Mercado vs Salcedo, 604 SCRA 4
Respondent Judge is guilty of serious
GEORGE P. MERCADO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
WIFE, REBECCA ROYO-MERCADO, AND
CHILDREN, NAMELY, REBECCA GAY, KRISTINA
EVITA, CRIS OLIVER AND MARIAN RICA, ALL
SURNAMED MERCADO), Complainants,
vs.
HON. ERASTO D. SALCEDO, (Ret.) PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM
CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, BRANCH 31,
Respondent.
FACTS:
These are consolidated administrative
cases filed against Judge Erasto D. Salcedo
(respondent judge), charging him with
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Complainant
formally charged the respondent judge of
committing these various unethical infractions:
(1) Mishandling of, or rendering a false report to
the Supreme Court on his investigation of Judge
Agayan by basing his "findings of facts" on
"gossip and rumors" to aid a fellow judge; (2)
Grave misconduct and impropriety in
possessing and using a stolen Pajero vehicle
with knowledge, actually and constructively,
that it was a subject of an Anti-Fencing Law
case, which he had earlier dismissed; and (3)
Serious irregularities, dishonesty or grave
misconduct relating to the handling and
improper execution of the final decision in an
Agrarian Case. During his cross-examination
before the CA, the respondent judge admitted
that he knew that the vehicle he borrowed was
owned by Leopoldo Gonzaga, who was the
accused in the Anti-Fencing case previously
before him.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Judge
Salcedo is guilty of impropriety by being in
possession of the vehicle (Pajero) of a litigant
before his sala.
HELD: Yes.
misconduct and impropriety.
The Court finds the respondent judge
guilty of dishonesty, inefficiency, and serious
misconduct for the first offense charged and
liable for gross ignorance of the law for his third
infraction. In the second issue, the act of
borrowing a vehicle by a judge or any court
employee is not per se a violation of judicial
norms and standards established for court
personnel, as borrowing is a legitimate and
neutral act that can happen in everyday life.
However, judges and court employees—by the
nature of their functions and of the norms and
standards peculiar to their positions—live their
lives under restrictions not otherwise imposed
on others; specifically, they cannot simply
borrow in situations when this act may or can
affect the performance of their duties because
of the nature of the thing borrowed or the
identity of the borrower, or in situations when
borrowing would involve ethical questions
under express rules. Respondent Judge is guilty
of serious misconduct and impropriety when he
displayed conduct that fell short of the
standards expected of a magistrate of the law.
Respondent failed to be more circumspect in his
dealings with Leopoldo Gonzaga, who was once
an accused before his sala in a criminal case for
violation of the anti-fencing law. When
Respondent Judge borrowed the subject vehicle
from the accused, he already displayed
improper and reproachable conduct.
Respondent’s justification that the he was
assured that the Pajero was not a carnapped
vehicle is inexcusable. As aptly stated by Justice
Tijam, the respondent judge’s act compromised
the image, integrity and uprightness of the
courts of law; 45 it cast suspicion not only in his
own impartiality, but also in the impartiality and
integrity of his judicial office, thereby impairing
public trust in the exercise of his judicial
functions.
Macias vs Macias, 601 SCRA 203
MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS, complainant, vs.
MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS
FACTS:
This involves an administrative
complaint filed by complainant Margie C.
Macias charging her husband, Mariano Joaquin
S. Macias (Judge Macias), with immorality and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. The complainant alleged that sometime
in 1998, respondent engaged in an illicit liaison
and immoral relationship with a certain Judilyn
Seranillos (Seranillos). From a list of seven (7)
witnesses, complainant manifested that only
four (4) witnesses shall be presented. The first
witness, Roel Mutia, testified that he was hired
by complainant’s son to tail Judge Macias after
suspecting an illicit affair. In summary, Mutia
testified that he saw Judge Macias and
Seranillos enter a house in Dipolog City on the
afternoon of October 1999, and that both dined
and spent the night there together inside one
bedroom but later on admitted as not sure if
Seranillos did spend the night inside the said
house, or whether she left that night and just
returned the following morning. The second
witness was Aniceto Zozobrado who testified
that he was hired by Seranillos as driver of a
motorcycle which is allegedly a gift from
respondent and that he served as an errand
boy, but later admitted that he was not sure if
the motorcycle was owned by respondent and
that his statement was based merely on
presumption.
ISSUE: Whether or not the testimony by the
witnesses presented suffice respondent to be
reprimanded for his act which suggested an
appearance of impropriety.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court agrees with the
findings of the Investigating Justice. The
administrative complaint for immorality and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service against respondent Judge Macias is
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence but is
held administratively liable for unbecoming
conduct and fined to be deducted from his
retirement benefit.
