Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FLORDELIZA
Facts:
Dr. Amparo A. Lachica, the Municipal Health Officer of Jose Abad Santos, Davao del Sur, charged the
respondent, Judge Rolando A. Flordeliza of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jose Abad Santos-Sarangani, Davao
del Sur, with abuse of judicial position and intimidation, for allegedly compelling her to sign a death certificate even
though she was not the attending physician. According to Lachica, during a party, Judge Flordeliza, who was drunk at
that time, threatened to file an administrative case against her if she will refuse to sign the death certificate.
Issue:
Whether respondent-judge is guilty as charged of abuse of judicial position and intimidation amounting to
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Ruling:
Yes. A judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior,
not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
reproach.
From all the foregoing, as well as the evidence on record, this Court is convinced that the charge of
misconduct against the respondent judge has been established by substantial evidence, which is the quantum of
proof required in administrative cases. His undue interest in having complainant sign the Death Certificate is highly
questionable, to say the least. Further, his inebriated demeanor and incoherent behavior during the festivities, as
attested to by a witness is reprehensible in a judge and should be subjected to disciplinary action. Respondent was
FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/am_mtj_98_1169.htm
The RTC Branch I issued an Order requiring Judge Hontanosas to relinquish the
cases. Instead of obeying the order of the Superior Court, JudgeHontanosas forced the
Fiscal to rest the case, even before the prosecution could cross-examine the defense
witnesses. Thereafter, Judge Hontanosasrendered a judgment of ACQUITTAL in
favor of BARBARA ONG and all her other co-accused.
It is a matter of common knowledge among lawyers in Bohol and the general public
in Tagbilaran that Judge Hontanosas goes to Cebu on the afternoon fast boat (90
minutes travel time) and comes back on the early trips from Cebu to Tagbilaran. He
does this 3 to 4 times a week. He goes to the Casinos inCebu and spends the whole
night in the casinos, before going to Cebu pier to take the early trip back
to Tagbilaran, arriving in Tagbilaran at 6:00 a.m. or7:00 a.m.
Every Sunday, and in every so-called Derby cockfights, Judge Hontanosas is seen in
the cockpits of Tagbilaran and the nearby towns.
We have talked to several lawyers and litigants who have appeared before
Judge Hontanosas, and they have informed us that for as little as P500 andP5,000, you
can secure a decision in your favor. Surely, none of these litigants and lawyers will
come out to testify against Respondent Hontanosas. But we are stating this here in
order to demonstrate the damage that Judge Hontanosas has done to the public
perception of the judiciary in Tagbilaran City.
Held:
to prove it. He even owes it to the justice system, the public, and the legal
profession to prove such accusation.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby Resolves to (a) DISMISS, for want of
merit, the charge against respondent Judge Agapito L.Hontanosas, Jr., of
open defiance of a lawful order of a superior court; and (b) IMPOSE upon him
a FINE of P12,000 for violation of Circular No. 4 dated 27 August 1980 and,
more specifically, for violation of Section 5(3-b) of P.D. No. 1067-B and
Paragraphs 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. He is STERNLY
WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely.
The Court further resolves to REQUIRE Atty. VICTOR DE LA SERNA to
SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution, why he
should not be administratively sanctioned for misconduct or violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for his aforementioned acts.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/am_rtj_02_1697.htm
The Facts
In an undated letter, a concerned citizen charged respondent Judge Jose
S. Majaducon (respondent judge) with not wearing [a] black robe during court
sessions and with being habitually tardy.
[2]
[5]
Held:
On Respondent Judges Refusal to Wear
the Mandated Judicial Robe
a judge must take care not only to remain true to the high ideals of
competence and integrity his robe represents, but also that he wears one in
the first place.
While circumstances, such as the medical condition claimed by
respondent judge, may exempt one from complying with Circular No. 25, he
must first secure the Courts permission for such exemption. He cannot simply
excuse himself, like respondent judge, from complying with the requirement.
Neither does the fact that respondent judge, if he is to be believed, has
resumed wearing the robe exculpate him from liability. Such does not alter the
fact that at the time the complaints in the present case were filed, respondent
judge was openly violating Circular No. 25. Respondent judges medical
condition and his subsequent compliance serve only to mitigate his liability.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/sep1986/am_351_1986.html
Ramirez vs Corpus-Macandog 144 SCRA 462 (1986)
Facts:
http://philippinecasedigests.blogspot.com/p/backgrounder-new-code-of-judicial.html
https://apps.americanbar.org/rol/publications/philippines-judicial-code-02-2007.pdf
http://philippinecasedigests.blogspot.com/p/backgrounder-new-code-of-judicial.html