Legal Ethics Green Notes 2013

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL
ETHICS
Prepared by: Prof. Erickson H. Balmes
"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no

mind has imagined what God has prepared
for those who love him."
1 CORINTHIANS 2:9
1. It is an offense of exciting or stirring unnecessary suits and quarrels
a
b
c
d
amicus curiae
barratry
forum shopping
ambulance chasing
2. Which of the following are the 4 duties of a lawyer?

a
b
c
d
To
To
To
To
Society,
Society,
Society,
Society,
To the Bar, to the Constitution, to the People

To the Republic, to the Church, to the Client
To the Courts, To the Bar, to the Client
to the Courts, to the IBP, to the Bar
3. Who among the following lawyers are not prohibited from practicing
law
a. Lawyers who were appointed as Chairman and members of the
Constitutional Commission
b. Lawyers connected with the office of the Solicitor General
c. Lawyers who elected as Senators or Congressmen
d. Lawyers who were appointed to the Judiciary
4. Which among the following qualifications are not required to be
possessed by applicants for the Bar Examinations
a. Natural Born Citizen
b. Possession of Good Moral Character
c. Philippine Residency
d. Degree in Bachelor of Laws
5. It is the improper practice of filing several actions or petitions in the
same or different tribunals arising from the same cause and seeking
substantially identical reliefs in the hope of winning one of them.
a. Litis pendentia
b. Forum Shopping
c. Res Judicata
d. Pro se Practice
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS
2013 the mark for the
prize of the high calling of God

in Christ Jesus. - Philippians
3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 1 of 30

ETHICS
6. Which among the following choices is not a possible consequence of
forum shopping?
a. Summary dismissal of the multiple petition or complaint
b. Penalty for direct contempt of court on the party and his lawyer
c. Disciplinary proceeding for the lawyer concerned.
d. Award of damages and attorneys fees to the defendant / respondent.
7. It is the form prescribed for sworn statements where no rights of
titles are transferred before a notary public?
a. Acknowledgment
b. Verification
c. Jurat
d. Notarial undertaking
8. Which of the following does not form part of the duty of a notary
public
a. To charge reasonable notarial fees
b. To keep a notarial register
c. To affix to acknowledgment the date of the expiration of his
commission, as required by law
d. To forward his notarial register, when filed, to the proper clerk of court.
e. To make the proper notation regarding residence certificates.
9. Which of the following choices, as provided under the Rules of Court,
do not form part of the basis of applying the principle of quantum
meruit or as much as he deserves?
a. The skill demanded
b. The importance of the subject
c. The length of membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
d. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved.
e. The contingency or certainty of compensation.
10.
Which of the following is not included in the criteria for
determining whether a person is engaged in the practice of law?
a. Application of knowledge of law
b. Compensation
c. Habituality
d. Retainer Agreement
e. Attorney Client Relationship
11. Who among the following lawyers cannot practice law?
a. Lawyers who are members of the Provincial Board
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 2 of 30

ETHICS
b. Lawyers who are elected as Senators
c. Retired Judges
d. Lawyers elected as Municipal Vice-Mayors
e. Lawyers elected as City Mayors
12.
He is a lawyer who haunts hospitals, and visits homes of the
afflicted, officiously intruding their presence and persistently offering
his service on the basis of a contingent fee.
a. Medico Legal
b. Ambulance Chaser
c. Forensic Lawyer
d. Contingent Fee Lawyer
e.Counsel de Parte
13. Generally, lawyers are not allowed to advertise their services.
However, there are certain recognized exceptions. Which of the
following choices do not constitute as an exception to the general rule?
a. Writing Legal Articles
b. Listing in the Law List
c. Listing in the Phone directory with area of expertise
d. Giving of Ordinary Professional Cards.
14. Which of the following choices is not a purpose of Bar Matter 850
or the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education?
a. To keep abreast with laws and jurisprudence
b. Enhance the standards of the practice of law
c. Provide a venue for the strengthening of the professional bonds
between lawyers
d. Maintain the ethics of the profession
15. Who among the following lawyers are not exempted from the
MCLE?
a. Solicitor General
b. Law Deans
c. Law Professors
d. Government Corporate Counsel
16. Which of the following duties do not form part of a lawyers duty to
the legal profession?
a. Courtesy and fairness
b. Fidelity and loyalty
c. Not to encroach upon the employment of another lawyer
d. Not to assist in the unauthorized practice of law
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 3 of 30

ETHICS
17. Which of the following duties do not form part of a lawyers duty to
the courts?
a. Respect
b. Fiduciary duty
c. Not to influence the Court
d. To assist in the administration of justice
18. A lawyer is duty bound to assist in the speedy administration of
justice. Which of the following duties do not belong to a lawyers duty
to assist in the speedy administration of justice?
a. No to engage in forum shopping
b. To be prepared during hearings
c. To treat witness properly
d. To seek continuance when the witness is unavailable for examination
19. Among the choices given, which two words best describe the dual
role of a lawyer vis--vis his client?
a. Fiduciary
b. Confidant
c. Agent
d. Counselor
e. Adviser
f. Mentor
g. Servant
20. Generally, a lawyer who is appointed as a counsel de oficio should
not reject his appointment. Which among the given choices is a valid
ground for refusal of lawyer of his appointment as counsel de officio?
a. Established guilt of the accused
b. Lack of witnesses for the defense
c. Conflict of interest
d. Inability of the client to pay attorney fees
21. The attorney client privilege is one of the traits that separates
lawyering as a profession from a business endeavor. Which of the
following choices do not constitute as a valid exception to the rule on
attorney client privilege?
a
When authorized by the client

b When required by law
c When the client has been away for so long
d The announced intention of a client to commit a crime
22.It is the right of a lawyer to kept the clients fund, documents and
papers that has lawfully come to his possession until payment of his
lawful fee.
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 4 of 30

