Ethics Digests Copy

8/12/2019 Ethics Digests Copy

1/49

L E G A L E T H I C SDIGESTS

ATENEOCENTRALBAROPERATIONS2002TOLOSA& ASSOCIATES

A. Lawyers

1. Disbarment of lawyer for grossly immoral conduct

Ui v. Atty. Bonia!ioA.C. No. ""#$. %&'y () 2000. """ SCRA "*

PONENTE: De Leon

FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Bonifacio on te gro!nd of immoralit" fora#ing illicit relations wit a married man wic res!lted in te birt of two cildren$ %erdefense: Se married complainant&s !sband wito!t 'nowledge( in good fait( of is tr!emarriage stat!s) tat se parted wa"s !pon 'nowledge of s!c fact$ Se is also carged fordisrespect toward te *BP for willf!ll" attacing to er Answer a falsified cop" of te marriagecertificate$

%ELD +ile a law"er ma" be disbarred for ,grossl" immoral cond!ct(, tere is no fi-ed standardfor s!c cond!ct$ Alto!g circ!mstances e-isted wic so!ld a#e ir'ed Bonifacio&ss!spicion( er act cannot be considered immoral$ *mmoralit" connotes cond!ct tat sowsindifference to moral norms of societ"$ .oreo#er( ,a member of te bar m!st so bea#e imselfas to a#oid scandali/ing te p!blic b" creating te belief tat e is flo!ting tose moralstandards$, Bonifacio&s act of immediatel" distancing erself from complainant&s !sband !pon'nowledge of is tr!e ci#il stat!s a#oids te alleged moral indifference00tat se ad no intentionof flo!ting te law and te ig standards of te legal profession$ Te complaint is dismissed b!tse is reprimanded for attacing to er Answer a falsified cop" of er marriage certificate$

1. al!ractice

Daroy v. A+e!iaA.C. No. "0,-) O!t. 2-) #$$(. 2$( SCRA 2"$

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Case of malpractice$ Abecia was co!nsel of Daro" in a case for forcible entr"$2!dgment was for Daro"$ To satisf" te 3!dgment( te seriff sold at p!blic a!ction a parcel ofland belonging to one of te defendants to complainant Daro" as igest bidder$ Daro" allegedtat e entr!sted te title to te land 4TCT No$ T05678 to Abecia as is co!nsel and allowed imto ta'e possession of te land !pon te latter&s re9!est$ Daro"( ten( acc!sed Abecia of a#ing(forged is signat!re in a deed of absol!te sale b" means of wic te latter was able to transfera parcel of land first to 2ose anga" and e#ent!all" to is wife Nena Abecia$ Abecia claimed

tat te land was con#e"ed to im as pa"ment of is legal ser#ices to Daro"$

%ELD: Abecia is not g!ilt"$ Te parties were mista'en in tin'ing tat Abecia co!ld not #alidl"ac9!ire te land$ *n "ue#ara #. Calalang( on facts similar to tose in tis case( te SC eld tatte proibition in Art$ 6;


2/49



FACTS: Tis is a complaint for disbarment against Attorne"s =illan!e#a and Ferrer( 2r$( forserio!s miscond!ct$ %alimao alleged tat respondents( wito!t lawf!l a!torit" and armed witarmalites and andg!ns( forcibl" entered te Oo >ian Tio' Compo!nd of wic complainantwas careta'er( on April ;( 6


3/49



Professional esponsibilit" pro#iding tat a law"er so!ld ser#e is client wit competence anddiligence and !le 6@$?5 of te Code of Professional esponsibilit" wic states tat a law"erm!st not neglect a legal matter entr!sted to im( and is negligence in connection terewitsall render im liable$

*. Conflicting Interests ( +ull Disclosure

He!tor Teoisio vs. er!ees NavaA. C. No. ,-3". A4r. 23) 200#.

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: espondent .ercedes Na#a alleged tat petitioner acted as co!nsel for .elanieBatislaong in se#eral cases as co!nsel for Espinosa and Palma in cases 1 filed b" tem againstBatislaong and Na#a$ espondent e-plained tat Na#a was te former manager of Batislaongwo was fired beca!se of mismanagement$ Tereafter( Na#a s!ed Batislaong( Palma and

Espinosa for estafa$ Beca!se of alleged false receipts iss!ed b" Na#a( Palma and Espinosaired petitioner Teodisio in a ci#il case beca!se te" wanted to settle teir debts to Batislaongtro!g Na#a and were !ns!re ow to go abo!t it$ %ence( petitioner impleaded bot Batislaongand Na#a so tere co!ld be interpleader between te two$ Tis was done wit f!ll disclos!re toall parties concerned$

%ELD: 0 A law"er sall not represent conflicting interests e-cept b" written consent of allconcerned gi#en after a f!ll disclos!re of te facts$ Hnder Canon of te pre#io!s Canons ofProfessional Etics( a law"er is deemed to represent conflicting interests wen( in bealf of oneclient( it is is d!t" to contend for tat wic d!t" to anoter client re9!ires im to oppose$ Ter!le is designed to remo#e from attorne"s te opport!nit" to ta'e ad#antage of te secrets ofclients obtained d!ring te e-istence of te client0attorne" relation$ E#en granting tat te

interests of Espinosa( Palma( and Batislaong are conflicting( petitioner cannot be eld liable foracting as teir common co!nsel in #iew of te fact tat( as stated in teir affida#its( petitionere-plained to tem te conse9!ences of is representation and tat te" ga#e teir consent tote same$

,. Disbarment of lawyer re-uires clear and !re!onderant e#idence

Dani'o Con!e4tion vs. Danie' 1aninoA. C. No. %&ne 2#) 2000. "", SCAR #"-

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Att"$ Fandio for gross miscond!ct( deceitand malpractice for a#ing notari/ed se#eral doc!ments wito!t a#ing been appointed orcommissioned as a notar" p!blic$ Te complaint was dismissed b" te *BP beca!se tedoc!ments s!bmitted b" complainant were mere potocopies$

%ELD Alto!g disciplinar" proceedings against law"ers are not ci#il or criminal nat!re( b!trater in#estigations b" te Co!rt into te cond!ct of its officers( te r!les on e#idence cannotbe disregarded considering tat te e-ercise of oneJs profession is at sta'e$ Hnder te BestE#idence !le( mere potocopies of te alleged notari/ed doc!ments is inadmissible ine#idence( in te absence of e#idence to pro#e tat te original copies of te same were lost ordestro"ed or cannot be oterwise prod!ced$ Considering te serio!s conse9!ence of tedisbarment or s!spension of a member of te Bar( clear and preponderant e#idence is

necessar" to 3!stif" te imposition of te administrati#e penalt"( wit te b!rden of proof resting!pon te complainant$

. /it)drawal of Ser#ices wit)out 0ust cause

1e'i!isi/o ontano vs. IBPA.C. No. ,2#*. ay 2#) 200#.

5


4/49



PONENTE: Map!nan

FACTS: Att"$ Dealca( co!nsel for Felicisimo .ontano witdrew is ser#ices for is client !ponte latter&s fail!re to compl" wit teir retainer agreement$

%ELD: +e find Att" DealcaJs cond!ct !nbecoming of a member of te legal profession$ HnderCanon 11 of te Code of Professional esponsibilit"( a law"er sall witdraw is ser#ices onl"for good ca!se and !pon notice appropriate in te circ!mstances$ Alto!g e ma" witdraw isser#ices wen client deliberatel" fails to pa" te fees for te ser#ices( !nder te circ!mstancesof te present case( Att"$ DealcaJs witdrawal was !n3!stified as complainant did not deliberatel"fail to pa" im te att"Js fees$ !le 1?$; of Canon 1


5/49



among oters( !sing intemperate( offensi#e and libelo!s lang!age against 2!stice !tierre/ andte oter members of te 65 tDi#ision of te CA$

+ito!t a!tori/ation from HBF%A*( Bago la!nced a signat!re campaign and filed witte Office of te Co!rt Administrator te administrati#e complaint against 2!stice !tierre/$ %e

!sed te name of te HBF%A* to la!nc is complaint$ Te Board s!bse9!entl" as'ed Bago toresign$

*t wo!ld appear tat te a!tor of te administrati#e complaint was a certain Bago( amember of te 6


6/49



FACTS: Ten Senatorial candidate A9!ilino Pimentel( 2r$ alleged tat te respondents tamperedwit te #otes recei#ed b" tem b" eiter adding more #otes for partic!lar candidates in teirStatement of =otes 4So=8 or red!cing te n!mber of #otes of partic!lar candidates in teir So=$

