BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

RODOLFO RAMA RIO v. HON. JUDGE ALFONSO R. CAWALING

A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391
June 7, 2004
FACTS:
In a verified Letter-Complaint dated 5 September 2000, Rodolfo Rama
Rio charged Judge Alfonso R. Cawaling of the MCTC of Cajidiocan, Romblon
with bias, impartiality, abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law,
contending that Respondent Judge conducted a preliminary investigation of
the formers case without giving due notice to him, and prematurely and with
undue haste, issued a warrant for his arrest. Respondent Judge avers that
Rios case was not covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, the
imposable penalty being higher than six months. As such, he had no
alternative but to issue the warrant of arrest against against the
complainant. A case for gross ignorance of the law was instituted against
Respondent Judge, but the Investigating Judge recommended that the latter
be absolved of any liability.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Judge should be absolved of any liability.
HELD/RATIO:
Respondent Judge should NOT be absolved of any liability. The
crime of Rio is punishable with imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1)
day
to
six
(6)
months
(arresto
mayor)
and
a
fine
not
exceeding P500.00. Thus, the subject criminal case should have been tried
under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. The respondent applied the
regular procedure; he issued a warrant of arrest against the complainant
after making a preliminary examination of the affidavit against the latter. It is
clear then that the respondent judge ought to be sanctioned for his failure to
apply the proper procedure. A judge should be the epitome of competence,
integrity and independence to be able to render justice and uphold public
confidence in the legal system. He must be conversant with basic legal
principles and well-settled doctrines. He should strive for excellence and
seek the truth with passion.The respondent failed in this regard and, by his
actuations, exhibited gross ignorance of the law.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. HON. FRANCISCO C. JOVEN

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1646
March 11, 2003
FACTS:

From April 10 to 11, 2000, a team from the Office of the Court
Administrator conducted a judicial audit of the RTC Branch 29 in Bislig City,
Surigao del Sur of which Respondent Francisco C. Joven was the Presiding
Judge. The team reported that Responent Judge failed to act upon and render
judgments in several criminal and civil cases pending in his sala.
Immediately after the audit, Respondent Judge gave his explanation and
resolved undecided cases. During the pendency of his administrative case,

BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

Respondent compulsorily retired from service, manifested his compliance

with all matters reported in the judicial audit and requested that the
administrative case be considered closed and terminated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Judge be acquitted of administrative
liability in view of his retirement and compliance with the OCA audit report.
HELD/RATIO:
Respondent Judge should NOT be acquitted of administrative
liability in view of his retirement and compliance with the OCA audit
report. After a careful evaluation of the records, the Court agrees with the
finding of the Investigating Justice that the reasons cited by Respondent for
failing to promptly act on and decide the aforecited cases are insufficient. It
must be noted that Respondent exerted effort to comply with his official
duties and act on the numerous cases pending in his sala only after his office
was audited by a team from the OCA. It bears to stress that the Court is
cognizant of the predicament of judges in rendering decisions on cases,
especially those that involve complex questions of facts or law. Almost
always, their situation is compounded by heavy caseloads which may at
times make the allotted period to decide the cases insufficient. Hence, the
Court allows a certain degree of latitude to judges and grants them a
reasonable extension of time to resolve cases upon proper application by the
judge concerned and on meritorious grounds. In the case at bar, respondent
could have requested for a reasonable extension of time to decide the cases
pending before his sala but he did not. For failure to do so, respondent
should be held accountable.