ETHICS
a
b
c
d
Charging Lien
Charging fee
Retaining Lien
Particular Lien
22. Which of the following is an unethical form of attorneys fee

arrangement?
a. Hourly Rate
b. Fixed Cash Fee
c. Retainer Fee
d. Champertous Contract
e. Acceptance fee
23. It is the action filed by a lawyer against his clients for collection of
attorneys fees
a. Collection case
b. Case for sum of money with damages
c. Assumpsit
d. Rescission of Retainer Agreement with Damages
e. Rescission of Retainer Agreement with claim for payment of attorneys
fees and Damages
24. It is the disciplinary sanction imposed upon a lawyer where the
extent of the wrong is very small and the degree of culpability is very
slight. It is also imposed where the conduct of the a lawyer falls short
of the exacting standards of candor and fairness required to be
observed by them.
a
b
c
d
e
Warning
Reprimand / Admonition
Fine
Suspension
Disbarment
25. Who among the following officers/offices are not authorized to

investigate Disbarment cases:
a. IBP Committee on Bar Discipline
b. Office of the Solicitor General
c. Judge of a Lower Court
d. Any Officer of the Supreme Court
e. Philippine Bar Association
26. Which of the following choices is a not a mitigating circumstance in
disbarment proceedings?
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 5 of 30

ETHICS
a. Good faith
b. Want of intention to commit a wrong
c. Non-payment of agreed value of attorneys fees
d. Desistance of complainant
e. Youth and inexperience in the bar.
27. Which among the following choices is not a source of judicial
ethics?
a. Code of Judicial Conduct
b. 1987 Constitution
c. Revised Rules of Court
d. Revised Penal Code
e. Bilateral and Multi-Lateral Treaties Entered into by the Supreme Court
with courts of other jurisdictions.
f. Republic Act 3019
28. It is the primordial and the most important duty of every member of
the Bench
a. Dispensing of Justice
b. Execution of Final Judgment
c. Decision Making
d. Conviction of the Guilty and Acquittal of the Innocent
e. Hearing of Cases
29. Which of the following is not an element of the offense of unjust
judgment committed by a judge?
a. Offender is a judge
b. Offender renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
c. Offender receives a pecuniary benefit in exchange for the judgment
that he rendered
d. The judgment is unjust
e. Judge knows that his judgment is unjust
30. Which of the following choices do not belong as a fundamental
purpose of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines?
a. To elevate the standards of the legal profession
b. To improve the administration of justice
c. To bring all lawyers closer to one another by providing them with a
forum for interaction
d. To enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibilities more effectively
31.
It is a pleading that while is good in form is false in fact?

a
b
Negative pleading
Scam pleading
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 6 of 30

ETHICS
c
d
False pleading
Sham pleading
32.
It is an answer that does not present a defense to the action or
one which tenders no material issue
a
b
c
d
False Answer
Frivolous Answer
Negative Pregnant Answer
Sham answer
33.
It is concerned with minimizing the risk of legal trouble and
maximizing legal rights for entities at that time when transactional or
similar facts are being considered and made.
a
b
c
d
Pre-emptive Lawyering
Alternative Lawyer
Minimalist Lawyering
Preventive Lawyering
34.
Which of the following duties are not required of lawyers under
the Lawyers Oath
a
b
c
d
To
To
To
To
delay no man for money or malice

maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
uplift the administration of justice
conduct oneself as a lawyer to the best of his knowledge
35.
It is present when a lawyer is asked to enforce the right of a
client in case where he will also be asked to defend another client from
such enforcement.
a. Dual Representation
b. Conflict of Interest
c. Unethical Representation
d. Dual Lawyering
36. It is the primary duty of lawyers who are public prosecutors
a. To convict criminals
b. To prosecute cases
c. To file information against the accused
d. To see to it that justice is done
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 7 of 30

ETHICS
37. Which of the task/acts cannot be done by a lawyer who has left
government service
a
b
c
d
Practice of Law for private concerns

Handle clients on any matter that he handled before in government
Do pro-bono litigation
File a case against the government on behalf of a client
38. Which among the following tasks is excluded in the general

authority of a lawyer under the Rules of Court?
a. Compromise their clients litigation
b. Bind their clients
c. Take appeals
d. Appear for his client during the trial
39. It means that in the court of justice of the peace, a party may
conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for that purpose.
a. Nolle Pro Se Que Practice
b. Pro Se Practice
c. Pro Bono Practice
d. Self Practice
40.
Under the Local Government Code of 1991, the practice of the
legal profession by a member of the Sanggunian is restricted but not
prohibited. Which among the following is not a restriction on such
practice?
a
c
d
They shall not appear as counsel before any court in any civil case
wherein a local government unit
or any office, agency or
instrumentality of the government is the adverse party
They shall not collect any fee for their appearance in administrative
proceedings including the local government unit of which he is an
official
They cannot accept pro bono criminal cases involving individuals who
are not their constituents
They shall not use property and personnel of the government
41.
Which among the following choices is not a valid ground for
withdrawal as counsel of a client?
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 8 of 30

ETHICS
a. Lack of confidence of the counsel on the sincerity of the client
b. When the lawyer has been elected or appointed to public office
c. Possibility of conflict of interest
d. Inability to work with other counsels
42.
In certain instances, a lawyer is allowed to withdraw or retire
from a court case without the consent of his client. Which of the
following is not part of procedure of such valid withdrawal?
a
b
c
d
file a motion for withdrawal in court

serve a copy of his motion upon his client and the adverse party at
least 3 days before the date set for hearing
Execute verified affidavit of termination of services to accompany
motion for withdrawal
The motion should afford ample time to his client to get a replacement
lawyer.
43.Under the Civil Code, Attorneys Fees by way of damages can be

recovered. Which of the following grounds is not a valid basis for the
claim of attorneys fees as damages?
a
b
c
d
When exemplary damages are awarded