Pimentel filed an administrati#e complaint for teir disbarment$ espondents arg!ed tat tediscrepancies were d!e to onest mista'e( o#ersigt and fatig!e$

%ELD: H*LTI$ A law"er wo olds a go#ernment position ma" not be disciplined as a memberof te bar for miscond!ct in te discarge of is d!ties as a go#ernment official$ %owe#er( if temiscond!ct also constit!tes a #iolation of te Code of Professional esponsibilit" or te law"erJsoat or is of s!c caracter as to affect is 9!alification as a law"er or sows moral delin9!enc"on is part( s!c indi#id!al ma" be disciplined as a member of te bar for s!c miscond!ct$%ere( b" certif"ing as tr!e and correct te So=s in 9!estion( respondents committed a breac of!le 6$?6 of te Code wic stip!lates tat a law"er sall not engage in !nlawf!l( disonest(immoral or deceitf!l cond!ct$ B" e-press pro#ision of Canon ( tis is made applicable tolaw"ers in te go#ernment ser#ice$ *n addition( te" li'ewise #iolated teir oat of office as

law"ers to do no falseood$ Te Co!rt fo!nd te respondents g!ilt" of miscond!ct and finedtem PP 6?(??? eac and iss!ed a stern warning tat similar cond!ct in te f!t!re will bese#erel" p!nised$

B. %&;es

1. "ross Ignorance of t)e Law

a. In general

S4s. 1ort&na vs. %&;e Pina!o5Sita!aA.. No. RT% 0#5#-"". %&ne #$) 200#

PONENTE: Inares0Santiago

FACTS: espondent 2!dge was carged wit gra#e miscond!ct for granting bail to te acc!sedin a criminal complaint filed b" complainant Sps$ Fort!na$ Te respondent granted bail basedon affida#its and not on an" oter personal findings andor e-amination$

%ELD:*t as been eld tat it is patent error for a 3!dge to base is order of granting bail merel"on s!pporting affida#its attaced to te information since tose are merel" intended to establisprobable ca!se as basis for te iss!ance of an arrest warrant and not to control is discretion toden" or grant bail in all sit!ations$ enerall" te acts of a 3!dge in an official capacit"( in teabsence of fra!d( disonest" or corr!ption( are not s!b3ect to disciplinar" action e#en to!g

s!c act ma" be erroneo!s$ B!t it is igl" imperati#e tat 3!dges so!ld be con#ersant witbasic legal principles and be aware of well0settled a!toritati#e doctrines0s!c as in teproced!res for granting bail$

Car'ito A;&i'ar vs. i!tor Da'anaoA.. No. T%5005#23*. %&ne () 2000. """ SCAR -2

PONENTE7 eno6a

FACTS: 2!dge Dalanao re#i#ed a forcible entr" case wic was alread" dismissed b" ispredecessor( claiming tat te decision was not final since a motion for reconsideration wasfiled$ *n anoter case for malicio!s miscief( Dalanao immediatel" iss!ed a warrant of arrest

wito!t first re9!iring te acc!sed to appear$ *n bot cases( Dalanao disregarded te applicationof te !les on S!mmar" Proced!re$ Hnder te s!mmar" r!les( no motion for reconsideration isallowed in cases co#ered b" it) and no order of arrest against can iss!e !nless te acc!sed isfirst re9!ired to appear b!t fails to do so$

%ELD *n failing to determine weter te cases are go#erned b" te s!mmar" r!les( Dalanaosowed gross ignorance( albeit wito!t an" malice or corr!pt moti#e$ Hnder te s!mmar" r!les(a patentl" erroneo!s determination to a#oid te application of te !le of S!mmar" Proced!re


7/49



is a gro!nd for disciplinar" action$ Te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to be faitf!l tote law and maintain professional competence$ Tis Co!rt as impressed on 3!dges te need tobe diligent in 'eeping abreast wit de#elopments in law and 3!rispr!dence) fined an e9!i#alentto one0alf of is salar" for one mont$

e'aies er!ie vs. Pris!i''a Hernane6A.. No. T%5005#2-*. A4r. -) 2000$ ""0 SCRA ,$

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: 2!dge %ernande/ dismissed a case for reco#er" of possession of land on te gro!ndtat it was filed wito!t prior referral to te L!pong Tagapama"apa$ Complainants allege tatrespondent 3!dge committed 4a8 ra#e ab!se of a!torit" b" 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st and!nlawf!l order) 4b8 *gnorance of te law in its igest order( se being a 3!dge) 4c8 ra#edisobedience to te 3!rispr!dence laid down b" te S!preme Co!rt$ 2!dge claims se merel"followed te law in dismissing te case$

%ELD: *n Ta#ora #s. 4elosoit was alread" r!led tat were parties do not reside in te samecit" or m!nicipalit" or in ad3oining baranga"s( tere is no re9!irement for tem to s!bmit teirdisp!te in#ol#ing real propert" to te L!pong Tagapama"apa$ S!c r!ling so!ld be familiar tote benc and te bar$ Tat ignorance of te law e-c!ses no one as special application to

3!dges( wo !nder te in3!nction of Canon 6$?6 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( so!ld be teembodiment of competence( integrit"( and independence$ espondent( in coosing to 3!stif"instead of correcting er error of 9!oting o!t of conte-t te Matar!ngang Pambaranga" !lesalso #iolated Canon 5 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( wic pro#ides tat in e#er" case a

3!dge sall endea#or diligentl" to ascertain te facts and te applicable law !nswa"ed b"partisan interest( p!blic opinion or fear of criticism$

Danie' < S&4re/a D&/o v. %&;e Ro/eo . Pere6A.. No. T%5005#2,2 %an. 20) 2000.

FACTS: espondent 2!dge iss!ed an order stating tat complainants sall not be affected b" awrit of e-ec!tion beca!se te" were not made parties to te case$ Despite s!c order( emo#ed on to iss!e a +rit of Possession in fa#or of te original plaintiff 4Espinas8$ As aconse9!ence( Espinas !sed s!c +rit of Possession against te erein complainants in orderto e3ect tem from teir propert" and depri#ed tem from te en3o"ment of te same$

%ELD: First of all( respondent 2!dge is g!ilt" of ignorance of te law$ As an .TC 3!dge( eob#io!sl" ad no 3!risdiction o#er te action for 9!ieting of title and reco#er" of ownersip filedb" Espinas against te original defendants$ *t m!st be stressed tat te case was NOT for

e3ectment b!t for 9!ieting of title andor ownersip falling witin te e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction ofTC$

Secondl"( te 3!dgeJs act of iss!ing conflicting orders is li'ewise ine-c!sable$ Afterdeclaring tat te +rit of E-ec!tion cannot be made enforceable against erein complainants aste" were not made parties to te case( e re#ersed imself ne#erteless b" iss!ing te +rit ofPossession$ Canon 1 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct pro#ides tat: a 3!dge so!ld also a#oidimpropriet" and te appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$ A 3!dge so!ld so bea#e at alltimes as to promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and impartialit" of te 3!diciar"$ 4!le 1$?6(Canon 18$

Ro/&'o To'entino v. %&;e Po'i!ar4io S. Ca/ano) %r.A.. RT%5005#*22. %an. 20) 2000. "22 SCRA **$

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Te complaint alleges tat respondent 2!dge granted bail wile pending te olding ofa preliminar" in#estigation$ Te defense mo#ed to 9!as te information against te acc!sed onte alleged absence of a preliminar" in#estigation$ Conse9!entl"( respondent 2!dge orderedtat a preliminar" in#estigation be ad b" te state prosec!tor$ D!ring te pendenc" of tis( egranted bail in fa#or of te defendant after se#eral notices of earing to te state prosec!tor to

G


8/49



wic te latter failed to appear$ After s!c grant( complainant erein now acc!ses respondentof den"ing te prosec!tion te cance to add!ce e#idence to sow tat te g!ilt of te acc!sedwas strong and tat bail so!ld not a#e been granted in is fa#or$

%ELD: NOT H*LTI$ Tere was no denial of d!e process$ *t was not necessar" to old earingso tat te prosec!tion co!ld sow tat e#idence of g!ilt of te acc!sed was strong since apreliminar" in#estigation ad been ordered b" te co!rt$ At tat point( bail was still a matter ofrigt$ espondent 3!dge( 'nowing tat bail was indeed a matter of rigt at tat stage(ne#erteless set te earing for te petition for bail fo!r times$ %owe#er( complainant failed toappear and present e#idence to sow tat te g!ilt of te acc!sed was strong$ *t t!s appearstat complainant is act!all" te one wo was remiss in te performance of is d!ties$

Re7 Ho' De4art&re Orer Date A4ri' #") #$$( Iss&e By %&;e %&an C. Nartate6A. . No. $(5#05#,#5TCC Nov. #,) #$$(. 2$( SCRA 3#0

