge appeared to be biased and prejudiced against the complainants, as shown by the following> 9aA.....2n July -5, 455?, complainants filed a 3otion to #emove and Cor #eplace ,dministrator. he respondent judge reDuired the administrator to file a comment or opposition within fifteen @4%A days from receipt of the 2rder. ComplainantMs counsel was also reDuired to file <a= reply thereto, after which the incident <would be deemed= submitted for resolution. In his 2rder dated &ebruary 4., 4555 respondent judge did not categorically rule on complainantMs motion while the 2rder stated that the 9relationship between the heirs and the administrator can no longer see eye to eye with each other, then itMs about time for the ,dministrator to give <way= so as not to further delay the distribution of the estate.9 he respondent judge chose to give priority to the administratorMs compensation, and thus deferred a categorical ruling on the motion. Lowever, it may be stated that the matter of compensation can be pursued by the administrator as a claim against the estate, and satisfaction thereto is not a pre+condition to the administratorMs removal as such. he reason given by the respondent judge has no basis in law. It appears as a ploy to delay further the ruling on the petition of the heirs to change the administrator. Eith this actuation, the respondent e(posed his

<%=

bias in favor of the administrator. Le became a true picture of what a judge ought not to be. 9bA..... he administrator, on 3arch 4., 4555, filed a 3otion to :efer the hearing of 3arch 47, 4555 and set the hearing on 3arch 4%, 4555. In the 2rder of respondent judge dated 3arch 4%, 4555, there was no pronouncement on whether the hearing on 3arch 47, 4555 was cancelled. Instead it discussed the issue of the inventory of the properties of complainants by the administrator. 'sI msc ,s to the 3otion to :efer the hearing of 3arch 47, 4555, respondent judge should have observed the procedure laid down under #ule 4% of the 4557 #evised #ules of Court, which provides that 9<e=very written motion reDuired to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three @GA days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.9 ,nd the 9good cause9 reDuired was not even stated when the respondent judge advanced the hearing to 3arch 4% 4555, instead of 3arch 47, 4555 as originally scheduled. he only visible reason why it was transferred earlier to 3arch 4%, 4558 <was= because it appear<ed= as the date suggested by the administrator. 9 he respondent judge evidently, did not consider the rights of the heirs of the late )imeon #allos, who appear<ed= persistent in seeking ( ( ( the removal of the administrator. Eith the confusion occasioned by such a blunder committed by the respondent even on a simple motion to transfer hearing, it creates an impression that it was done deliberately to stall the possible removal of the administrator upon petition by the heirs of a deceased person. )uch unwelcome act coming as it does from the judge certainly erodes the confidence and integrity of the judiciary. 9,nother <point= to be observed is that the hearing must specify the time and date which must not be later than ten @4.A days after the filing of the motion. his was not followed by the administrator. ComplainantsM copy of the motion was sent by registered mail on 3arch 4., 4555, and it was not received by the complainants in time for the 3arch 4%, 4555 hearing. In spite of this, respondent judge heard the case on 3arch 4%, 4555 even without the presence of complainants and their counsel, and despite the lack of proof that the latter were notified of the hearing on that day. Eorse, he made it appear in his 2rder that the complainants in this administrative matter were present. Ehen in truth they were not. 9C......$ased on the testimony of ,tty. 6ollara, 3s. 'stella was transferred to another $ranch after she testified against respondent judge. his <was= clearly an act of retaliation against 3s. 'stella for her 9unfavorable9 testimony.

9 he evidence show<s= that the 93arch 4%, 4555 2rder9 <was= not a 9mere oversight9 as respondent judge would like to make it appear. he court stenographer testified that she had already prepared a draft of the order stating that the complainants and their counsel were not around, but respondent judge modified this and made it appear that complainants and their counsel were present. 'smmJ is 93oreover, it was not proper for respondent judge to push through with the 3arch 4%, 4555, hearing being reDuested by the administrator, since there was no proof that complainants were notified of the reDuested change in the hearing date. ,t the least, respondent judge should have heard the case on 3arch 47, 4555. 9 he acts of respondent judge are therefore, contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct which states> 9Canon 4 + a judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. , judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. , judge should administer justice with impartiality and without delay.9 Th" +o.r&:$ R.<'%( he first case should be held in abeyance, pending the resolution by this Court of the Petition for #eview assailing the 2rders that are the very subject of this administrative case. In the second case, we believe that the fine recommended by the investigator should be increased. Th" 'r$& +a$" Pending before us via a Petition for #eview on Certiorari is the :ecision of the Court of ,ppeals affirming respondent judges 2rders dated January 44, 4555, and January -%, 4555 N the same 2rders that are the subjects of the present Complaint for gross ignorance of the law. In view of the present peculiar circumstances, the disposition of this administrative case should be held in abeyance. Ee must, however, emphasi/e that this action is motivated solely by considerations of the smooth and orderly disposition of the cases, for a decision on the merits of the Complaint herein would preempt the disposition of the Petition for #eview.
<8=