In case of clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the
lawyer
In criminal cases or malicious prosecution against the plaintiff
In cases of contingent fee arrangement where the fees of the lawyer is
to be taken from the award of the lower court
44.
It is the equitable right of an attorney to have the fees due him
for his service be secured out of the judgment for the payment of
money and executions in pursuance thereof in the particular suit.
a
b
c
d
45.
Right to Quantum Meruit

Possessory Lien
Charging Lien
Retaining Lien
Which of the following is not a ground for disbarment of lawyer?
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 9 of 30

ETHICS
a
b
c
d
Violation of oath of office

Withdrawal as a counsel de oficio
Grossly immoral conduct
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
46.
Which among the following lawyers are not subject to the
investigation of the IBP under the grievance procedures of the Rules of
Court?
a
b
c
d
Law professors and bar reviewers

Lawyers commissioned as Notaries Public
Judges of the Lower Courts
Filipino lawyers overseas
47.
MTC and MCTC judges may perform notarial acts ex officio,
however certain requisites must concur before they can validly perform
such acts. Which among the requisites listed below is essential and is
required for the MTC and MCTC judge to validly perform notarial acts ex
officio?
a
b
c
d
Permission sought from and granted by the Office of the Court

Administrator
Certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack
of any lawyer or notary public of such municipality or circuit
Notarization to be done after officer hours
Notarial services are to be performed for free
48.
The period of time under the 1987 Constitution within which
cases pending with the Supreme Court are to be decided in the interest
of speedy administration of justice?
49.
a Two Years
b 12 Months
c 1 Year
d 24 Months
e
What is the best form of advertisement for a lawyer?
a
b
c
Testimonials of former clients

Hard earned reputation for fidelity to private trust, excellence and
dedication to the cause of his client
Writing of legal articles in law journals
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 10 of 30

ETHICS
d
Election as officer and active participation in the activities of the IBP
50.
It is the failure of the lawyer to exercise on behalf of his client the
knowledge, skill and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by
members of the bar resulting an actual loss to the client.
a Gross Misconduct
b Unethical Negligence
c Malpractice
d. Gross Professional Negligence
JURISPRUDENCE PORTION
JESSIE R. DE LEON vs. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO
A.C. No. 8620 / January 12, 2011
BERSAMIN
Facts
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 11 of 30

ETHICS
On January 2, 2006, the Government brought suit for the purpose of
correcting the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land
located in Malabon City then registered in the names of defendants Spouses Lim
Hio and Dolores Chu.
De Leon, as a voluntary intervenor in the civil case, two years later (April 21,
2008) accuses the respondent, the counsel of the defendants in such civil case,
with serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification warranting his
disbarment or suspension as an attorney. The respondents offense was allegedly
committed by his filing for defendants various pleadings despite said spouses
being already deceased at the time of filing.
The respondent in his comment explained that the persons who had
engaged him as attorney to represent the Lim family in the civil case were
William and Leonardo Lim, the children of the named defendants.
Issue
Whether or not the respondent violate the Lawyers Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Ruling
The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyers Oath, providing:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
The foregoing ordain ethical norms that bind all attorneys, as officers of the
Court, to act with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and
trustworthiness.
Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys not only the
presumption of regularity in the discharge of their duties, but also the immunity
from liability to others for as long as the performance of their obligations to their
clients does not depart from their character as servants of the Law and as
officers of the Court. In particular, the statements they make in behalf of their
clients that are relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are
absolutely privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor. Such cloak of
privilege is necessary and essential in ensuring the unhindered service to their
clients causes and in protecting the clients confidences.
We find that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit any falsehood or
falsification in his pleadings. Accordingly, we dismiss the patently frivolous
complaint.
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 12 of 30

ETHICS
FLORENDA V. TOBIAS vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Presiding
Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734 / January 19, 2011
PERALTA
Facts
In her verified Complaint dated June 6, 2007, Tobias alleged that
respondent Judge Limsiaco, Jr. offers package deals for cases filed in the court
where he presides.
She stated that sometime in June 2006, she requested her sister, Lorna Vollmer,
to inquire from the Court about the requirements needed in filing an ejectment
case. Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero allegedly proposed to Vollmer that
for the sum of P30,000.00, respondent would provide the lawyer, prepare the
necessary pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment case
which they contemplated to file.
Issue
Whether or not the respondents acts are violates the rules contained in
New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Ruling
The respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge, in particular,
talking to a prospective litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the
litigant, and preparing a motion, which pleading was filed in his court and was
acted upon by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond reproach and
reflective of the integrity of his office. Indeed, the said acts of respondent
violate Section 1 of Canon 2 Integrity, Section 2 of Canon 3 Impartiality, and
Section 1 of Canon 4 Propriety of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary.
IMELDA R. MARCOS vs. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062 / January 18, 2011
PER CURIAM
Facts
On November 15, 2006, Marcos filed a complaint-affidavit charging Judge
Pamintuan with Gross Ignorance of the Law for reversing motu proprio the final
and executory order of then Acting Presiding Judge Antonio Reyes dated May 30,
1996.
Issue
Whether or not the act of Judge Pamintuan in reversing a final and
executory constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Ruling
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 13 of 30