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: %old depart!re order was iss!ed b" 2!dge Nartate/ for #iolations of B$P$ 11( to pre#entte depart!re of te acc!sed from te Pilippines$ Te Sec of 2!stice claims tat calls te orderis contrar" to Circ!lar No$ 5


9/49



Fernande/ tat e was not a part" in te e3ectment case and tat e owned te lot b" #irt!e of aCertificate of Land Transfer$ Complainant mo#ed for a reconsideration of te resol!tion$ As2!dge Adaoag denied te motion( tis complaint was filed against im$

%ELD: Case dismissed$ For alto!g respondent 3!dge&s resol!tion s!spending 3!dgment onte motion for demolition ma" be erroneo!s( te error can at most amo!nt onl" to an error of

3!risdiction wat in !le 7( 6 of te !les of Co!rt is termed ,gra#e ab!se of discretion$, Towarrant a finding of ignorance of te law and ab!se of a!torit"( te error m!st be ,so gross andpatent as to prod!ce an inference of ignorance or bad fait or tat te 3!dge 'nowingl" renderedan !n3!st decision$, Oterwise( to old a 3!dge administrati#el" acco!ntable for e#er" erroneo!sr!ling or decision e renders( ass!ming tat te 3!dge erred( wo!ld be noting sort ofarassment and tat wo!ld be intolerable$

Antonio P. C=in v. Tito G. G&sti'o) et a'.A. . No. RT%5$,5#2,". A&;. ##) #$$*. 2,3 SCRA #3*

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: 2on irao( a sec!rit" g!ard at te *loilo Central Commercial %ig Scool( tr"ing topre#ent Antonio Cin from entering te scool( accidentall" sot Cin$ %e s!rrendered to tepolice and was bro!gt to te sala of respondent 2!dge Tito $ !stilo$ Hpon irao&s motion(respondent 3!dge granted im bail in te amo!nt of P@(???$ and ordered im released on tesame da"$

%ELD: A notice of application for bail to te prosec!tor is re9!ired e#en to!g no carge as"et been filed in co!rt and e#en to!g !nder te circ!mstances bail is a matter of rigt$ +ilerespondent was in error in belie#ing tat notice to te prosec!tor is re9!ired onl" were bail is amatter of discretion( noneteless( te SC fo!nd tat is error was not d!e to an" conscio!s and

deliberate intent to commit an in3!stice$ *n cases s!c as tis( it as been te #iew tat( as amatter of p!blic polic"( in te absence of fra!d( disonest"( or corr!ption( te acts of a 3!dge inis 3!dicial capacit" are not s!b3ect to disciplinar" action e#en to!g s!c acts are erroneo!s$Noneteless( te SC a#e stressed te importance of te d!t" of members of te 3!diciar" to'eep abreast of te laws( r!lings and 3!rispr!dence affecting teir 3!risdiction$ espondent

3!dge&s fail!re to compl" wit tis d!t" res!lting in te fail!re to gi#e notice to te prosec!tion ofpending application for bail merits a reprimand$

Teresita :. T&!ay vs. %&;e Ro;er A. Do/a;asA. . No. RT%5$*5#2(-. ar. 2) #$$*. 2,2 SCRA ##0

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: A complaint was filed( protesting te grant of bail wito!t earing and wito!t notice totrial fiscal( Att"$ =illarin( of te Pro#incial Prosec!tor&s recommendation for appro#al of te bond$

%ELD: *n failing to obser#e tese r!dimentar" re9!irements( te respondent 3!dge sowedgross ignorance of te law for wic e so!ld be fined$

A4o'inario &>e6 vs. %&;e Ciria!o Ari>oA. . No. T%5$,5$(*. 1e+. 2#) #$$*. 2,# SCRA ,3(

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Tis is an administrati#e complaint against 2!dge Ario for 'nowingl" rendering an!n3!st 3!dgment as defined and penali/ed !nder Article 1?; of te PC$

%ELD: %e sowed poor 3!dgment and gross ignorance of basic legal principles$ +ile 3!dgesso!ld not be disciplined for inefficienc" on acco!nt merel" of occasional mista'es or errors of

3!dgment( "et( it is igl" imperati#e tat te" so!ld be con#ersant wit basic legal principles$*n e#er" case( a 3!dge so!ld endea#or diligentl" to ascertain te facts and te applicable law!nswa"ed b" partisan or personal interests( p!blic opinion or fear of criticism$ A 3!dge owes it to


10/49



te p!blic and te administration of 3!stice to 'now te law e is s!pposed to appl" to a gi#encontro#ers"$ espondent 3!dge sowed lac' of capacit" for independent 3!dgment$

b. %e-uirements for liability to attac) to gross ignorance of t)e law

Ra''os vs. Go?o) %r.A.. No. RT%5$$5#,(,@A. O!t. 2,) 2000. ",, SCRA #3(

PONENTE: Panganiban

FACTS: Complainant alleged tat te respondent 3!dge ordered te release of 17(??? sac's ofrice to claimants( notwitstanding te pendenc" of sei/!re and forfeit!re proceedings before teB!rea! of C!stoms$ *t is alleged tat respondent is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of law$

%ELD: Tis act constit!tes gross ignorance of te law$ %owe#er( we a#e eld tat to bep!nisable as s!c( it m!st not onl" be contradictor" to e-isting law and 3!rispr!dence( b!t m!st

also be moti#ated b" bad fait( fra!d( disonest" or corr!ption$ espondent was in bad faitwen respondent did not appear for earing on te dates set for te earing of wic e ad'nowledge of$

Dara!an vs. NativiaA RT%5$$5#,,3. Se4t. 23) 2000. ",# SCRA #-#

PONENTE: Inares Santiago

FACTS: Tis case deals wit ow to old a 3!dge administrati#el" liable for ignorance of te lawandor 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment$

%ELD: For liabilit" to attac for ignorance of law( te assailed order or decision of te 3!dge inte performance of official d!ties m!st not onl" be fo!nd erroneo!s b!t( more importantl"( itm!st also be establised tat e was mo#ed b" bad fait) disonest"( atred( or some oter li'emoti#es$ Similarl"( a 3!dge will be eld liable for rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment wen e acts inbad fait( malice( re#enge or some oter similar moti#e$ *n fine( bad fait is te gro!nd forliabilit" in eiter or bot offenses$ Bad fait does not simpl" connote bad 3!dgment ornegligence) it imp!tes a disonest p!rpose or some moral obli9!it" and conscio!s doing of awrong) a breac of a sworn d!t" tro!g some moti#e or intent or ill0will) it parta'es of tenat!re of fra!d$ Bad fait is not pres!med and e wo alleges te same as te on!s of pro#ingit$

Os!ar C. 1ernane6 v. Li'ia Es4a>o'

A. . No. T%5$(5##*0. A4ri' #*) #$$(. 2($ SCRA #

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS:Complainant filed a motion for e-ec!tion( wic was granted b" respondent 3!dge$Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration( alleging tat complainant&s broters( wo are co0owners of te propert"( ad renewed is lease contract$ espondent 3!dge granted tedefendant&s motion for reconsideration( deferring e-ec!tion$ *n comment( respondent 3!dgee-plained tat se granted te defendant&s motion in #iew of a s!per#ening e#ent$

%ELD: espondent 3!dge as sown ignorance of law b" failing to order e-ec!tion despite tefact tat defendant ad not gi#en a s!persedeas bond( paid te rents as te" fell d!e or paid te

doc'et fees$ Te co!rt&s d!t" was simpl" to order s!c e-ec!tion$ Also( tere was nos!per#ening e#ent$%owe#er( to 3!stif" te ta'ing of drastic disciplinar" action( te law re9!ires tat te error ormista'e of te 3!dge m!st be gross or patent( malicio!s( deliberate or in bad fait$ Tese are notpresent in te instant case$

c. "ross Ignorance of law. Im!artiality.

6?