The testimonies of Mutia and
Zozobrado are specious and insufficient to
convincingly prove that respondent committed
disreputable conduct beyond reasonable doubt.
Although, the charges of immorality and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service were not satisfactorily proven by
complainant, respondent cannot be completely
exonerated. Mutia’s testimony that he saw
Judge Macias having dinner with Seranillos and
entering a bedroom with her may not
satisfactorily prove the charge of immorality,
but this act certainly suggested an appearance
of impropriety, Judge Macias being a married
man failed to exercise great care and
circumspection in his actions. Such behaviour
undeniably constituted unbecoming conduct, a
light offense punishable by a fine not less than
P1,000.00 but not more than P10,000.00. In
light of the circumstances affecting not only the
reputation of Judge Macias himself but the
image and reputation of the whole judiciary as
well, we find it reasonable to impose upon him
the maximum fine of P10,000.00.
Lorenzana vs Ma. Cecilia Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-
09-2000 (April 2, 2014)
ANTONIO M. LORENZANA, complainant, vs.
JUDGE MA. CECILIA I. AUSTRIA
FACTS:
The records show that the
administrative complaints arose from a case
where the respondent was the presiding judge
and complainant was the Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer of a
company then under rehabilitation proceedings.
Aside from various complaints, complainant
filed supplemental complaint where he alleged
that the respondent committed an act of
impropriety when she displayed her
photographs which were “seductive” in a social
networking website called “Friendster”, where
she posted her personal details as an RTC Judge,
allegedly for the purpose of finding a
compatible partner. She also posed with her
upper body barely covered by a shawl, allegedly
suggesting that nothing was worn underneath
except probably a brassiere.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent be
reprimanded by her act of posting “off-
shouldered” suggestive dress on Friendster
which she made available to the public.
HELD: Yes. The act of making the subject picture
public made respondent judge liable for act of
impropriety. The Court agrees with the
recommendation of both Justice Gonzales-Sison
and the OCA for the imposition of a fine on the
respondent but modify the amount.
While judges are not prohibited from
becoming members of and from taking part in
social networking activities, we remind them
that they do not thereby shed off their status as
judges. They carry with them in cyberspace the
same ethical responsibilities and duties that
every judge is expected to follow in his/her
everyday activities. It is in this light that we
judge the respondent in the charge of
impropriety when she posted her pictures in a
manner viewable by the public. As a judge, she
should ensure that her conduct is always above
reproach and perceived to be so by a
reasonable observer. She must never show
conceit or even an appearance thereof, or any
kind of impropriety. This exacting standard
applies both to acts involving the judicial office
and personal matters. It may be acceptable for
the respondent to show a picture of herself in
the attire she wore to her family and close
friends, but when she made this picture
available for public consumption, she placed
herself in a situation where she, and the status
she holds as a judge, may be the object of the
public’s criticism and ridicule. The nature of
cyber communications, particularly its speedy
and wide-scale character, renders this rule
necessary.
Barias vs Valencia, 581 SCRA 24
PERLA BURIAS, complainant, vs. JUDGE MIRAFE
B. VALENCIA, MTC-Irosin, Sorsogon,
respondent.
FACTS:
In a verified complaint Perla Burias
(complainant) charged Judge Mirafe B. Valencia
(respondent) of gross misconduct. Complainant
alleged that on 4 and 25 August 2005,
respondent borrowed money from complainant
in the amounts of P5,000.00 and P2,500.00,
respectively. The loans were evidenced by
promissory notes. Furthermore, respondent
reportedly called her up and threatened that
she would release any of the two (2) draft
decisions she allegedly prepared favouring
respondent in the civil case. Complainant
claimed that by reason of these threats, she was
constrained to file the instant administrative
case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated
Rule 5.02, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct that would merit respondent to be
reprimanded.
HELD: Since respondent retired from service
last 22 February 2008, the penalty of fine of
20,000.00 is imposed.
Under Rule 5.04 of Canon 5, a judge
may obtain a loan if no law prohibits such loan.
However, the law prohibits a judge from
engaging in financial transactions with a party
litigant. Respondent admitted borrowing money
from complainant during the pendency of the
case. This act alone is patently inappropriate.
The impression that respondent would rule in
favour of complainant because the former is
indebted to the latter is what the Court seeks to
avoid. A judge’s conduct should always be
beyond reproach. This Court has time and again
emphasized that no government position is
more demanding of moral righteousness and
uprightness than a seat in the judiciary. Judges
as models of law and justice are mandated to
avoid not only impropriety, but also the
appearance of impropriety, because their
conduct affects the people’s faith and
confidence in the entire judicial system
In Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis Biraogo in
Biraogo vs Nograles and Limkaichong, A.M.
