misconduct, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, arbitrary detention, incompetence, grave abuse of discretion, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service allegedly for erroneously issuing a warrant of arrest against Bayaca. It was alleged that Bayaca was convicted by Judge Ramos in a criminal case for arson through reckless imprudence and imposed upon him the penalty of imprisonment, with all the accessory penalties imposed by law in addition to the payment of costs and damages. On appeal, the RTC deleted the penalty of imprisonment. However, Judge Ramos subsequently issued a warrant of arrest and Commitment on Final Sentence which led to complainants incarceration at the Solano District Jail from August 8 to 28, 2006. In his comment, the judge clarified that his issuance of the warrant of arrest against Bacaya was a mistake done in good faith and that the same was just a simple negligence. Should the judge be disciplined?
Held: Yes. The judge was inexcusably negligent
when he issued a Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence despite the deletion by the appellate court of that portion of the judgment imposing the penalty of imprisonment. In the performance of his duties, Judge Ramos failed to observe that diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service. If only Judge Ramos had exercised the requisite thoroughness and caution, he would have noted not only the modification of the monetary awards by the appellate court, but also the deletion of the penalty of imprisonment upon which the Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence that he signed was based. (Bayaca v. Judge Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ07-1676, Jan. 29, 2009)
SEC. 1, CANON 6
Facts: The record shows that, as of
September 30, 2006, the respondent had not resolved seventy-one (71) motions for reconsideration within the prescribed ninety-day period, and he had resolved one hundred seventy-nine motions for reconsideration beyond the reglementary period. As of the same date, eighty-two cases submitted for decision were still undecided, even after the lapse of the twelve-month period prescribed by the Constitution. He had also decided four hundred nine case beyond the one-year period. Held: As to respondents other administrative assignments, including organizing special events, the respondent should only be reminded that decision-making is the primordial and most important duty of a member of the judiciary. The delay incurred by responent justice in deciding or resolving the numerous cases and matters mentioned above is, therefore, unjustified. Even in the caseof PNB v. NLRC and Archinas alone, the respondents failure to resolve PNBs June 13, 2001 motion for reconsideration until after the lapse of more than five years, despite Archinas four motions urging immediate resolution of the same, truly smacks of gross inefficiency and serious dereliction of duty. Worse, it invites suspicion of malice, and casts doubt on the justices fairness andintegrity. (Atty. Roberto C. Padilla vs Assoc. Justice Asuncion, Court of appeals A.M. NO. 06-44-CA-J)
Facts: Judge Limsiaco was charged with gross
ignorance of the law and procedure and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct when it was established by the records and by his own admission that he decided an ejectment case before his sala more than two (2) years after it
was declared submitted for resolution. Due to
his delay of rendering the decision, he was held guilty of the said charge. He moved for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. Despite the extension of time given however, Judge Limsiaco failed to file his motion for reconsideration and the required explanation thrice. In another complaint against him for Delay in the Disposition of a Case, the OCA issued an order for him to file a comment for the administrative complaint. Is the respondent judge administratively liable for unethical conduct and gross inefficiency under the provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Section 5 of Canon 6? Held: Yes. 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. 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. A resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. (Inoturan, v. Limsiaco, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362, February. 22, 2011)
Section 2 canon 6
Facts: On 4 November 2003, Judge Go
informed the OCA that during a physical inventory of records in her court, she discovered that there were records of cases which remained in the possession of former Judge Carteciano who had already compulsorily retired from the service on 29 August 2000. Acting on her inquiry, the OCA directed Judge Go to issue an order directing Judge Carteciano to immediately return to the court the case records in his possession. A number of months passed and still Judge Carteciano failed to comply with Judge Go's order. Should the judge return court records upon retirement? Held: Yes. Since the proper and efficient management of the court is the responsibility of the judge, he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of official functions. Thus, a judge is obliged to return to the court the records of the cases filed in his sala upon his retirement. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Retired Judge Carteciano,A.M. No. MTJ-07-1664, Feb. 18, 2008) Section 5 canon 6 Facts: The instant administrative case arose when petitioner Imbang filed a sworn LetterComplaint charging Judge Del Rosario, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, PatnonganBugasong-Valderama, Patnongan, Antique with failure to decide a case within the 90-day reglementary period relative to Civil Case No. 318 entitled Dolores Imbang v. Alice Guerra for collection of sum of money with damages. Why should delay be avoided in the administration of justice? Held: Delay results in undermining the people's faith in the judiciary and from whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and expected, and reinforces in the mind of the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly. Certainly, undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the court dockets is still the bane of
the judiciary. Judges are expected to observe
utmost diligence and dedication in the performance of their judicial functions and the discharge of their duties. (Imbang v. Judge del Rosario, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1515, Feb. 3, 2004) SEC. 5, CANON 6 Facts: Judge Angeles filed an administrative complaint for disbarment and dismissal from judiciary service against Judge Sempio Diy which stemmed from a consolidated criminal case. Judge Angeles alleged that she was the private complainant in the abovementioned cases which by order of respondent judge were submitted for decision and set for promulgation. However, said rendering of decision and promulgation of judgment incur delay after a lapse of 90 days and six (6) months, respectively, from the time it was submitted for resolution to the time it was promulgated. Respondent judge belies to the accusations hurled at her by complainant. The former counters that she decided subject cases in due time and within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court. Held: Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the NCJC states that judges shall perform all judicial duties including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. In the case at bar, there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive that could have compelled respondent to delay the resolution of the subject motion. In fact, when respondent found out about the unresolved subject motion in the consolidated cases, she immediately ordered its submission for resolution. In the absence of malice, the delay could only be due to inadvertence.
Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules
of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order constitutes a less serious charge punishable by either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three months or a fine of not more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. However, considering that it was her first infraction due to inadvertence, the court believed that admonition would suffice. (Judge Adoracion G. Angeles v. Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248 September 29,2010) Facts: An administrative complaint was filed against MCTC Judge Regencia. In this case, the civil case was already submitted for resolution. Being an ejectment case, it is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure which clearly sets a period of 30 days from the submission of the last affidavit or position paper within which a decision must be issued. Despite this, Judge Regencia rendered judgment only more than 2 years later. Held: The Supreme Court held that prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. If judges do not possess those traits, delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of the litigants. While rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases and, thus, should be regarded as mandatory, the Court has nevertheless been mindful of the plight of judges and has been understanding of circumstances that may hinder them from promptly disposing of their businesses and, as such, has allowed extensions of time due to justifiable reasons. However, Judge Regencia
failed to proffer any acceptable reason in
delaying the disposition of the ejectment case, thus, making her administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision. (Gershon N. Dulang v. Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia, MCTC, Asturias-Balamban, Cebu, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841, June 2, 2014) Section 6 canon 6 Facts: Judge Belen was charged with conduct unbecoming of a judge allegedly for humiliating, demeaning and berating a young lawyer who appeared in his sala. It was alleged that when the judge learned that the lawyer was an alumnus of MCQU and not of UP, the judge made the following statement youre not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being stated that we all are
created equal in His form and substance.
Should the judge be disciplined? Held: Yes. The judges sarcastic, humiliating, threatening and boastful remarks to a young lawyer are improper. A judge must be aware that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations, taking of the Lawyers oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentumad hominem. As a judge, he must address the merits of the case and not on the person of the counsel. Judges must be that even on the face of boorish behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court. (Atty. Mane v. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-082119, June 30, 2008)