11/49



Aan vs. A+&!e9o5L&6anoA.. No. T%5005#2$(. ""3 SCRA #*(

PONENTE: on/aga0 e"es

FACTS:A caref!l reading of te order of ac9!ittal sows tat respondent 3!dge cond!cted anoc!lar inspection of te place of te incident on er wa" ome at wic te acc!sed waspresent and werein respondent 2!dge was informed b" te acc!sed tat te area was fencedb" te .SH$ *t is not disp!ted tat complainant or is co!nsel was not informed of s!c oc!larinspection$ Complainant carged respondent 2!dge wit ab!se of a!torit"( partiall" andrendering an !n3!st 3!dgment relati#e to te aforesaid criminal cases$

%ELD: espondent 2!dge so!ld a#e 'nown tat an e5 !arteoc!lar inspection wito!t noticeto nor presence of te parties and after te case ad alread" been decided was igl" improper$*f respondent 3!dge ad entertained do!bts tat se wised to clarif" after te trial ad alread"terminated( se so!ld a#e ordered motu !ro!rio te reopening of te trial for te p!rpose(

wit d!e notice to te parties( wose participation terein is essential to d!e process$ T!s( it iserror for te 3!dge to go alone to te place were te crime was committed and ma'e aninspection wito!t pre#io!s 'nowledge or consent of te parties$ espondent as openederself to carges of partialit" and bias b" meeting wit te acc!sed pri#atel"$ espondent2!dge as not onl" sown gross ignorance of te law and proced!re b!t failed to li#e !p to tenorm tat 3!dges so!ld not onl" be impartial b!t so!ld also appear impartial$ Se t!s#iolated Canon 1 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct wic pro#ides tat a 3!dge so!ld a#oidimpropriet" and te appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$

L& vs. Sia4noA.. No. T%5$$5##$$. %&'y -) 2000. ""* SCRA #22

PONENTE: on/aga0e"es

FACTS: On appeal( .TC03!dgment was modified b" deleting te paragrap ,4*8n accordancewit te !les( let a +rit of E-ec!tion be iss!ed$, L! filed a petition for re#iew wit te Co!rt of

Appeals( wile petitioner&s co!nsel filed a .otion for E-ec!tion wic was granted b"respondent 3!dge$ +rit was iss!ed wito!t notice and earing$ An e-0parte .otion to +itdrawdeposit was filed and granted$ A .otion for Special Demolition was li'ewise granted wito!tnotice and earing$ %ence( tis complaint for gross incompetence( gross ignorance of te law(abdication of official f!nction and gross miscond!ct$

%ELD: espondent is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of te law wen e rendered 3!dgmentpro#iding( in te dispositi#e portion( for its immediate e-ec!tion$ *t so!ld be noted tat te TC

modified te .TC0decision to te effect tat it so!ld not be immediatel" e-ec!ted$ Basic is ter!le tat a 3!dge ma" not order te e-ec!tion of 3!dgment in te decision itself$ Section 16 of te!les of S!mmar" Proced!re li'ewise pro#ides tat te decision of te TC is immediatel"e-ec!tor"$ E#en if immediatel" e-ec!tor"( tere m!st be notice and earing$ Also( meres!spicion tat te 3!dge is partial to a part" is not eno!g) tere so!ld be ade9!ate e#idence topro#e te carge$

%e4son Di!=aves vs. Bi''y A4a'itA.. T%5005#23,. %&ne () 2000. """ SCRA *,

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: *n a criminal case for #iolation of BP 11( respondent 2!dge iss!ed 5 orders: 468s!spension of te criminal case d!e to te principle of pre3!dicial 9!estion wen tecomplainant was not a part" to te ci#il case 4no 3!stification for te r!ling was made8) 418dis9!alification of co!nsel of complainant for ta'ing part in te prosec!tion of te criminal caseallegedl" d!e to te fact tat te ci#il aspect of te case was being litigated) and 458 ac9!ittingte acc!sed beca!se te cec's were allegedl" iss!ed as a g!arantee$

66


12/49



%ELD: 2!dge Apalit is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of te law$ An isolated error of 3!dgment wo!ldnormall" not ma'e a 3!dge s!sceptible to administrati#e liabilit"$ *n tis case( te 3!dgeJspartialit" for a part" to a case before im is e#ident in se#eral orders( fa#oring te acc!sed in tecriminal case( e#en going to te e-tent of disregarding settled r!lings$

a. I/e'a ar!os5anoto! vs. E/erito . A;!aoi'iA.. No. RT%5$(5#,0*. A4r. #2) 2000. ""0 SCRA 2-(

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: On 2!ne 6@( 6


13/49



E/eterio Ga''o vs. %&;e %ose CoreroA. . No. T%5$*5#0"* %&ne 2#) #$$*. 2,* SCRA 2#$

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: allo carges tat 4a8 in #iolation of art$ 1?G and art$ 1?@ of te PC( respondent 3!dgeordered te arrest of te acc!sed) 4b8 tat respondent pri#atel" conferred wit te acc!sed inis office wic ,logicall" and nat!rall" aro!ses s!spicion of graft and ran' fa#oritism), and 4c8tat e acted wit bias and ignorance of te law(, and tat e#en if te acc!sed were not tenants(,nobod" can e3ect tem$,

%ELD: Cordero opened imself to carges of partialit" and bias b" meeting pri#atel" wit tefo!r acc!sed$ *t was improper for im to meet tem wito!t te presence of complainant$ %e notonl" as sown gross ignorance of law and proced!re b!t as also failed to li#e !p to te normtat ,3!dges so!ld not onl" be impartial b!t so!ld also appear impartial$, %e #iolated Canon 1of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct wic pro#ides tat ,a 3!dge so!ld a#oid impropriet" and te

appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$, !le 1$?6 pro#ides tat ,A 3!dge so!ld so bea#e atall times as to promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and impartialit" of te 3!diciar"$,

E. alfeasance6isfeasance in %endering 7nust 0udgment8 "ross Ignorance

Heirs o %&an an Nativia Ger/inana vs. Sa'vaneraA.. No. T%5005#2,-. %an. 2() 2000. "2" SCRA *-#

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: An !nlawf!l detainer case was p!rs!ed b" te erminandas in one ci#il case and teownersip of te land in anoter case$ Te 3!dge s!spended te resol!tion in te !nlawf!l

detainer case !ntil te ownersip case as been terminated$ Te iss!e is weter or not tereas been malfeasance or misfeasance in te s!spension$

%ELD: *t is settled tat te pendenc" of an action 9!estioning te ownersip of te propert"does not bar te filing or te consideration of an e3ectment s!it nor te e-ec!tion of te

3!dgment terein$ Te reason for tis r!le is tat e3ectment s!its in#ol#e onl" te iss!e ofmaterial possession and does not decide te iss!e of ownersip$ Considering te differences inca!ses of action( it was wrong for te 3!dge to r!le te complainants g!ilt" of for!m sopping infiling teir complaints for !nlawf!l detainer despite pendenc" of te ownersip case$ 2!dge wasreprimanded$

+. Ignorance of t)e Law6 'onfeasance

Or'ano La4e>a vs. %ovito Pa/aran;A.. No. P5005#"-2. 1e+. #*) 2000. "2* SCRA ,,0

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Parmarang( Seriff *= of TC Hrdaneta( Pampanga( recei#ed a writ of e-ec!tion onA!g!st 5( 6


14/49



". "ross Ignorance of t)e Law9 :artiality9 Incom!etence9 ;nowingly %endering 7nust0udgment

C'o&a'o e %es&s vs. Roo'o O+na/ia

A.. No. T%5005#"#,. Se4t. 3) 2000. ",0 SCRA #

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Complainants erein allege tat respondent 2!dge amended te order of 2!dgeNantes and acted wit gross ignorance of te law and incompetence and 'nowingl" renderedan !n3!st 3!dgment$ espondent 2!dge claims tat e was not aware of te decision as s!cwas not attaced to te records wen e prepared te 9!estioned resol!tion$

%ELD: E#en if te decision of te CA was not in te records of te e3ectment case( te samewere bro!gt to respondent 3!dgeJs attention b" complainant in te s!pplemental opposition efiled to te plaintiffJs motion for reconsideration of 2!dge NanteJs order den"ing te plaintiffJs

motion for writ of demolition$ Te e-ec!tion of te decision terefore is a contentio!s matter$ *twas t!s necessar" for respondent 3!dge to ens!re compliance wit te tree0da" notice r!lefor te earing werein e co!ld ten confirm te e-istence of te decision and resol!tion of teCA$ espondentJs fail!re to do so constit!tes cens!rable cond!ct$

Go6&n vs. Lian;!oA.. No. T%5$35##"-. A&;. "0) 2000. ""$ SCRA 2*"

PE CH*A.