In so ruling, we are not in any way implying that an administrative case cannot proceed independently of the main one. In light of the facts of the present case, though, the Petition for #eview constitutes a prejudicial Duestion to the resolution of the Complaint of )ecretary *amora.
<7=

Th" S"co%) +a$" 'smsoI

Complainants attribute partiality to the respondent judge based on three points. First, he failed to resolve complainants 3otion to remove the administrator. Second, he arbitrarily changed the date of hearing from 3arch 47, 4555 to 3arch 4%, 4555 without properly notifying the complainants. Eorse, he made it appear in his 3arch 4%, 4555 2rder that they and their counsel were present. Third, he retaliated against :aisy 'stella, the stenographer who had testified unfavorably against him. 2n the first point, considering that the case had been pending before the trial court for a long time, it was improper for the judge not to resolve the complainants 3otion to remove or replace the administrator. 3oreover, the reason he proffered was wrong. he 2ffice of the Court ,dministrator @2C,A was correct in pointing out that the compensation of the administrator was not a precondition for his removal. Indeed, the complainants 3otion raised several legal grounds, but these were ignored by the respondent.
<?= <5= <4.= <44=

Lowever, by itself, this lapse was merely an error of judgment and does not merit disciplinary action against the respondent judge. 6ot every error or mistake he has committed in the performance of his duties would render him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice.
<4-=

,s to the second point, we must clarify at the outset that complainants are not Duestioning the resetting of the scheduled 3arch 47, 4555 hearing to 3arch 4%, 4555. Ehat they are stressing, and rightly so, is the apparent dishonesty of respondent judge in making it appear that they were present during the 3arch 4%, 4555 hearing. Ee are not convinced by his claim that his 2rder was merely a harmless error caused by mental fatigue. he phrase 9<t=he oppositors and their counsel <were= also around9 refers to a substantial matter that cannot be overlooked, considering that it is inconsistent with the first sentence of the Duestioned 2rder. 6otably, the last sentence was also edited by respondent judge to make it appear consistent with the statement that the complainants were present.
<4G=

&inally, regarding the third point, we agree with the 2C,s conclusion that the transfer of :aisy 'stella from the sala of respondent judge was prompted by her unfavorable testimony against the latter. Indeed, the branch clerk of court also testified that the judge scolded 'stella after she testified, and that her testimony was the reason for her transfer.
<4;=

hese three points, taken together, paint a picture of bias or partiality that calls for disciplinary sanction. Eorse, respondent manifested dishonesty when he altered his 2rder and made it appear that the complainants were present during a hearing that they had not in fact attended. #espondent judge violated Canon 4 and #ule 4..-, as well as Canon - and #ule -..4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. hus, he must be sanctioned. In this connection, we have said>
<4%= <48= <47= <4?= <45=

9Eell+known is the judicial norm that Bjudges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. he other elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not only render just, correct and impartial decisions, but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality and integrity. 9 his reminder applies all the more sternly to municipal, metropolitan and regional trial court judges like herein respondent, because they are judicial front+liners who have direct contact with the litigating parties. hey are the intermediaries between conflicting interests and the embodiments of the peoples sense of justice. hus, their official conduct should remain Bfree from any appearance of impropriety and Bshould be beyond reproach.9 @&ootnotes omittedA '(J sm
<-.=

, review of past :ecisions shows a wide range of penalty for cases of similar nature. hese penalties include mere reprimand, withholding of salary, fine, suspension, and even dismissal. his court feels that the P%,... fine recommended by the 2C, is inadeDuate, considering the dishonesty displayed by respondent. Knder the circumstances, we believe that a fine in the amount of P4.,... is appropriate.
<-4= <--= <-G= <-;= <-%=

=>ERE ORE, the Court finds Judge Ireneo !ee "ako Jr. GUILTY of grave abuse of authority and partiality aggravated by dishonesty for which he is ordered to PAY a FINE of P4.,.... Le is sternly warned that a commission of similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. he Complaint filed by '(ecutive )ecretary #onaldo *amora is hereby held in abeyance. SO OR7ERE7. Melo, Chair!an", #it$g, P$risi!a, and Gon%aga&'eyes, ((), concur. 8C%C.. G>4- P3

Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada. Penned by J. Artemio G. Tuquero (now usti!e se!retary"# wit$ t$e !on!urren!e of JJ %ubu&o G. 'er(o&a (Di)ision !$airman" and *ariano *. +ma&i (member" [,] *emorandum submitted by Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada dated -anuary .# 2///# pp. 201. [.] 21, 2C3A 1,. (1442" [5] *emorandum submitted by Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada dated -anuary .# 2///# pp. 101,. [6] T$e !ase is entit&ed 7T$e Bureau of Customs (B8C" et. al. v. %&son 89ario and *ar: *onte&ibano7 (G3 ;o. 1,</<1" pendin9 before t$e 2e!ond Di)ision. Per 3eso&ution dated *ay 11# 1444# t$is Court issued a Temporary 3estrainin9 8rder en oinin9# inter alia# t$e respondent ud9e $erein from enfor!in9 or !ausin9 to be enfor!ed t$e questioned 3eso&ution dated -anuary 11# 1444= t$e 8rder dated -anuary 25# 1444= as we&& as a&& subsequent orders re&ated to Ci)i& Case ;o. C%B022,/11# %&son 89ario and *ar: *onte&ibano v. Bureau of Customs et. al.7 [1] 2ee Gat!$a&ian Promotions ). ;a&do(a# AC ;o. ./11# 2eptember 24# 1444. [<] 3espondent ud9e admitted&y de!&ared t$at t$e !ase $as been pendin9 for ., years.
[1] [2]

[4]

T$e aforementioned 8rder dated >ebruary 1/# 1444 states in part?

7T$e !ourt wi&& not a&so re&ie)e t$e in!umbent Adminstrator wit$out first as:in9 $im to submit $is !&aim of !ompensation w$i!$ is $onest&y due $im.7
[1/]

T$e &aw t$at 9o)erns t$is matter is 2e!tion 2# 3u&e <2 of t$e 3u&es of Court# w$i!$ pro)ides?

72%C. 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator. Proceedings upon death, resignation, or removal. 00 @f an eAe!utor or administrator ne9&e!ts to render $is a!!ount and sett&e t$e estate a!!ordin9 to &aw# or to perform an order or ud9ment of t$e !ourt# or a duty eApress&y pro)ided by t$ese ru&es# or abs!onds# or be!omes insane# or ot$erwise in!apab&e or unsuitab&e to dis!$ar9e t$e trust# t$e !ourt may remo)e $im# or in its dis!retion# may permit $im to resi9n. A A A.7 (2ee De ParreBo ). Aran(anso# 116 2C3A 151# Au9ust ,/# 14<2" [11] 2ee Ca&aw ). @AC# 21, 2C3A 2<4# 2eptember 2# 1442. [12] 2ee Ca9atin v. Deme!i&&o# ,/. 2C3A ,64# *ar!$ 1/# 1444.
[1,]

Comp&ainantsD &etter dated *ay 2/# 1444# states? *seE sm

76......F$i&e we are not ob e!tin9 to t$e !an!e&&ation of t$e *ar!$ 11# 1444 $earin9 as a !onsequen!e of t$e *ar!$ 15# 1444 $earin9# in spite of t$e absen!e of prior noti!e from t$e !ourt# w$at we are !omp&ainin9 about is t$e questionab&e and seemin9&y dis$onest a!tuations of -ud9e Ga:o in ma:in9 it appear in $is 8rder dated *ar!$ 15# 1444 t$at we and our !ounse& were present and were notified of said order in open !ourt# w$en in trut$ and in fa!t we were not e)en t$ere A A A7 [1.] Atty. *anue& G. ;o&&ora. [15] 7A ud9e s$ou&d up$o&d t$e inte9rity and independen!e of t$e udi!iary.7 [16] 7A ud9e s$ou&d administer usti!e impartia&&y and wit$out de&ay.7 [11] 7A ud9e s$ou&d a)oid impropriety and t$e appearan!e of impropriety in a&& a!ti)ities.7 [1<] 7A ud9e s$ou&d so be$a)e at a&& times as to promote pub&i! !onfiden!e in t$e inte9rity and impartia&ity of t$e udi!iary.7 [14] 2ee Prudentia& Ban: ). Castro# 1.2 2C3A 22,# -une 5# 14<6. [2/] *a!asasa ). @mbin9# A.*. ;o. 3T-04401.1/# pp. 21022# Au9ust 16# 1444# per Capunan# J. [21] 2ee Ardosa ). Ga&0&an9# 2<. 2C3A 5<# -anuary <# 144<= Tabao ). Buta&id# 262 2C3A 554# 2eptember ,/# 1446. [22] 2ee 2antos ). De Gra!ia# 114 2C3A 1<4# De!ember 15# 14<2. [2,] 2ee %spiritu ). -o)e&&anos# 2</ 2C3A 514# 8!tober16# 1441= 2ando)a& ). *ana&o# 26/ 2C3A 611# Au9ust 22# 1446= Ben amin 2r. ). A&aba# 261 2C3A .24# 2eptember 5# 1446= 'da. de Corone& ). Danan# 225 2C3A 212# Au9ust 4# 144,. [2.] 2ee >ernande( ). @mbin9# 26/ 2C3A 5<6# Au9ust 21# 1446= Abundo ). *anio# A* ;o. 3T-04<01.16# Au9ust 6# 1444. [25] 2ee *eris ). 8fi&ada# 24, 2C3A 6/6# Au9ust 5# 144<.