ETHICS
It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes
immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either
by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine of immutability
and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, to wit: (1) to avoid
delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the
discharge of judicial business; and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at
the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Controversies
cannot drag on indefinitely.
It is inexcusable for Judge Pamintuan to have overlooked such basic legal
principle no matter how noble his objectives were at that time. Judges owe it to
the public to be well informed, thus, they are expected to be familiar with the
statutes and procedural rules at all times. When the law is so elementary, not to
know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the
law.
The Court agrees with the view of OCA that Judge Pamintuan manifested
gross ignorance of the law. Verily, he failed to conform to the high standards of
competence required of judges under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Competence
is a mark of a good judge. When a judge exhibits an utter lack of know-how with
the rules or with settled jurisprudence, he erodes the publics confidence in the
competence of our courts. It is highly crucial that judges be acquainted with the
law and basic legal principles. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to
know, excuses no one not even judges.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. JUDGE BENJAMIN P.
ESTRADA, RTC, Branch 9, and JUDGE JOSEFINA GENTILES-BACAL, RTC,
Branch 10, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2173 / January 18, 2011
BRION
Facts
Atty. Nicandro A. Cruz of the Office of the Court Administrator reported
that in the course of reviewing the Monthly Report of cases from the MTCC
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon noted several orders that were issued by Executive
Judge Josefina Gentiles-Bacal, RTC, and Judge Benjamin P. Estrada, RTC, Branch 9,
dismissing the cases then pending in the MTCC.
Atty. Cruz pointed out that the MTCC had no regular presiding judge at the
time the orders were issued, as Judge Estrada, the former presiding judge, had
been appointed to preside over the RTC, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, on June 1,
2008. Atty. Cruz commented that Judge Estrada could no longer take cognizance
of cases pending in his former sala after he took his oath on July 17, 2008;
neither could Judge Bacal do the same even if she had then been the executive
judge of the RTC, Malaybalay City.
Issue
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 14 of 30

ETHICS
Whether or not the respondent judges acted with gross ignorance of law
when they took over the judicial functions of the lower court.
Ruling
There is no question about the guilt of the two judges. Their shared
intention to uphold the right of the accused to liberty cannot justify their action
in excess of their authority, in violation of existing regulations. The vacuum in a
first level court, such as the MTCC in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, created by the
absence of a presiding judge, is not remedied by a take over of the duties of the
still-to-be appointed or designated judge for the court, which exactly was what
Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal did.
VICTORIANO SY vs. Judge OSCAR E. DINOPOL, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 24, Koronadal City
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2189 / January 18, 2011
PER CURIAM
Facts
Judge Dinopol presided over a complaint filed by Sps. Victoriano and
Loreta Sy against Metrobank for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Real
Estate Mortgage but later inhibited himself from acting on the case. Sy claimed
that while the above case was pending in Judge Dinopols sala, the judge asked
him for commodity loans in the form of construction materials to be used in the
construction of the judges house.
On September 15, 2005, Metrobank filed with the RTC, South Cotabato, a
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the same parcels of land
covered by the previous case involving the same parties. Judge Dinopol issued
an Order granting the petition, and issued the writ of possession on July 21,
2006.
Issues
1 Whether or not Judge Dinopols act of handling a case closely intertwined
with the previous case may be characterized as gross ignorance of law.
2 Whether or not the respondent is liable for conduct unbecoming of a
judge.
Ruling
1 Judge Dinopol cannot be disciplined for ignorance of the law and of
procedure in his handling the previous Civil Case, as he inhibited himself,
nor in his handling of Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession
because of the essential nature of the proceeding itself.
As the Court held in Santiago v. Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera,
Inc., the proceeding in a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is
ex-parte and summary in nature. It is brought for the benefit of one party
only and may be granted even without notice to the mortgagor, in this
case, complainant Sy. Moreover, the duty of the court to grant a writ of
possession is a ministerial function. The court does not exercise its official
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 15 of 30

ETHICS
discretion or judgment. Judge Dinopol, before whom the petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession was filed, had no discretion on whether to
issue the writ of possession or not. It cannot be said, therefore, that Judge
Dinopol exposed himself or exhibited bias in favor of Metrobank when he
issued the writ of possession.
2
However, we find Judge Dinopol to have committed a serious impropriety

in his or his familys financial or business dealings with Sy. Judge Dinopol
violated Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to a
judges impartiality when he received accommodations from Sy for the
building materials he needed for the construction of his house. He
compromised his position as a judge.
In addition, we find that Judge Dinopol also violated Section 1 of
Canon 1, which highlights the independence of a judge in performing his
official duties. Canon 2, which requires a judge to promote integrity in the
discharge of his official functions. And Canon 4, which mandates a judge
to observe and maintain proper decorum and its appearance in his public
office. His actions no doubt diminished public confidence and public trust
in him as a judge. His actions gave the public the impression and the
appearance that he can be influenced by extraneous factors - other than
the legal arguments and the court evidence in discharging his judicial
functions.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO

L. LEONIDA, OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 27, STA. CRUZ,
LAGUNA
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2198 / January 18, 2011
PER CURIAM
Facts
This Administrative case at bench stemmed from a judicial audit and
inventory of pending cases conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), in Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, Sta. Cruz, Laguna and in Branch 74,
Regional Trial Court, Malabon City. The audits were conducted because
respondent Judge Leonardo L. Leonida applied for Optional Retirement effective
July 5, 2008.
In sum, Judge Leonida failed to decide 102 criminal cases and 43 civil
cases both in Branch 27 and Branch 74, and failed to resolve motions in ten (10)
civil cases in Branch 27.
Issue
1 Whether or not Judge Leonida is guilty of gross incompetence and gross
inefficiency for failure to decide one hundred two (102) criminal cases and
forty-three (43) civil cases.
Ruling
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 16 of 30