FACTS: o/!n was in open and ad#erse possession of s!b3ect land for a period of 5? "ears$Te m!nicipalit" of San L!is( Pampanga claimed to own te same lot and iss!ed a resol!tion

declaring tat te lot were o/!n and famil" were s9!atting as te new site of te %ealtCenter$ 2!dge iss!ed a resol!tion( reasoning in fa#or of te m!nicipalit" and !polding teresol!tion$ Note tat o/!n was not ser#ed wit s!mmons or gi#en notice of te petition$Complainant a#ers tat respondent&s iss!ance of te resol!tion amo!nts to gross miscond!ct(gross inefficienc"( and incompetence( and f!rter acc!sed te ma"or of a#ing bribedrespondent$

%ELD: 2!dge not onl" acted wito!t 3!risdiction( b!t in so acting ignored blatantl" te basic r!lesof fair pla"$ Complainant was not notified of nor made a part" to te petition$ A member of tebenc m!st 'eep imself constantl" abreast of legal and 3!rispr!dential de#elopments( bearingin mind tat tis learning process ne#er ceases e#en as it is so indispensable in te correctdispensation of 3!stice$ +en te law #iolated is elementar"( te fail!re to 'now or obser#e it

constit!tes gross ignorance of te law$ Also( 3!dges are proibited from engaging in te pri#atepractice of law or from gi#ing professional ad#ice to clients$ Te" are re9!ired to be ob3ecti#eand cannot inno#ate at pleas!re and 3!stif" s!c b" teir own perception of wat is ideal orgood$


15/49



A.. $$5(5#0(5CTC. A&;. 2*) #$$$. "#" SCRA ,,

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: 2!dge Barot iss!ed on Febr!ar" 6?( 6


16/49



%ELD: A 3!dge is e-pected to 'now te 3!risdictional bo!ndaries of co!rts and 9!asi03!dicialbodies li'e te CO.ELEC and to act onl" witin said limits$ A 3!dge wo wantonl" arrogates!nto imself te a!torit" and power #ested in oter agencies not onl" acts in oppressi#e

disregard of te basic re9!irements of d!e process( b!t also creates caos and contrib!tes toconf!sion in te administration of 3!stice$ espondent displa"ed a mar'ed ignorance of basiclaws and principles$

Co//ission on E'e!tions vs. %&;e B&!o R. Dat&5i/anA.. No. T%5$$5##3(. ar!= ") #$$$. "0, SCRA #0-

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: On .arc 1< and 56( 6


17/49



%ELD Te principle tat a co!rt cannot pre#ent te e-ec!tion of a decision of a iger co!rtapplies to salas of co0e9!al 3!risdiction$ Alto!g EismaJs orders were directed to te .TC( itseffect was to pre#ent te e-ec!tion of a final order of anoter TC of e9!al ran' and 3!risdiction$Eisma is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of te law and ab!se of a!torit") fined P7(???$

3. "ross 'egligence. "ross Ignorance. Im!artiality.

Ro/&'o To'entino vs. A'reo Ca+ra'A.. No. RT%5005#*2(. ar. 2() 2000. "2$ SCRA #

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Prosec!tor Tolentino files a petition for certiorari assailing te order of TC 2!dgeCabral granting bail to a rape s!spect$ Tolentino also files an administrati#e complaint againstCabral for te loss of pertinent records on te case and for sowing partialit" for te acc!sed$Cabral brings co!nter carges against Tolentino wen te latter 9!estioned certain orders of te

co!rt b" distorting and misrepresenting te act!al contents of s!c orders) and for treateningCabral tat if te prosec!tionJs motions are not granted( an administrati#e complaint wo!ld bebro!gt against im$

%ELD Acting on te petition for certiorari( te S!preme Co!rt fo!nd tat Cabral 'nowingl"iss!ed a manifestl" !n3!st order granting bail despite strong e#idence of g!ilt$ Acting on teadministrati#e complaint( te S!preme Co!rt finds Cabral g!ilt" of gross negligence andinefficienc" for te loss of important records on te case$ %e is also g!ilt" of partialit" in den"ingte prosec!tion te cance to file an opposition wen Cabral fi-ed te date of a earing close tote date of its ser#ice to te prosec!tion$ Tolentino is also fo!nd g!ilt" of te co!ntercarges$

For gra#e ab!se of a!torit"( gross ignorance of te law( gross negligence andinefficienc"( rendering !n3!st 3!dgment and for #iolations of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( 2!dge

Cabral is s!spended for monts wito!t pa"$ Tolentino is reprimanded for breac of Canon 6?(!les 6?$?6 and 6?$?1 as well as Canon 66( !le 66$?5 of te Code of Professionalesponsibilit"$

$. Continuance of admin. case

a$ Com!lainant>s Desistance does not ?ar

%&anito A;&'an vs. %&;e 1ernane6A.. No. T% 0#5#"*,. A4r. , 200#

PONENTE: on/aga0e"es

FACTS: espondent 2!dgeJs fail!re to compl" wit te r!les regarding te proced!re foracceptance and disposition of cas bail bonds placed is integrit" in serio!s do!bt partic!larl"wen e replaced part of te cas bond wit is personal cec' wito!t an" acceptablee-planation$

%ELD: A 3!dgeJs official cond!ct so!ld be free from an" appearance of impropriet"$ %e m!stnot act in a wa" tat wo!ld cast s!spicion in order to preser#e te fait in te administration of

3!stice$ *n te case of p!blic ser#ants in te 3!diciar"( teir cond!ct and bea#ior( from tepresiding 3!dge to te lowliest cler'( m!st not onl" be caracteri/ed b" propriet" and decor!mb!t abo#e all else m!st be abo#e s!spicion$ Te mere fact tat complainant sent a letterre9!esting te witdrawal of te instant administrati#e case does not warrant te dismissal

tereof) te co!rt ma" proceed wit its in#estigation and mete o!t appropriate penalt" againsterring officers of te co!rt$

Sevi''a vs. Sa'&+reA.. T%5005#""-) De!. #$) 2000) ",( SCRA *$2.

PONENTE: De Leon( 2r$

6G


18/49



FACTS: espondent 3!dge misappropriated is clientJs f!nds wen e was still a law"er and didnot repa" e same despite n!mero!s demands$ +en e became a 3!dge( e iss!ed twocec's as pa"ment b!t bot bo!nced$ Te client filed an estafa case b!t later on e-ec!ted an

Affida#it of Desistance$ Te iss!e is weter te Affida#it of Desistance di#ested te SC of its3!risdiction to impose administrati#e sanctions !pon respondent$

%ELD: No$ +ile te complaint for estafa ad been dismissed( te dismissal was on acco!nt ofcomplainantJs #ol!ntar" desistance and not !pon a finding of innocence$ Te primar" ob3ect ofadministrati#e cases against law"ers is not onl" to p!nis and discipline te erring indi#id!allaw"ers b!t also to safeg!ard te administration of 3!stice b" protecting te co!rts and tep!blic from te miscond!ct of law"ers( and to remo#e from te legal profession persons wose!tter disregard of teir law"erJs oat a#e pro#en tem !nfit to contin!e discarging te tr!streposed in tem as members of te bar$ Administrati#e cases against law"ers can still proceeddespite te dismissal of ci#il andor criminal complaints against tem$

b. %etirement Does 'ot Effect Dismissal

Ca+ar'o! vs. Ca+&soraA.. No. T%5005#2*-) De!. #*) 2000. ",( SCRA 2#3.

PONENTE: Map!nan

FACTS: 2!dge Cab!sora downgraded te crime to %omicide and e-onerated Cadano$ *t wasalso fo!nd tat te 3!dge committed error in cond!cting anoter preliminar" in#estigation(re#ersing is own findings mot! propio and ordering te release of te two acc!sed wito!ta!torit"$

%ELD: 2!dge Cab!sora e-ceeded is a!torit" in ma'ing a determination of te crimecommitted as tis is te f!nction of te prosec!tion and not of te in#estigating 3!dge$ Cessationfrom office beca!se of retirement does not warrant te dismissal of te administrati#e complaintfiled against a 3!dge wile e was still in ser#ice$

Per'ito D. 1'ores) et a'. v. Antonio C. S&/a'ia;A. . No. T%5$35###*. %&ne *) #$$(. 2$0 SCRA *-(

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Te complainants instit!ted tis administrati#e case against respondent 3!dge for grossignorance of te law in connection wit te preliminar" in#estigation of tree criminal cases and

te arrest of complainants$ espondent as alread" retired$ *t is contended tat respondentordered te arrest of complainants wito!t te 3!stification of doing so ,in order not to fr!stratete ends of 3!stice(, as pro#ided in !le 661( 4b8$

%ELD: Te arrest of te acc!sed can be ordered onl" in te e#ent te prosec!tor files te caseand te 3!dge of te TC finds probable ca!se for te iss!ance of a warrant$ espondentordered te iss!ance of a warrant solel" on is finding of probable ca!se( totall" omitting toconsider weter it was necessar" to do so in order not to fr!strate te ends of 3!stice$

espondent as since retired$ %owe#er( tis does not render tis case moot andacademic$ Te 3!risdiction at te time of te filing of te administrati#e complaint is not lost b"te mere fact tat te respondent p!blic official as ceased in office d!ring te pendenc" of iscase$ Te Co!rt retains its 3!risdiction eiter to prono!nce te respondent official innocent of te

carges or declare im g!ilt" tereof$

c. %esignation

Carino vs. Biten;A.. No. T%5$$5#2#". O!t. 2) 2000. ",# SCRA *"$.