Case No. 092-19 (Feb 24, 2009)
IN RE: UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C.
BIRAOGO, PETITIONER IN BIRAOGO V.
NOGRALES AND LIMKAICHONG, G.R. No.
179120.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
Santiago lll vs Enriquez, 579 SCRA 1
FACTS:
The administrative case pertains to a
verified complaint against Justice Juan Q.
Enriquez, Jr. (respondent), for gross ignorance
of the law and jurisprudence and gross
incompetence in connection with his rendering
of alleged unjust judgment on the Petition for
Reconstitution of Lost/Destroyed Original
Certificate of Title. Complainant alleges, inter
alia, that: despite the overwhelming evidence of
complainant, all corroborated by several
government agencies, like the original duplicate
certificate of OCT No. 56, certified copy of
Decree No. 1275, PC Crime Laboratory report,
Bureau of Lands record, tracing cloth of survey
plan, blue print plan, certified technical
description, Associate Justice Enriquez
deliberately twisted the law and existing
jurisprudence to grant the appeal, to the
extreme prejudice of complainant. For this
reason , such administrative complaint is filed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent can be
liable of gross ignorance of the law and gross
incompetence by rendering a decision which is
still pending.
HELD: No. The complaint is dismissed.
Respondent is not liable.
An administrative complaint is not an
appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is
still available, unless the assailed order or
decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or
dishonesty. Thus, unless he is shown to have
acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do
an injustice, not every error or mistake that a
judge commits in the performance of his duties
renders him liable. The failure to interpret the
the law or to properly appreciate the evidence
presented does not necessarily render a judge
administratively liable. Assuming arguendo that
respondent’s citation of cases in support of the
Decision and his appreciation of the facts and
evidence were erroneous, since there is no
showing that the Decision, reconsideration of
which was still pending at the time the present
complaint was filed, is tainted with fraud,
malice or dishonesty or was rendered with
deliberate intent to cause injustice, the
complaint must be dismissed. The principle of
“judicial immunity” insulates judges, and even
Justices of superior courts, from being held to
account criminally, civilly or administratively for
an erroneous decision rendered in good faith.
To hold otherwise would render judicial office
untenable. No one called upon to try the facts
or interpret the law in the process of
administering justice could be infallible in his
judgment.
Ocampo vs Arcaya-Chua, 619 SCRA 59.
FACTS:
These consolidated cases stemmed
from the administrative complaints filed against
respondent Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Visbal vs Vanilla, 584 SCRA 11
PROSECUTOR ROBERT M. VISBAL, complainant,
vs. JUDGE WENCESLAO B. VANILLA, MTCC—BR.
2, TACLOBAN CITY, respondent.
FACTS:
The case arose from the letter the
complainant sent to then Court Administrator
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., charging the
respondent with grave misconduct and gross
ignorance of the law for ordering Criminal Case
archived. The complainant in this criminal case
is with the Leyte Provincial Prosecution Office.
The complainant alleged that at the time the
respondent judge ordered the criminal case
archived, the witnesses for the Prosecution
were able, ready, and willing to testify, with due
notice to the accused after he had been
arraigned. The first witness, the complainant
himself, had already testified. He maintained
that the respondent’s act seriously violated the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by
archiving the criminal case after the issuance of
the warrant of arrest, violating the 6 months
period to archive cases.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge
showed ignorance of the law.
HELD: Yes. Premises considered, the Court fines
Judge Vanilla TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P10,000.00), with the STERN WARNING that
the commission of the same or similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely.
The Court held that respondent Judge
Vanilla showed gross ignorance of the law when
he archived Criminal Case No. 2000-08-00-01
immediately after the warrant of arrest was
issued against the accused. He violated
Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92, which allows
the archiving of a criminal case if, after the
issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused
remains at large for six (6) months from delivery
of the warrant to the proper peace officer.
Everyone, especially a judge, is presumed to
know the law; when the law is sufficiently basic
or elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes
gross ignorance of the law. A judge is called
upon to exhibit more than just a cursory
acquaintance with statutes and procedural
rules, it is imperative that he be conversant with
basic legal principles and be aware of well-
settled authoritative doctrines—he owes to the
public and to this Court the duty to be proficient
in the law and he is expected to keep abreast of
laws and prevailing jurisprudence as judges
must not only render just, correct, and impartial
decisions, resolutions, and orders, but must do
so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their
fairness, impartiality, and integrity, for good
judges are men who have mastery of the
principles of law and who discharge their duties
in accordance with law.