ETHICS
Precedents have shown that the failure of a judge to decide a case within
the reglementary period warrants administrative sanction. The Court treats such
cases with utmost rigor for any delay in the administration of justice; no matter
how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case.
Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice; it undermines the peoples
faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to
disrepute.
As a general principle, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts
must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely
indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and
speedy discharge of judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are
regarded as mandatory. In the same vein, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct is emphatic in enjoining judges to administer justice without
delay by disposing of the courts business promptly and deciding cases within
the period prescribed by law.
Judge Leonida was clearly remiss in his duties as a judge for he did not
take the above constitutional command to heart. Neither did he observe the
above rules which have encapsulated the Courts strict message: the need and
the imperative for judges to promptly and expeditiously decide cases including
all incidents therein.
MANSUETA T. RUBIN vs. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR.,

Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2267 / January 19, 2011
BRION
Facts
Mansueta Rubin, the widow of the late Feliciano Rubin who was appointed
as the Judicial Administrator of Spouses Rubin, charged Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr.
of Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust, Grave Abuse of Authority of a
Judge, Manifest Bias and Partiality, and Violation of Judicial Conduct in handling
the Intestate proceedings of Spouses Dioscoro Rubin and Emperatriz Rubin. The
complainant alleged that the respondent Judge, by way of devious schemes and
clever machinations extorted money from the aforesaid Estate by lending
expertise in connivance with other lawyer in pursuing an alleged claim against
the Estate allegedly intended for workers wages as money claims against the
Estate, in another labor case. In addition to that, the investigation reveals that
Judge Aguirre sent a letter to Mr. Feliciano Rubin to discuss and to expedite a
possible extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the deceased Spouses Rubin.
Issues
1 Whether or not the respondent committed impropriety when he sent a
letter to the administrator of the estate under settlement pending before
his court?
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 17 of 30

ETHICS
Ruling
In Agustin v. Mercado, we declared that employees of the court have no
business meeting with litigants or their representatives under any circumstance.
This prohibition is more compelling when it involves a judge who, because of his
position, must strictly adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct; a judge
must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.
Under the circumstances, Judge Aguirres act was improper considering
that he opened himself to suspicions in handling the case. His action also raised
doubts about his impartiality and about his integrity in performing his judicial
function.
We take note that the complained act was committed before the New
Code of Judicial Conduct took effect on June 1, 2004. Under the
circumstances, Judge Aguirre is liable under the provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities.
RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA, ET AL.,
ALL EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS against
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS, CA Mindanao Station
A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J / January 11, 2011
VELASCO, JR.
Facts
The complainants filed with this Court an unverified letter-complaint dated
April 30, 2008 charging Justice Elbinias with Gross Inefficiency; Bribe Solicitation;
Drinking Liquor in Office Premises; Personal Use of Government Property and
Resources; Falsification of a Favored Employees Daily Time Record; Disrespect
Towards fellow Justices; Oppression through Intemperate, Oppressive and
Threatening Language; and Grave Abuse of Authority.
They prayed for (1) the dismissal from service of Justice Elbinias; (2) his
preventive suspension pending investigation of the instant administrative
complaint; (3) the provision of security to them from his retaliation and reprisal
on account of this complaint; and (4) the acceptance by the Court of their
enclosed resignation letters without the prior approval of Justice Elbinias for fear
that they would be peremptorily terminated by him instead.
Issue
1. Whether or not the anonymous complaint will prosper.
Ruling
It must be noted that most of the complainants are lawyers, and are
presumed and ought to know the formal requirement of verification for
administrative complaints as stated under Section 1, Rule 140:
SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings
for the discipline

of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 18 of 30

ETHICS
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by
the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the
facts alleged therein or by documents which may
substantiate their allegations, or upon an anonymous
complaint, supported by public records of indubitable
integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly
and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of
standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of
Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Emphasis supplied.)
The above rule provides three ways by which administrative proceedings
against judges may be instituted: (1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court; (2)
upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons having personal knowledge
of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said
allegations; or (3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records
of indubitable integrity.
Indeed, complainants not only failed to execute a verified complaint but
also never submitted their affidavits showing personal knowledge of the
allegations embodied in their letter-complaints.
Even granting arguendo and considering the letter-complaints as
anonymous complaints, still these cannot prosper as stated earlier because the
averments and material allegations of complainants are neither verifiable from
public records of indubitable integrity nor supported or substantiated by other
competent evidence submitted by complainants.
ELADIO D. PERFECTO vs. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA,

Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Catarman, Northern
Samar
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270 / January 31, 2011
CARPIO MORALES
Facts
Eladio D. Perfecto charges Judge Alma Consuelo Esidera, Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Northern Samar, Branch 20, of soliciting and
receiving at the Prosecutors Office the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00)
from practitioner Atty. Albert Yruma, and the same amount from Public
Prosecutor Rosario Diaz, purportedly to defray expenses for a religious
celebration and barangay fiesta. Furthermore, complainant charges respondent
with acts of impropriety scolding her staff in open court and treating in an
inhuman and hostile manner practitioners who are not her friends. He adds
that respondent even arrogantly treats public prosecutors assigned to her sala.
Issue
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 19 of 30