PONENTE: R!is!mbing

6@


19/49



FACTS: Carino was cited and ordered arrested and detained for indirect contempt wito!tearing b" respondent 3!dge$ Te E-ec!ti#e 2!dge recommended dismissal of te complaintbeca!se Biteng ad retired and co!ld no longer be eld liable$ Te OCA disagreed( pointing o!t

tat according to 3!rispr!dence( an administrati#e case against a 3!dge does not become mootand academic simpl" beca!se e ad retired or resigned$ Also of note is tat P17(??? waswiteld from BitengJs retirement benefits pending te o!tcome of te instant complaint$

%ELD: Te SC agreed wit te OCA and fo!nd tat respondent 3!dge was g!ilt" of grossignorance of te law and incompetence$ Biteng was con#enientl" fined P17(???( same amo!ntset aside from is retirement benefits$

@. In)ibition of a 0udge

Ino!en!io Siawan vs. A8&i'ino Ino4i8&e6A.. No. T%5$*5#0*-. ay 2#) 200#.

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Complainant Siawan alleged tat respondent 2!dge is g!ilt" of grossl" ab!sing isa!torit"$ *n te first contro#ers"( a criminal case was pending in te sale of respondent$Despite motions of complainant for te 3!dge to inibit imself( respondent did not do sonotwitstanding tat is 4respondentJs8 fater0in0law was directl" participating in te case$%owe#er( respondent was forced to inibit imself wen se#eral oter relati#es became in#ol#edin te case$ *n te second contro#ers"( respondent 3!dge tried election cases wile is relati#eswere candidates for #ario!s positions in te m!nicipalit"$

%ELD: Ato!g te dis9!alification of 3!dges is limited onl" to cases were te 3!dge is related

to co!nsel witin te fo!rt degree of consang!init" or affinit"( te !les noneteless pro#idetat a 3!dge ma"( in te e-ercise of is discretion( dis9!alif" imself from sitting in a case foroter 3!st and #alid reasons$ A 3!dge so!ld not andle a case were e migt be percei#ed(rigtl" or wrongl"( to be s!sceptible to bias and impartialit"( wic a-iom is intended to preser#eand promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and respect for te 3!diciar"$ *n tis case( teref!sal of respondent to inibit imself from te cond!ct of te case and is doing so onl" afterbeing treatened wit an administrati#e case co!ld not b!t create te impression tat e ad!lterior moti#es in wanting to tr" te case$ Te p!rpose of te proibition is to pre#ent not onl"a conflict of interest b!t also te appearance of impropriet" on te part of a 3!dge$ A 3!dgeso!ld ta'e no part in a proceeding were is impartialit" migt reasonabl" be 9!estioned ande so!ld administer 3!stice impartiall" and wito!t dela"$ Te fail!re of respondent 3!dge toinibit imself constit!tes an ab!se of is a!torit" and !ndermines p!blic confidence in te

impartialit" of 3!dges$

Ger/an A;&nay vs. Nieto Tresva''esA T%5$$5#2"-. Nov. 2*) #$$$. "#$ SCRA #",

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: espondent 2!dge was carged wit gross inefficienc"( gross ignorance of te law andimpropriet" on te part of respondent 3!dge$ espondent failed to inibit imself e#en if e wasrelated to te acc!sed$

%ELD: espondent was te fater0in0law of acc!sedJs son$ Te relationsip in o!r c!lt!re

'nown as magbalaesso!ld a#e prompted respondent 3!dge to inibit imself from te case$A 3!dge so!ld not onl" be impartial b!t m!st appear impartial as well$

Re7 In=i+ition o %&;e Eie R. Ro9asA. . No. $(5-5#(*5RTC. O!t. "0) #$$(. 2$( SCRA "0-

PONENTE: .endo/a

6


20/49



FACTS: A criminal case was initiall" tried in te TC( wit 2!dge o3as as p!blic prosec!tor$+ile te case was pending( 2!dge o3as was appointed 3!dge of te trial co!rt on No#ember61( 6


21/49



from an" appearance of bias against( or ostilit" toward( te complainant$ Te impression co!ldnot be elped tat is action in te case was dictated b" a spirit of re#enge against complainantfor te latter&s a#ing filed an administrati#e disciplinar" action against te 3!dge$ Te sit!ationcalled for sed!lo!s regard on is part tan tat of te cold ne!tralit" of an impartial 3!dge$

.oreo#er( it was improper for respondent 3!dge to a#e iss!ed te warrants of arrest againstcomplainant and is son wito!t an" finding tat it was necessar" to place tem in immediatec!stod" in order to pre#ent a fr!stration of 3!stice$

. "ra#e Abuse of Discretion

Letter ate A&;&st 2*) #$$" o Se!retary 1ran?'in Dri'on on t=e a''e;e 4arti!i4ation o%&;e Geroni/o Ba'o) TC) Ca'a&an) La;&na in t=e Go/e65Sar/ienta !aseA.. No. $"5$53,#50. Nov. 3) #$$3. 2(# SCRA *2"

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Fran'lin N$ Drilon referred tis case to te Co!rt for possible disciplinar" action against2!dge Baldo for a#ing committed gra#e ab!se of discretion in #iew of a sworn statement gi#enb" L!is Corcolon( one of te acc!sed in te rape and m!rder of Eileen Sarmenta and tem!rder of Allan ome/( tat 2!dge Baldo ad ordered te cleaning of a #eicle in wic tebodies of te #ictims were fo!nd( in order to destro" e#idence of te crime$

%ELD: Tere is no direct e#idence tat 2!dge Baldo ad ordered te cleaning of te Tamaraw#an$ B!t te following circ!mstances tend to sow tat( at te #er" least( e was present wente #an was cleaned and tat is presence wittingl" or !nwittingl" con#e"ed is appro#al totose wo cleaned te #eicle$ *ndeed( it wo!ld appear tat( contrar" to is assertion( 2!dgeBaldo did not e#en ta'e te tro!ble to ascertain wo ad ordered te #an wased$

e''y R. i!?er et. a' vs. =on. Pa&' T. Ar!an;e'G.R. No. ##2(-$. %an. 2$) #$$-. 2*2 SCRA ,,,

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: *t appears tat on No# 6@( 6


22/49



PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Fi#e "ears after a s!it for damages was s!bmitted for 3!dgment( respondent 3!dge still

ad to decide te case$ An administrati#e complaint against respondent for gross negligence$espondent claimed first tat se ad decided te case and ad gi#en copies to te parties$Tereafter( se e-plained tat se ad s!rger"( tat er parents passed awa"( etc$

%ELD: Te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to dispose of teir b!siness promptl" anddecide cases witin te re9!ired period$ Tis co!rt as constantl" impressed !pon 3!dges teneed to decide cases e-peditio!sl" for 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$ Fail!re of 3!dges torender 3!dgment witin te period constit!tes gross inefficienc" warranting te imposition ofadministrati#e sanctions$ Te reasons add!ced b" respondent are !nsatisfactor"$ Alto!g teCo!rt is inclined to be compassionate( respondent m!st reali/e tat compassion as its limits$Finall"( tis is te tird time tat respondent as failed to decide cases witin te period$C!rio!sl"( te reasons se ad#anced erein are te same as in te pre#io!s two instances$

An;e' Gi' vs. Leon!io %ano'oA.. No. RT%5005#-02. De!. *) 2000. ",3 SCRA -

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: espondent iss!ed an order admitting defendantJs Formal Offer of E#idence anddirected bot parties to s!bmit teir respecti#e memoranda$ %owe#er( bot parties failed tos!bmit so respondent iss!ed anoter order reiterating is pre#io!s directi#e$ O#er 7 montslater( a complainant was filed alleging tat it too' respondent more tan ; monts to act on isFormal Offer of E#idence and tat it is also e#ident from te records tat 5 monts ad elapsedand te case as still remained !ndecided$ espondent ac'nowledges te dela"( wic e

claims( is a res!lt of tecnical problems wit te office comp!ters$

%ELD: espondentJs e-c!se is !nsatisfactor"$ Te Constit!tion mandates tat lower co!rtsa#e 5 monts witin wic to decide cases or resol#e matters s!bmitted to tem for resol!tion$Canon 5( !le 5$?7 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to dispose of teir b!sinesspromptl" and decide cases witin te re9!ired period$ Dela" in te disposition of cases!ndermines te peopleJs fait and confidence in te 3!diciar"$ %ence( 3!dges are en3oined todecide cases wit dispatc$ Fail!re to do so constit!tes gross inefficienc" and warrants teimposition of administrati#e sanctions$

ia9e vs. Hernane6A.. No. RT%5005#*"- Nov. 2() 2000. ",- SCRA #-2

PONENTE: De Leon

FACTS: espondent 3!dge ref!sed to set for earing =ia3eJs application for preliminar"in3!nction and to add ins!lt to in3!r"( set instead for earing defendant .a"orJs .otion toDismiss( wic was dela"ed se#eral times$ Te 3!dge claims tat e was onl" tr"ing to pre#entte impro#ident iss!ance of a writ of preliminar" in3!nction andor to a#ert te improper denial ofte same$ %e also points o!t tat te iss!ance of te writ did not appear to be !rgent$