De la Cruz vs Judge Carretas, 559 Phil 5 (2007)
JUAN DE LA CRUZ (CONCERNED CITIZEN OF
LEGAZPI CITY), complainant, vs. JUDGE RUBEN
B. CARRETAS
FACTS:
This administrative case stems from an
anonymous complaint by “Juan de la Cruz,” a
concerned citizen of Legazpi City, against
respondent Judge Ruben B. Carretas. Upon
conducting a discreet investigation, it was found
out that the respondent has a volatile temper
and is fond of insulting and humiliating
witnesses and also lawyers, as well as
prosecutors in the presence of the people. The
provincial prosecutor submitted a
recommendation for the Honorable Court that
respondent be advised to observe proper
judicial decorum and to conscientiously abide
by the mandates of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics in the
exercise of his official functions.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of
conduct unbecoming of a judge and violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. Respondent Judge Ruben B. Carretas
is hereby found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming
of a judge and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent is fined
for 7,500.00 and 7,500.00 respectively. Judge
Carretas is further STERNLY WARNED that the
commission of the same or similar acts in the
future shall be dealt with more severely
SEC. 6. States that judges shall maintain
order and decorum in all proceedings before
the court and be patient, dignified and
courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses,
lawyers and others with whom the judge deals
in an official capacity. A judge should possess
the virtue of gravitas. He should be learned in
the law, dignified in demeanor, refined in
speech and virtuous in character. Besides
having the requisite learning in the law, he must
exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of
utmost sobriety and self-restraint. In this
connection, he should be considerate,
courteous and civil to all persons who come to
his court. A judge who is inconsiderate,
discourteous or uncivil to lawyers, litigants or
witnesses who appear in his sala commits an
impropriety and fails in his duty to reaffirm the
people’s faith in the judiciary. It is reprehensible
for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant or
witness. The act betrays lack of patience,
prudence and restraint. Thus, a judge must at
all times be temperate in his language. He must
choose his words, written or spoken, with
utmost care and sufficient control.
Ricon vs Marquez, 637 SCRA 491
FACTS:
The consolidated administrative
complaints against respondent Judge Placido
Marquez for grave abuse of discretion /
authority, grave misconduct and conduct
unbecoming a judge, gross mismanagement,
neglect and falsification. Atty. Ricon alleged that
before Judge Sablan retired, the two of them
paid a courtesy call on Judge Marquez (then
pairing judge of branch 39) which thereafter set
a meeting with the staff of Branch 39 and Judge
Sablan. Judge Marquez during the meeting
asked the staff questions and proceeded to tell
them that, employees who have been in the
public service for five years are “corrupt, gago,
tamad at makakapal ang mga mukha”, which
shocked and insulted the staff. Judge Marquez
made unreasonable rules and even more
offensive remarks resorting to insulting staff
members in the presence of other people and
even during hearings. Furthermore, respondent
gave negative evaluation/ ratings on every staff
member even when he was with them for only
forty (40) hours which was unreasonable.
Finally, Atty. Ricon alleged that there were
reports that Judge Marquez was using his
chambers as living quarters, sleeping and eating
within the court’s premises and was, in fact,
accosted by a roving policeman at the Manila
City Hall at about two o’clock in the morning.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent be liable
for using vulgar, inappropriate and improper
language.
HELD: Yes. Premises considered, we hereby
impose a fine of One Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00) on Judge Placido C. Marquez. All
other charges against Judge Marquez
are dismissed for lack of merit.
 A judge should not resort to the use of
undignified language—he or she should not
forget that a judge should be prudent and more
circumspect in his or her utterances,
remembering that his or her conduct in and
outside the courtroom is under constant
observation. Judge Marquez, by verbally
expressing himself, on various occasions in
insulting, unsavory and intemperate language,
to Atty. Ricon and the staff of Branch 39, RTC,
Manila, as well as to litigants in his court,
deviated from the proper and accepted
decorum of a magistrate. He called unnecessary
negative attention to himself and his office by
his use of unprofessional and unethical
language in his dealings with his staff and with
litigants. As we said in Bergonia v. Judge
Gonzalez-Decano, 317 SCRA 660 (1999), as a
judge, the respondent should not resort to the
use of undignified language. He should not
forget that a judge should be prudent and more
circumspect in his or her utterances,
remembering that his or her conduct in and
outside the courtroom is under constant
observation.