ETHICS
1
Whether or not the act of the respondent constitutes Impropriety and

Unbecoming Conduct.
Ruling
Respondents act of proceeding to the Prosecutors Office under the guise
of soliciting for a religious cause betrays not only her lack of maturity as a judge
but also a lack of understanding of her vital role as an impartial dispenser of
justice, held in high esteem and respect by the local community, which must be
preserved at all times. It spawns the impression that she was using her office to
unduly influence or pressure Atty. Yruma, a private lawyer appearing before her
sala, and Prosecutor Diaz into donating money through her charismatic group for
religious purposes.
To stress how the law frowns upon even any appearance of impropriety in
a magistrates activities, it has often been held that a judge must be like
Caesars wife - above suspicion and beyond reproach. Respondents act
discloses a deficiency in prudence and discretion that a member of the judiciary
must exercise in the performance of his official functions and of his activities as
a private individual.
In Atty. Guanzon, et al. v. Judge Rufon (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2038; 19 October
2007), the Court found respondent Judge Rufon guilty of vulgar and unbecoming
conduct for uttering discriminatory remarks against women lawyers and
litigants. Although respondent judge may attribute his intemperate language to
human frailty, his noble position in the bench nevertheless demands from him
courteous speech in and out of the court. Judges are demanded to be always
temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in language.
It is never trite to caution respondent to be prudent and circumspect in
both speech and action, keeping in mind that her conduct in and outside the
courtroom is always under constant observation.
PIO ANGELIA vs. JUDGE JESUS L. GRAGEDA,

Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2220 / February 7, 2011
MENDOZA
Facts
Pio Angelia filed a verified complaint against Judge Grageda for the delay
in the resolution of motions relative to Civil Case No. 54-2001, entitled Pio
Angelia v. Arnold Oghayan. Angelia averred that such civil case was filed way
back on August 8, 2001. After numerous postponements, pre-trial was finally set
on December 6, 2007. On December 20, 2007, counsel for complainant received
an order dated December 6, 2007 dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
On December 28, 2007, Angelia filed a motion for reconsideration reasoning out
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 20 of 30

ETHICS
that the failure to prosecute could not be attributed to him. On July 28, 2008, he
filed his Urgent Motion for the Early Resolution of said December 2007 Motion for
Reconsideration. He claimed that despite the lapse of a considerably long period
of time, no action was taken by Judge Grageda.
Judge Grageda also admitted that while there was an apparent failure on
his part to resolve the motion earlier, such delay was not intentional but simply
brought about by the sheer volume of work in his sala, as there were many times
that he was the only acting RTC Judge within his district, comprising of 2 cities
and 3 municipalities in Davao del Norte.
Issue
1 Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in resolving a
motion.
Ruling
In consonance with the Constitutional mandate that all lower courts
decide or resolve cases or matters within three (3) months from their date of
submission, the Code of Judicial Conduct in Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 3.05
of Canon 3, provide:
Rule 1.02 A judge should administer justice impartially and without
delay.
Rule 3.05 A judge should dispose of the courts business promptly and
decide cases within the required periods.
This Court has consistently held that failure to decide cases and other
matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and
warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate.
Such delay is clearly violative of the above-cited rules. Delay in resolving
motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of
ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and
constitutes gross inefficiency. As a trial judge, Judge Grageda was a frontline
official of the judiciary and should have at all times acted with efficiency and
with probity.
Judges must decide cases and resolve matters with dispatch because any
delay in the administration of justice deprives litigants of their right to a speedy
disposition of their case and undermines the peoples faith in the judiciary.
Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied.
TERESITA D. SANTECO vs. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE
A.C. No. 5834 / February 22, 2011
PER CURIAM
Facts
The Court, in an administrative case filed against Atty. Luna B. Avance,
found guilty of gross misconduct for, among others, abandoning her clients
cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 21 of 30

ETHICS
her without any explanation for doing so. She was then ordered suspended from
the practice of law for a period of five years.
Subsequently, while respondents five-year suspension from the practice
of law was still in effect, the then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock
receive letter-report informing him that respondent had appeared and actively
participated in three cases wherein she misrepresented herself as "Atty. Liezl
Tanglao." When her opposing counsels confronted her and showed to the court a
certification regarding her suspension, respondent admitted and conceded that
she is Atty. Luna B. Avance, but qualified that she was only suspended for three
years and that her suspension has already been lifted.
The respondent was ordered to comment but failed to do so. She was
found guilty of indirect contempt and FINED in the amount of Thirty Thousand
Pesos. But despite due notice, however, respondent failed to pay the fine
imposed
Issue
1 Whether or not the respondents acts warrants her disbarment.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent unfit to continue as a member of the bar.
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyers duty to uphold the dignity and authority
of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a
lawyers obedience to court orders and processes. Here, respondents conduct
evidently fell short of what is expected of her as an officer of the court as she
obviously possesses a habit of defying this Courts orders.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct
and/or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to wit:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
In repeatedly disobeying this Courts orders, respondent proved herself unworthy
of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to the need
to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the
court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 22 of 30

ETHICS
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC / February 8, 2011
PER CURIAM
Facts
Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas
Organization, seek reconsideration of the decision of the Court dated October 12,
2010 that dismissed their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and
gross neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the decision
he wrote for the Court in G.R. No. 162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo. Mainly,
petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of the
commission of plagiarism in the Philippines.
Issue
1 Whether or not the decision in Vinuya v. Romulo should be annulled on
ground of plagiarism.
Ruling
Plagiarism, a term not defined by statute, has a popular or common
definition. To plagiarize, says Webster, is "to steal and pass off as ones own" the
ideas or words of another. Stealing implies malicious taking. Blacks Law
Dictionary, the worlds leading English law dictionary quoted by the Court in its
decision, defines plagiarism as the "deliberate and knowing presentation of
another person's original ideas or creative expressions as ones own." The
presentation of another persons ideas as ones own must be deliberate or
premeditateda taking with ill intent.
There is no commonly used dictionary in the world that embraces in the
meaning of plagiarism errors in attribution by mere accident or in good faith.
In Vinuya, Justice Del Castillo examined and summarized the facts as seen
by the opposing sides in a way that no one has ever done. He identified and
formulated the core of the issues that the parties raised. And when he had done
this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their resolution. It was here
that he drew materials from various sources, including the three foreign authors
cited in the charges against him. He compared the divergent views these
present as they developed in history. He then explained why the Court must
reject some views in light of the peculiar facts of the case and applied those that
suit such facts. Finally, he drew from his discussions of the facts and the law the
right solution to the dispute in the case. On the whole, his work was original. He
had but done an honest work.
The Court will not, therefore, consistent with established practice in the
Philippines and elsewhere, dare permit the filing of actions to annul the decisions
promulgated by its judges or expose them to charges of plagiarism for honest
work done.
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 23 of 30