%ELD: Alto!g te 3!dge cannot be eld liable for ignorance of !le 7@ of Ci#pro( e so!ldne#erteless be sanctioned for !nd!e dela" in acting on te pra"er for iss!ance of said writ$egardless of weter te iss!ance of te writ was !rgent or not( it was inc!mbent !pon te

3!dge to immediatel" act on plaintiffJs pra"er eiter b" e-pressl" granting( den"ing or deferringits resol!tion$ Hnd!e dela" !ndermines p!blic fait and confidence in te 3!dges to womaggrie#ed part"Js t!rn for te speed" resol!tion of teir cases$ 4Fine was P6(???8

Es;&erra vs. %&;e Lo9aA.. No. RT%5005#*2". A&;. #*) 2000. ""( SCRA #

PONENTE: P!risima

11


23/49



FACTS: Complainant carged tat respondent failed to decide te case for falsification of p!blicdoc!ments witin


24/49



%ELD: Te !nreasonable dela" of a 3!dge in resol#ing a pending incident is a #iolation of tenorms of 3!dicial cond!ct and constit!tes a gro!nd for administrati#e sanction against tedefa!lting magistrate$ *ndeed( te Co!rt as consistentl" impressed !pon te 3!dges te need todecide cases promptl" and e-peditio!sl" on te principle tat 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$

1e'i/on C&evas vs. Isa&ro Ba'erianA.. No. T%5005#23-. %&ne 2") 2000. "", SCRA 2,2

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: A complaint of e3ectment was filed in te sala of .TC 2!dge Balderian$ +en te lastre9!ired paper was filed on 56 .arc 6


25/49



oter lower co!rts$ To implement te constit!tional mandate( Canon 5( !le 5$?7 of te Code of2!dicial Cond!ct pro#ides: A 3!dge sall dispose of te co!rt&s b!siness promptl" and decidecases witin te re9!ired periods$ On te prompt resol!tion of cases( Art$ ***( 6 of teConstit!tion states: All persons sall a#e te rigt to a speed" disposition of teir cases before

all 3!dicial( 9!asi03!dicial( or administrati#e bodies$ Canon 5( !le 5$?< of te Code of 2!dicialCond!ct pro#ides: A 3!dge so!ld organi/e and s!per#ise te co!rt personnel to ens!re teprompt and efficient dispatc of b!siness( and re9!ire at all times te obser#ance of igstandards of p!blic ser#ice and fidelit"$

Ne'son . N; v. Leti!ia :. U'i+ariA. . No. T%5$(5##*(. %&'y "0) #$$(. 2$" SCRA ",2

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Complaint b" Att"$ Ng on te alleged inaction and fail!re of respondent 2!dge Hlibari toresol#e pending motions in er sala was filed$ %e also alleges tat respondent is ,a la/" 3!dge,wo calls er cases late at


26/49



4


27/49



i. Duty to Decide Cases wit) Dis!atc) Es!ecially T)ose Co#ered by t)e %ule onSummary :rocedure

onort Her/anos A;ri!&'t&ra' DevFt vs. %&;e Ro'ano Ra/ire6A.. T%50#5#"*3. ar. 2() 200#

PONENTE: .elo

FACTS: *n a forcible entr" case( respondent 2!dge r!led in fa#or of defendants$ On appeal( teTC re#ersed and remanded te case$ Complainants alleged tat te .TC decision wasrendered fo!r monts after te last pleading was filed( in #iolation of te !les on S!mmar"Proced!re$ Complainants also allege tat defendantJs defense on te administrati#e case( tatis fail!re to decide witin te period was d!e to n!mero!s pleadings filed b" te parties andoter statements on te iss!e of prior p"sical possession was s!b3!dice$

%ELD: S!b3!dice is defined as !nder or before a 3!dge or co!rt) !nder 3!dicial consideration$Te trial of te merits of te forcible entr" case are still on going and besides te 9!estion posedb" tese iss!es are 3!dicial in caracter as tese go to te assessment of e#idence$ *n s!ccase te remed" of complainants are tose fo!nd in te !les of Co!rt and not anadministrati#e case$ %owe#er( respondent decided te case be"ond te period$ Te Co!rt asconstantl" impressed !pon 3!dges te need to deicde cases promptl" and e-peditio!sl"( for itcannot be gainsaid tat 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$ Dela" in te disposition of cases!ndermines te peopleJs fait and confidence in te 3!diciar"$

ii. %e-uest for E5tension of Time to Decide Cases

Re8&est o %&;e Ir/a ita asa/ayor vs. RTC

A.. No. $$5253$5RTC. ar. 2#) 2000. "2( SCRA *(,

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: TC 2!dge .asama"or was twice fo!nd g!ilt" of gross inefficienc" for re9!esting ane-tension of time to decide cases e#en after te lapse of te period so!gt to be e-tended$ *nanoter case( .asama"or re9!ested for an e-tension of


28/49



3!dgeJs liabilit" beca!se a 3!dge so!ld not be at te merc" of te wims of law"ers and partiesfor it is not teir con#enience wic so!ld be te primordial consideration( b!t teadministration of 3!stice$.oreo#er( an administrati#e complaint is not a!tomaticall" dismissed b" witdrawal of

complainant$ Te need to maintain te fait and confidence of te people in te go#ernment andits agencies and instr!mentalities so!ld not be made to depend on te wims and caprices ofte complainants wo are( in a real sense( onl" witnesses terein$ 2!dge Legaspi isadministrati#el" liable for is fail!re to render te decision witin te prescribed period of ninet"da"s from te time te case was s!bmitted for decision) fined P1(???$

i#. 4iolation of Constitution

Di6on vs. Lo4e6A. . No. RT%5$-5#""(. Se4t. *) #$$3. 23( SCRA ,("

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: Complainant alleges tat te fail!re of respondent 3!dge to f!rnis im a cop" of tedecision !ntil almost one "ear and eigt monts after te prom!lgation of its dispositi#e portionconstit!tes a #iolation of Art$ =***( 6; of te Constit!tion wic proibits co!rts from renderingdecisions wito!t e-pressing terein clearl" and distinctl" te facts and law on wic te" arebased and 67 of te same Art$ =***( wic pro#ides tat in all cases lower co!rts m!st renderteir decisions witin tree monts from te date of teir s!bmission$ %e alleges f!rter tat ewas denied te rigt to a speed" trial in #iolation of Art$ ***( 6;418 of te Constit!tion and tat2!dge Lope/ falsified er decision b" antedating it and incl!ding terein( as additional penalt"( afine of P7(???$??$%ELD: Ies$ Te fact is tat it too' a "ear and eigt monts more before tis was done and a

cop" of te complete decision f!rnised te complainant on December 6( 6


29/49


30/49



retirement$ %e did not ret!rn te record to te Co!rt Cler' in Carge of Ci#il Cases) 458 Terecord of te case t!rned !p on te table of te Co!rt Cler' togeter wit te Offer of E-ibitsof te law"er of te plaintiffs and te Order( after te retirement of 2!dge Alo#era$ Bot teOffer and te Order admitting te e-ibits were not properl" filed and do not bear mar'ings of

a#ing been recei#ed b" te co!rt) 4;8 Te decision of 2!dge Alo#era was filed wit te co!rtb" 2!dge Alo#era imself and beca!se e was no longer a 3!dge is s!bmission was ref!sed$

%ELD: Disbarred$ espondent as t!s s!fficientl" demonstrated tat e is morall" and legall"!nfit to remain in te e-cl!si#e and onorable fraternit" of te legal profession$ Te e#idenceagainst respondent were all 9!ite telling on ow te latter acted in a grossl" repreensiblemanner in a#ing te 9!estioned decision come to fore( leading !ltimatel" to its e-ec!tiondi#esting te complainant of er propert"$ espondent gra#el" ab!sed is relationsip wit isformer staff( pompo!sl" fla!nting is erstwile standing as a 3!dge$ %e disregarded is primar"d!t" as an officer of te co!rt( wo is sworn to assist te co!rts and not to impede or per#ert teadministration of 3!stice to all and s!ndr"$ *n so doing( e made a moc'er" of te 3!diciar" anderoded p!blic confidence in co!rts and law"ers$

Do'ores Go/e6 v. %&;e Roo'o A. Gat&'a2$" SCRA ,""

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: ome/ is te complainant in 1 different criminal cases before 2!dge atd!la$ +ense petitioned te SC to cange te #en!e of 6 of te cases( espondent s!spended tesced!led earings in bot cases$ +en re9!ired b" te SC to sow ca!se w" disciplinar"action so!ld not be ta'en against im( e dela"ed is comment b!t e#ent!all" e-plained tatte s!spension of earing was made beca!se of te pending re9!est for cange of #en!e$

%ELD: 2!dge atd!la acted #indicti#el" oppressi#el"( apparentl" ir'ed b" te re9!est ofpetitioner$ %e need not a#e s!spended bot earings as te cange of #en!e onl" in#ol#edone case$ %is dela" in commenting on te cange of #en!e also effecti#el" dela"ed bot casesb" 7 monts$ %is acts are not free from te appearance of impropriet"( let alone be"ondreproac( as re9!ired b" Canon 5 of te Canons of 2!dicial Etics$

E!&+e5Bae' vs. De 'a Pe>a Bae'A.. No. P5$35#2,(. %&ne #") #$$3. 23" SCRA "20

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: A complaint for immoralit" carged respondent Co!rt Stenograper for a#ing illicit

relations wit Dalida b" wom e ad begot a cild( and failing to ma'e good a promissor" notee ad made to pa" is wife as s!pport for teir da!gter and is promise to pa" P7??$?? amont from 2an!ar" 6


31/49



FACTS: 2!dge Calanog was acc!sed of cond!ct !nbecoming a p!blic official and immoralit"$Castillo alleged tat e 4Calanog8 establised an intimate( albeit immoral( relationsip witcomplainant alto!g e is a married man$

%ELD: !ilt"$ Canon *( !le 6$?6 A 3!dge so!ld be te embodiment of competence(integrit"( probit" and independence$ Te integrit" and independence of te 3!diciar" can bered!ced to one common denominator: te 3!dge te indi#id!al wo dispenses 3!stice( and!pon wose attrib!tes depend te p!blic perception of te 3!diciar"$ Tere is no dicotom" ofmoralit": a p!blic official is also 3!dged b" is pri#ate morals$ Te Code dictates tat a 3!dge( inorder to promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and impartialit" of te 3!diciar"( m!st bea#ewit propriet" at all times$ As te SC as #er" recentl" e-plained( a 3!dge&s official life cannotsimpl" be detaced or separated from is personal e-istence$

12. :ro!riety of Conduct6Ta=ing Interest in atter ?efore )is Court BIm!artiality

IN RE7 Dero;atory News Ite/s C=ar;in; CA %&sti!e De/etrio De/etria wit= Intereren!eon Be=a' o a S&s4e!te Dr&; :&eenA.. No. 0050350$5CA. ar. 23) 200#

Per C!riam

FACTS: Se#eral newspaper articles collecti#el" reported tat CA Associate 2!stice Demetriatried to intercede on bealf of s!spected Cinese dr!g R!een I! I!' Lai( wo went in and o!tof prison to pla" in a .anila casino$ Te Cief State Prosec!tor ad recei#ed a pone call fromDemetria as'ing im for te witdrawal of se#eral motions filed wit te TC$ Te DO2 wasalso recei#ing press!re from Demetria to go slow in prosec!ting I! I!' Lai$

%ELD: Te cond!ct and bea#ior of e#er"one connected wit an office carged wit tedispensation of 3!stice is circ!mscribed wit te ea#" b!rden of responsibilit"$ %is at all timesm!st be caracteri/ed wit propriet" and m!st be abo#e s!spicion$ %is m!st be free of e#en awiff of impropriet"( not onl" wit respect to te performance of is 3!dicial d!ties( b!t also isbea#ior o!tside te co!rtroom and as a pri#ate indi#id!al$ Te mere mention of is name asallegedl" law"ering for a s!spected dr!g 9!een and interfering wit er prosec!tion serio!sl"!ndermined te integrit" of te entire 2!diciar"$ %ig etical principles and a sense of propriet"so!ld be maintained( wito!t wic te fait of te people in te 2!diciar" so indispensable inan orderl" societ" cannot be preser#ed$ Tere is simpl" no place in te 2!diciar" for tose wocannot meet te e-acting standards of 3!dicial cond!ct and integrit"$

Hi'ario e G&6/an vs. %&;e Deooro Sison

A.. No. RT%50#5#-2$. ar. 2-) 200#.

Per C!riam

FACTS: A complaint was filed carging respondent 2!dge wit gross ignorance of te law andirreg!larities in connection wit an Election Case$ Complainant alleges tat respondent actedwit manifest partialit" in declaring te case s!bmitted for decision alto!g complainant adnot "et finised presenting is e#idence( scaring complainantJs witnesses and stopping co!nselfrom as'ing 9!estions( accepting pleadings of te oter part" e#en after deadline( conferringpersonall" wit te ad#erse part"( and n!llif"ing #otes in complainantJs fa#or$ espondent 3!dgealso applied laws applicable onl" to baranga" officials$

%ELD: 2!dges so!ld be diligent in 'eeping abreast wit de#elopments in law and3!rispr!dence( and regard te st!d" of law as a ne#er0ending and ceaseless process$Elementar" is te r!le tat wen laws or r!les are clear( it is inc!mbent !pon 3!dges to appl"tem regardless of personal belief or predilections$ A 3!dge m!st not onl" be impartial( e m!stalso appear to be impartial$ %ence( te 3!dge m!st( at all times( maintain te appearance offairness and impartialit"$ %is lang!age( bot written and spo'en( m!st be g!arded andmeas!red lest te best of intentions be misconstr!ed$ Fraterni/ing wit litigants tarnises a

56


32/49


33/49


34/49



bea#ior wile in office and also in er e#er"da" life( so!ld be be"ond reproac$ Se sowed apredisposition to !se p"sical #iolence and intemperate lang!age in p!blic wic re#eals amar'ed lac' of 3!dicial temperament and self0restraint( traits wic( besides te basic e9!ipmentof learning in te law( are indispensable 9!alities of e#er" 3!dge$

*n ta'ing !nd!e interest in te settlement of te case( se se#erel" compromised teintegrit" and impartialit" of er office$ Alto!g te initiati#e for te settlement came from tecomplainant( respondent 3!dge went o!t of er wa" to ins!re its s!ccess$ Se failed to obser#epr!dence so necessar" if 3!dges are to be percei#ed to be impartial$ *ndeed( as e-emplars oflaw and 3!stice( 3!dges m!st a#oid not onl" impropriet" b!t e#en te appearance of impropriet"in all teir actions$

eroni!a Gon6a'es vs. %&;e L&!as P. Bersa/inA. . No. RT%5$-5#",, ar. #") #$$-. 2*, SCRA -*2

PONENTE: .endo/a

FACTS: To satisf" 3!dgments in two cases in fa#or of on/ales( two notices of le#" werepresented on real propert" of Cr!/( wic was preliminaril" attaced wile te case waspending and s!bse9!entl" pro#isionall" registered in te egister of Deeds$ %owe#er( te sameland was sold to Can prior to le#"$ Can claims tat s!c annotations pertaining to te le#" becancelled since Cr!/ no longer owned te land$ espondent 3!dge ordered te cancellation$

%ELD: Tere is no e#idence on record to pro#e te carge tat respondent 3!dge !nd!l"fa#ored spo!ses Can$ No proof of partialit" as been sown b" complainant$ .ere s!spiciontat a 3!dge is partial to one of te parties is not eno!g$ Nor is tere an" sowing tatrespondent 3!dge 'nowingl" rendered an !n3!st interloc!tor" orders and an !n3!st 3!dgment$ itas not been sown( in te first place( tat te 3!dgment is !n3!st or tat it is contrar" to law ornot s!pported b" e#idence( and( in te second place( tat it was made wit conscio!s and

deliberate intent to do an in3!stice$ %owe#er( respondent 3!dge so!ld a#e ordered notice to begi#en to complainant and petitioner to implead complainant since it appears tat se ad anad#erse interest annotated on te bac' of teir certificate title$ Section 6?@ of P$D$ No$ 671

Ethics Digests Copy

Documents

Transcript of Ethics Digests Copy