ETHICS
LYDELLE L. CONQUILLA vs. JUDGE LAURO G. BERNARDO,
Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue, Bulacan
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737 / February 9, 2011
CARPIO
Facts
A criminal complaint for direct assault was filed against the complainant
Conquilla before the MTC of Bocaue, Bulacan. On 8 July 2008, respondent judge
conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to hold the
complainant for trial for the crime of direct assault.
Complainant then filed an administrative complaint, alleging that under
A.M. No. 05-08-[2]6-SC, first level court judges no longer have the authority to
conduct preliminary investigations. Thus, she avers that respondent judge
committed an illegal act constituting gross ignorance of the law and procedure
when he conducted the preliminary investigation and issued the warrant of
arrest.
Issue
1 Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of law.
Ruling
The conduct of preliminary investigation by respondent judge was in direct
contravention of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on 3 October 2005,
amending Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by
removing the conduct of preliminary investigation from judges of the first level
courts. Thus, under Section 2 of Rule 112, only the following officers are
authorized to conduct preliminary investigations: (a) Provincial or City
Prosecutors and their assistants; (b) National and Regional State Prosecutors;
and (c) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
Clearly, MTC judges are no longer authorized to conduct preliminary
investigation. It was therefore incumbent upon respondent judge to forward the
records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary
investigation, instead of conducting the preliminary investigation himself.
Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge
shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Indeed,
competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial
office. Section 3, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to
maintain and enhance their knowledge and skills to properly perform their
judicial functions.
When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply
the law. Anything less is gross ignorance of the law. Judges should exhibit more
than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules, and
should be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and
jurisprudence.
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 24 of 30

ETHICS
DANIEL G. SEVILLA vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO S. LINDO, METROPOLITAN

TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, MALABON CITY
BERSAMIN
Facts
Daniel G. Sevilla charged Hon. Francisco S. Lindo, then the Presiding Judge
of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, in Malabon City with delay in the
disposition of Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260 (violation of BP22).
Sevilla alleged that he was the private complainant in the criminal case
which was raffled to Branch 55, presided by Judge Lindo; that he testified once in
the case, but his testimony pertained only to his personal circumstances; that
after he gave such partial testimony, Judge Lindo adjourned the session for lack
of material time, and persistently reset the subsequent hearings for lack of
material time; that Judge Lindos indifference was designed to force him to
accept the offer of an amicable settlement made by the accused; and that Judge
Lindos coercion was manifested in open court and in his chamber by telling him
in the presence of the accused: Mr. Sevilla, ang hirap mo namang pakiusapan.
Konting pera lang yan. Bahala ka maghintay sa wala.
Issue
1 Whether or not Judge Lindo was administratively liable for the numerous
postponements in Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260.
Ruling
Judge Lindo should be held liable for delay in the disposition of his cases
that was tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his
official duties.
Although the postponement of a hearing in a civil or criminal case may at
times be unavoidable, the Court disallows undue or unnecessary postponements
of court hearings, simply because they cause unreasonable delays in the
administration of justice and, thus, undermine the peoples faith in the Judiciary,
aside from aggravating the financial and emotional burdens of the litigants. For
this reason, the Court has enjoined that postponements and resettings should be
allowed only upon meritorious grounds, and has consistently reminded all trial
judges to adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements.
The strict judicial policy on postponements applies with more force and
greater reason to prosecutions involving violations of BP 22, whose prompt
resolution has been ensured by their being now covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure. The Court has pronounced that the Rule on Summary
Procedure was precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive
determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the
speedy disposition of cases.
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 25 of 30

ETHICS
RENE C. RICABLANCA vs. JUDGE HECTOR B. BARILLO

CARPIO MORALES
Facts
In a verified complaint dated July 3, 2006, Rene C. Ricablanca, Court
Stenographer I of the Municipal Trial Court of Guihulngan, Negros Oriental,
charged Judge Hector Barillo, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Canlaon City, with Grave Judicial Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the
Law.
The complainant alleged that while respondent was still Acting Presiding
Judge of the MTC Guihulngan, he issued orders archiving the five (5) criminal
cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guihulngan, instead of
forwarding them to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for review and
appropriate action.
Issue
1 Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty for gross ignorance of the
law.
Ruling
The Court finds that, indeed, respondent is liable for gross ignorance of
the law. A judge owes it to himself and his office to know basic legal principles by
heart and to harness that knowledge correctly and justly, failing which publics
confidence in the courts is eroded.
In issuing the orders archiving the five criminal cases, respondent failed to
consider that he was acting not as a trial judge but an investigating judge of an
MTC whose actions were thus governed by Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure on preliminary investigations. He ought to have known that
after conducting preliminary investigation on the criminal cases, it was his duty
to transmit his resolution thereon to the provincial or city prosecutor for
appropriate action. His failure to do so betrays an utter lack of familiarity with
the Rules.
The complaint against respondent is for gross ignorance of the law in
which the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and
jurisprudence; it must have been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or
corruption the presence of which in the present case is not clear.
Be that as it may, such leeway afforded a judge does not mean that he
should not evince due care in the performance of his adjudicatory functions.
Sanctions are still in order as such lapses in judgment cannot be countenanced.
As the Court has repeatedly stressed, a judge, having applied for the position
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 26 of 30

ETHICS
and appointed as such, is presumed to know the law. Thus, when the law is so
elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT - BRANCH 56, MANDAUE CITY, CEBU
A.M. No. 09-7-284-RTC / February 16, 2011
PERALTA
Facts
This administrative matter stemmed from the Report dated July 6, 2009 on
the judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted by the Audit Team of
the Office of the Court Administrator in March 2007 in the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaue City, Branch 56, Cebu, in anticipation of the compulsory retirement of
Judge Augustine A. Vestil, then presiding judge of the same court.
The report disclosed that during the audit, the trial court has: (1) a total
caseload of 1,431 cases consisting of 555 civil cases and 876 criminal cases; (2)
15 cases submitted for decision, but were already beyond the reglementary
period; (3) two cases with pending incidents awaiting resolution, which were
beyond the reglementary period; and (4) 247 cases, which had remained
dormant for a considerable length of time.
Issue
1 Whether or not Judge Vestil should be administratively liable for failure to
decide cases within the reglementary period.
Ruling
We cannot overemphasize the Courts policy on prompt resolution of
disputes. Justice delayed is justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for
decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of Section
16, Article III of the Constitution.
The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the
fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with
which disputes are resolved. Thus, judges must perform their official duties with
utmost diligence if public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. There is
no excuse for mediocrity in the performance of judicial functions. The position of
judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the law and the
Constitution in the discharge of official duties.
Failure to render decisions and orders within the mandated period
constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
which then makes Judge Vestil liable administratively. Section 9, Rule 140 of the
Revised Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as
a less serious charge punishable under Section 11 (B) of the same Rule.
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 27 of 30

ETHICS
JUDGE NAPOLEON E. INOTURAN vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR.,

Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan,
Negros Occidenta
SANCHO E. GUINANAO vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362 / A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785 / February 22, 2011
PER CURIAM
Facts
Before us are two (2) consolidated cases filed against Judge Manuel Q.
Limsiaco, Jr. The first case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to comply with
the directives of the Court. He was found guilty of ignorance of the law and
procedure and for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The second case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to decide a case within
the 90-day reglementary period. This court resolved to declare Judge Limsiaco in
contempt and to impose a fine of P1,000.00 for his continued failure to file the
required comment to the administrative complaint.
Issue
1 Whether or not Judge Limsiaco should be administratively liable for
unethical conduct and gross inefficiency under the provisions of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct.
Ruling
Case law teaches us that a judge is the visible representation of the law,
and more importantly of justice; he or she must, therefore, be the first to follow
the law and weave an example for the others to follow. Interestingly, in Julianito
M. Salvador v. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., etc., a case where Judge Limsiaco
was also the respondent, we already had the occasion to impress upon him the
clear import of the directives of the Court, thus:
For a judge to exhibit indifference to a resolution requiring him to
comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially
is gross misconduct, and may even be considered as outright disrespect
for the Court. The office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful
orders of his superiors. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court is not a
mere request and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such
failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in
character, but has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to
remain with, if not contempt of the judicial system.
We cannot overemphasize that compliance with the rules, directives and
circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that a judge accepts
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 28 of 30

ETHICS
upon assumption to office. This duty is verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct. The obligation to uphold the dignity of his office and the
institution which he belongs to is also found in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct under Rule 2.01 which mandates a judge to behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by Judge Limsiaco
constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Courts authority. His
conduct also reveals his deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of
the Court, shown by his failure to heed our warnings and directives. Judge
Limsiacos actions further disclose his inability to accept our instructions.
Moreover, his conduct failed to provide a good example for other court
personnel, and the public as well, in placing significance to the Courts directives
and the importance of complying with them.
GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS

+
Ad Majorem DEI Gloriam
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Manila and Batangas City
July 9, 2013
THE BARRISTERS CLUB
OFFICERS
Chancellor:
Vice Chancellor:
ABBYGAILE T. GONZALES
ROMEL L. BASILAN
Secretary:
JESSA ALYSSA G. REYES
Treasurer:
MILDRED P. AMBROS
PRO:
ROBYN B. DELA PENA
PRO:
AARON JAMES E. CO
Business Manager:
RUDDY ALLEN N. YEE
Business Manager:
LESLIE D. RAGUINDIN
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 29 of 30

ETHICS
SSG
Representative:
Ex-Officio:
Adviser:
Dean, College of
Law:
ANNE LUCILLE B. RUIZ

RONA B. ESTRADA
ATTY. ISAGANI G. CALDERON
ATTY. REYNALDO U.
AGRANZAMENDEZ
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS

3:14
BARRISTERS CLUB
Page 30 of 30

Legal Ethics Green Notes 2013

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

Legal Ethics Green Notes 2013

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no

2. Which of the following are the 4 duties of a lawyer?

To the Bar, to the Constitution, to the People

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

When authorized by the client

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

22. Which of the following is an unethical form of attorneys fee

25. Who among the following officers/offices are not authorized to

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

It is a pleading that while is good in form is false in fact?

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

delay no man for money or malice

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

Practice of Law for private concerns

38. Which among the following tasks is excluded in the general

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

file a motion for withdrawal in court

43.Under the Civil Code, Attorneys Fees by way of damages can be

When exemplary damages are awarded

Right to Quantum Meruit

Which of the following is not a ground for disbarment of lawyer?

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

Violation of oath of office

Law professors and bar reviewers

Permission sought from and granted by the Office of the Court

Testimonials of former clients

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

Election as officer and active participation in the activities of the IBP

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

However, we find Judge Dinopol to have committed a serious impropriety

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

MANSUETA T. RUBIN vs. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR.,

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

for the discipline

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

ELADIO D. PERFECTO vs. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA,

prize of the high calling of God

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL