EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES OF JUDGES

Submitted by: Group 17Loise Dayrit

David Jason ImbangLemuel Pagdanganan

Extrajudicial Activities of Judges

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine JudiciaryCanon 4: Propriety

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.

Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

A judge is not just a person who was given an employment in government to decide disputes. A judge occupies a position in government which gives a tangible semblance to an important intangible concept, viz.: justice in society. Thus, appearance of the judge is not just a shallow concept but an embodiment of society’s aspiration for justice itself.

In the case of OCA vs. Judge Floro, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, March 31, 2006, including self-laudatory details stated in his professional calling card such as that he topped the bar examinations with a grade of 87.55% and having graduated with “full second honors” from the Ateneo de Manila University. Breached the norms of simplicity and modesty required of judges. Circulating or distributing such calling cards containing self-laudatory statements is simple misconduct.

OCA vs. JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLOROFACTS: Judge Florentino V. Floro faced a total of 13 charges calling for his disbarment and removal from his office as a judge. Some of the charges against him were the act of circulating calling cards containing self-laudatory statements regarding qualifications in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.02 Canon of Judicial Conduct; for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 Code of Judicial Conduct when he openly criticized the Rule of Court and the Philippine Justice System; for the use of highly improper and intemperate language during court proceeding; for violation of Circular No. 13 dated 1 July 1987.

Judge Floro also claimed that he has certain psychic powers such as the power to see the future, the power of bilocation, the power to type letters while he is in a trance and the power to see and consult with his little friends or the “duwendes”.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Floro is unfit to serve as a judge.

HELD: Judge Floro must be relieved of his position as judge of RTC Malabon Branch due to a medically disabling condition of the mind that renders him unfit to discharge the functions of his office.

The judge and his family were found to be using his chambers as their residence, with the provincial government paying for the electrical bills. The judge was found guilty of serious misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. (Presado vs. Genova, A.M. No. RTJ-91-657,. June 21, 1993)

PRESADO vs. GENOVA

FACTS: Lourdes Presado, in her verified complaint averred that Sometime in 1990, after a petition for adoption of Norlin Mondoniedo was filed by one Phoebe Dizon before the respondent Judge's sala, respondent's wife Emerenciana Genova allegedly demanded and received from the adopting parents the aggregate amount of P15,000.00 through one Mrs. Celeste Asilum; Sometime in 1990, respondent Judge, through his wife Emerenciana, received an undetermined amount from one Adela Du, who also had a pending case with respondent; On another occasion, respondent Judge allowed his wife to receive the amount of P20,000.00 from one Aida Valencia, who then had a pending case before his sala; Sometime in December 1989, a certain Emma Diaz Hao, who was a party to a case pending before respondent judge, at the instance of respondent's wife Emerenciana, treated both respondent Judge and wife to a very sumptuous meal, after which the unconsumed food was wrapped up and given to respondent and wife, at the prodding of the latter; Respondent Judge is also permitting his employee Amy Gaballo to front for his wife's usurious loan transactions, to the direct or indirect benefit of respondent Judge.In his answer, respondent Judge denied all the complaint against him. At the investigation proceedings, complainant Presado states that she had lost interest in prosecuting the present complaint and other administrative complaints against respondent Judge.

HELD: Considering that in the instant administrative case, there is no evidence to prove the charges alleged therein in view of the lack of interest of the complainant to prosecute her complaint, and that the persons who allegedly paid or gave money or served the sumptuous meal to the respondent or his wife, in consideration of a judgment by the respondent judge in their favor in their respective cases,were presented before the undersigned Investigator, and had affirmed the statements in their respective affidavits that no such money was ever paid nor a sumptuous meal served to the respondent judge or his wife in effect, testifying to the falsity of the charges alleged by the complainant THE Investigating Justice recommends that the complaint in this administrative case no. RTJ-91- 657 be dismissed.

Section 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial ethics.

Upon taking his oath of office as a judge, the judge, who was formerly an ordinary lawyer, surrenders his former lifestyle to the guarded lifestyle of a judge. He steps onto a stage always subject to scrutiny. A judge’s official life can not simply be detached from his personal life. (Vedana vs. Valencia, 295 SCRA 1).

VEDANA vs. VALENCIA

The complainant is the Court Interpreter while the respondent is the Presiding Judge, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 222 at Quezon City.

FACTS: On May 8, 1996 at around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, as was her want to do, the complainant went to the respondent Judge’s chamber to inform him that the cases were ready for trial. She knocked on the door and upon being told to enter, she poked her head inside the room and told the respondent that the parties were all present. The respondent however, called her inside the chamber and bidding to the request, she went in and stood beside his table. The respondent then held her right hand and tried to kiss her on the lips. However, she evaded the kiss and it landed on her cheek. The respondent then held her left breast. In her struggle to break free of the respondent’s hold, the pen she held in her hand fell to the floor. She was able to free herself; hence she picked up the pen and left the room in a hurry. Wanting the respondent Judge to face sanctions for his unbecoming behavior, the complainant instituted the present charges for “Gross Misconduct and Immoral Acts”.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of Gross misconduct and Immoral Acts.

HELD: Finding the respondent guilty of the complaint filed against him, the investigating judge respectfully recommends that respondent Judge EUDARLIO B. VALENCIA be suspended from office for sixty (60) days without pay.

A “magistrate” has to live by the example of his precepts. He cannot judge the conduct of others when his own needs judgement. It should be not be ‘do as I say and not what I do.’ For then the court over which he is called to preside will be a mockery, one devoid of respect. (Resngit-Marquez vs. Judge Llamas, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1708, July 23, 2002)

RESNGIT-MARQUEZ vs. JUDGE LLAMAS

FACTS: complainants’ court employees Cynthia Resngit-Marquez, Shielah J. Ramos, Rosalinda L. Roquillas and Vicky F. Ramos charged respondent Victor T.

Llamas, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, with immorality and gross misconduct. They alleged that respondent judge, though married, maintains an illicit relationship with a married woman, Lourdes Muñoz-Garcia, and both are living together as husband and wife under one roof; that the court sala of respondent Judge, as well as the office of his personnel, have been utilized as dancing halls and drinking wine rooms on office hours; that respondent Judge is drunk almost everyday; that respondent Judge is living a highly immoral and disgraceful life, and this is of open and public knowledge, and his mistress fondly calls him “Daddy”, thereby trumpeting their affair in open view; that the complainant have been subjected to the intimidation and harassment by respondent Judge. The affidavit-complaint was referred to Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Judge is guilty of Immorality and Gross Misconduct

HELD: Justice Brawner thus recommended that respondent Judge be dismissed from service but without forfeiture of his earned benefits.

In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. We find no room to accommodate doubts on Justice Brawner’s findings of facts, which we find to be a result of a meticulous and dispassionate analysis of the testimonies of the complainants and the respondent as well as their respective witnesses. Thus, we adopt Justice Brawner’s recommendation of dismissal.

The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence. He should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. His personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for he is, as he so aptly is perceived to be, the visible personification of law and of justice.

Regrettably, respondent Judge failed to live up to these standards. He brazenly flouted judicial ethics and betrayed judicial standards by using ‘his court to indulge his drinking, singing and dancing habits to the detriment of the other courts within the building who were disturbed by all the noise coming from his courtroom”; and, especially, by maintaining an illicit relationship with Lourdes Muñoz Garcia, a married woman. A judge suffers from moral obtuseness or has a weird notion of morality in public office when he labors under the delusion that he can be a judge and at the same time have a mistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community

However, we are unable to agree with the reservation of Justice Brawner on the forfeiture of earned benefits due respondent Judge based on the fact that respondent Judge’s wife was not the one who initiated this complaint nor did she participate in its prosecution. The non-participation or non-appearance of the wife in the administrative proceedings for immorality is not a factor in the imposition of penalty. Neither should it be beneficial to respondent Judge.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge Victor T. Llamas, Jr. guilty of the charge of immorality, he is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of 50% of all his retirement benefits excluding any earned leave credits; and, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Section 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a member of the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members of the legal profession.

Judges must keep their distance from lawyers and avoid involvement with their respective practice of law even if such lawyers have no pending cases before them. Judges and lawyers must maintain a discreet relationship. As such, vulgar display of friendship must be avoided.

Sec. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

The exercise of constitutional rights of judges should not impinge judicial independence. While judges continue to enjoy their constitutional rights as citizens, their exercise of such rights must be mindful of their equally important constitutional duty to uphold judicial independence. In the event that such constitutional rights and constitutional duty clash, the judge must be mindful of the judicial office which he holds and his sworn duty to uphold judicial independence.

IllustrationA judge who expresses himself with expletives commits an impropriety. Hence, the use “putris” and “putang ina” were unfit expressions for men of the robe. It did not matter that they were not directed to any person in particular, as they give the impression of a person’s ill manners. Considering that the respondent is not an ordinary citizen, such intemperate language detracts from how a judge should conduct himself. (In re Judge Acuna, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005)

IN RE JUDGE ACUNA

FACTS: On November 21, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a Letter dated November 3, 2003 from “Concerned citizens of the lower court” reporting the alleged “practices” of Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 123. According to the letter, the respondent Judge conducted trials, signed orders and even sentenced accused while on official leave from August 15, 2001 to September 15, 2001. The letter went on to question whether the respondent had authority to impose such sentences, issue orders and conduct hearings. Aside from listing the respondent’s “dialogues,” his “favorite expressions” were likewise listed, as follows:1. Putris2. Anak ng pating3. Putang Ina4. Pogi, beauty5. Tulungan nyo naman ako, hirap na hirap na ko.6. Mali ka na naman.According to the unknown complainants, the respondent Judge also “spends much of his energy talking” and loves to berate and embarrass people, not caring whether he speaks in open court, as long as he has an audience. The complainants further stated that the respondent’s decisions usually take about seven to ten drafts, as he “changes his mind so many times.” It was further alleged that the respondent loves to “glorify himself,” and that his behavior was weird.In his comment, the respondent averred that the writers of the letter were actuated by improper motive, and sent the letter with no other purpose than to harass him. Furthermore, the allegations in the letter were fabricated, exaggerated, or misquoted.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of impropriety.

HELD: The respondent Judge Edmundo T. Acuña is found GUILTY of impropriety and is REPRIMANDED therefor. He is STERNLY WARNED that the repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Section 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary financial interest and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial interests of members of the family.

A judge should avoid financial improprieties. He must be always conscious of his and his family’s financial dealings, when practicable to avoid being caught inadvertently in financial entanglements. Where a potential financial conflict would occur, the judge becomes duty bound to inhibit from the case. A judge should be conscious about going into a debtor-creditor relationship with others, as well as mindful of his financial investments.

Section 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige or the judicial office to advance their private interest, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial duties.

Duty not to use judicial influenceA judicial office carries a certain amount of prestige and influence in society that prestige ad influence should be used to promote and enhance respect for the law and tha administration of justice, and not to further the judge’s and his family’s personal interests.

IllustrationA judge who attends the proceedings of an election protest before a MCTC where his brother was the election protestor purportedly in order to give moral support to his brother (Vidal vs. Judge Dojillo, A.M. Bo. MTJ-05-1591-, July 14, 2005)

Vidal vs. Judge Dojillo, A.M. Bo. MTJ-05-1591, July 14, 2005)

FACTS: The Hon. Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., is here charged with “Misconduct.” The charge stemmed from an Election Protest filed by the brother of Judge Dojillo to protest the proclamation of herein complainant as Barangay Captain.

Mr. Vidal, alleged that during the hearings of the Election Protest, Judge Dojillo “sat beside the counsel of his brother” and actively coached, aided, assisted, and guided said counsel by now and then saying something, handing a piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from manifesting something to the court, and other similar acts.”

Complainant continued that herein respondent’s “assertive presence and display of partisan activities in full public view could not have been ignored or unnoticed by the court a quo and would give the impression and suspicion of partiality of the said court in favor of respondent’s broehter.”

Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present during the hearings but explained that he did not sit beside his brother’s lawyer but in the area reserved for the public; and that the main reason why he was there was to observe how election protests are conducted as he has never conducted one. His other reason was to give moral support to his brother.

ISSUE: Whether or not such presence constitutes misconduct?

HELD: Yes.

Respondent, being a judge, should bear in mind that he is also called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of the entire judiciary. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid not only impropriety but also the mere appearance of impropriety in all activites.

Even if respondent did not intend to use his position as a judge to influence the outcome of his brother’s election protest, it cannot be denied that his presence in the courtroom during the hearing of his brother’s case would immediately give cause for the community to suspect that his being a colleague in the judiciary would influence the judge trying the case to favor his brother.

Section 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges may(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with matters relating to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;(c ) Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial duties

A judge like any other human beings, should have other social and professionally related activities. The absence of these other activities other than his judicial employment, would not be healthy mentally and emotionally. Nevertheless, these activities must be consistent with the dignity and responsibility of the judicial office.

Section 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial office.

Duty not to Practice LawThe basis for this rule is public policy. As explained in Carual vs. Judge Brusola(375

Phil. 464).“The rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law

are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special favors to their own private interest and assure the public of their impartiality in the performance of their functions. These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the public interest.”

Carual vs. Judge Brusola, 375 Phil. 464

FACTS: Complainant, Victoriano Carual filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a sworn complaint against respondent Judge Vladimir Brusola for the violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct alleging that the complainant discovered that the lot owned by his son, was encroached by the house of Andres Bo; that the

complainant sought the assistance of Atty. Cargullo who wrote Andres Bo ordering him to remove his house from the lot; that Andres Bo engaged the legal services of respondent judge who, wrote Atty. Cargullo stating that the lot in question had been sold to Crispin and Ursula Bo, landlord of Andre Bo; that respondent judge’s act amounted to private practice of law, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Respondent judge denied the charges against him. He explained that he wrote the letter to Atty. Cargullo not as counsel for a party but in the concept of an owner since he was the administrator of the property in question.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge is engaging or has engaged in the private practice of law?

HELD: Yes.

As a general rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary. The only exception is when the estate or trust belongs to, or the ward is a member of his immediate family, and only if his service as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties.

The intent of the rule is to limit a judge’s involvement in the affairs and interests of private individuals to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties and to allow him to devote his undivided attention to the performance of his official functions. Judges have the duty to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. When a member of the bench serves as administrator of the properties of private individuals, he runs the risk of losing his neutrality and impartiality, especially when the interest of his principal conflicts with that of the litigant who comes before his court.

“Private practice” is more than an isolated court appearance for it consist in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer (Ziga vs. Judge Arejola, 451 Phil. 449).

Sadik vs. Casar 266 SCRA 1

FACTS: On February 14, 1985, one Lekiya Paito filed an application for life insurance with the Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (Grepalife) in Cotabato City. The application was approved and Policy No. 0503033 was issued in her name for the amount of P30,000.00 with an accidental death benefit rider. Named as beneficiaries were her daughters, Linang Minalang and Makadaya Sadik. She paid the initial premium of P410.00.

On October 12, 1985, Lekiya Paito died. The beneficiaries and/or through their representatives sought for and obtained the assistance of respondent, who was then a trial attorney of the Bureau of Forest Development, Cotabato City, to pursue the approval of their claim for payment of the insurance benefits with Grepalife.

On November 17, 1989, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant ordering the latter to pay to the former the sum of P30,000.00 as “benefit due them under Insurance Policy No. 503033.” The court denied plaintiffs” claim for double indemnity of P60,000.00 under the accidental death rider. At this time, respondent was already the presiding Judge of the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kolambugan-Maigo.

Upon receipt of the decision, respondent as counsel for plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals even as defendant likewise filed an appeal. Respondent represented the plaintiffs in the appeal. After the dismissal of its petition by the Supreme Court, Grepalife filed a Manifestation dated 6 July 1993 with the Regional Trial Court, Br. 13, Cotabato City declaring its willingness to pay the judgment award and depositing with said court RCBC check No. 62837 in the amount of P30,000.00 payable to the plaintiffs.

Respondent collected the check from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Br, 13, Cotabato City and thereafter cashed it. Respondent did not deliver the said money judgment to the plaintiffs. On January 26, 1995, complainants filed their administrative complaint.

ISSUE: W/N Respondent Judge is guilty and must be dismissed from service

HELD: Respondent’s act of collecting the judgment award of P30,000.00 from the Clerk of Court of RTC, Cotabato City and his refusal to turn over the amount to his client, complainant Makadaya Sadik and her sister, is an act of misappropriation amounting to gross misconduct and/or dishonesty. His defense that he has the right to retain the entire P30,000.00 as attorney’s lien in unacceptable. For he has no right to retain the judgment award allegedly to secure payment of litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. He had no authority to practice law while in government service. In continuing to handle the case of herein complainants against Grepalife after he joined the government and without first securing proper authority is no less constitutive of abuse of authority. Furthermore, he violated Rule 5.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits a judge to engage in the private practice of law.

He likewise violated the Attorney’s Oath in agreeing to file Civil Case No. 2747 for the purpose of claiming the insurance proceeds from Grepalife despite his having

been informed that the insurance policy of Lekiya Paito was fraudulently applied for. Agreeing to handle the claim said to have arisen from a fraudulent act against the insurer certainly speaks of a moral flaw in his character. xxx But scam or not we are convinced that the complainant Makadaya Sadik is not an impostor. She denied that she is the step-daughter of Lekiya Paito. She insisted she is the youngest daughter and she named all her brothers and sisters. And it was respondent who presented her in Civil Case No. 2747 as Makadaya Sadik daughter of Lekiya Sadik and one of the beneficiaries of the latter’s insurance policy.

Indeed, to be effective in his role, a judge must be a man of exceptional integrity and honesty. The special urgency for requiring these qualities in a judge is not hard to understand for the judge acts directly upon the property, liberty, even life, of his countrymen. Hence, being in a position of such grave responsibility in the administration of justice, a judge must conduct himself in a manner befitting the dignity of such exalted office.

Respondent judge, however, not only failed in this respect but proved himself repeatedly unworthy of his post.

This Court notes that respondent had been previously fined P5,000.00 and sternly warned for knowingly issuing an order without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, he has four other administrative cases docketed against him involving various charges such as gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions and falsification of public documents.

Respondent judge’s seeming propensity to transgress the very law he is sworn to uphold makes him unfit to discharge the functions of a judge. Judicial office demands the best possible men and this Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts towards effective and efficient administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public.

Tabao vs Judge Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1330. January 30, 1996

FACTS: This is a complaint filed by the sisters Azucena and Jesusa Tabao against Judge Enrique Asis charging him with gross irregularity in the performance of his duties and abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming of a judge, among others. While acting as MTCC Judge of Tacloban City, Br.1, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed in behalf of their aunt Marquita M. Cinco-Jocson, to sell a parcel of land while the latter was confined in the hospital which was done, according to respondent judge, as a “gesture of Christian charity and brotherly love for people in need” considering that the proceeds were used for the payment of the medical expenses. However, an

examination of the SPA negates the professed “gesture of Christian charity and brotherly love for people in need” since it was already notarized one month and 20 days before.

ISSUE: Whether or not the actuations of respondent judge is violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

HELD: Yes.

Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that no judge or other official or employee of the superior courts shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients. It is based on sound reasons of public policy, for there is no question that the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are so inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretions and privileges of a judge of the Regional Trial Court.

This rule makes it obligatory upon the judicial officers concerned to give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special favors for their own private interests and assure the public of impartiality in the performance of their functions. These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and the desire to promote public interest.

Other basis for the prohibition

Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that “No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as member of the bar or give professional advice to client.”

Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, on the other hand provides that: “ A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law.”

Section 12. Judges may form or join associations of judges or participate in other organizations representing the interest of judges.

Membership and active participation of judges, in judges organizations is a welcome activity. Since social activities of judges with lawyers are restricted, such activities afford an opportunity to socialize with one’s peers. It is also a venue to pursue professional development in the exchange of ideas with fellow judges.

Section 13. Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties.

Illustration:A judge who asked for a sum of money in return for the dismissal of drug related criminal charges was entrapped by NBI. (NBI vs. Judge Reyes, AM No. MTJ 97-1120, February 21, 2000)

NBI vs. Judge Reyes AM No. 97-1120, February 21, 2000

Facts: On the evening of November 12, 1996, barangay officials of Barangay Majuben, Mabini, Batangas, arrested Reynaldo Magday, Melvin Dalangin, Rex Cordero and primo Evangelista, who were caught using methamphetamine chloride, popularly known as shabu, during a drug session. The four (4) were detained a t the local police station and were charged of violating Section 16, in relation to Section 27, of Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The corresponding information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1817, was filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas, presided over by respondent Judge Ramon B. Reyes.

On November 20, 1996, Nenita Dalangin, Marina Cordero and Nelia Evangelista, the mothers of the last three (3) accused, approached respondent to plead for the release of their sons. For the sum of P240,000.00, respondent allegedly promised to dismiss the case against all the accused. Since the mothers did not have sufficient means, the amount was eventually lowered to P15,000.00, and the pay-off was scheduled on November 28, 1996. However, respondent failed to report for work on the aforesaid date, so the exchange was reset a week later to December 5, 1996. Xsc

Three (3) days before the pay-off, on December 2, 1996, Dalangin, Cordero and Evangelista reported the alleged extortion to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) at its Regional Office in Batangas City. After the mothers executed separate sworn statements, the NBI planned an entrapment. To accomplish this, it prepared the amount of P3,000.00 consisting of two five-hundred peso bills and twenty one–hundred peso bills. These bills were individually marked "P-96-187, ATP/NMC, 12/3/96, FCD, NBI" using invisible ink and dusted with yellow fluorescent powder. The NBI also enlisted the services of Intelligence Agent Josephine Cabardo to accompany the mothers to respondent’s office, and who posed as the lender of the money.

ISSUE: Whether Judge Reyes should be dismissed from service and be disbarred from the practice of law.

Held: Yes, the Supreme Court held that Judge Reyes acted in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct Code 2.01 “A judge should avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all activities.”

The Investigating Justice likewise recommends that respondent be disbarred. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. In The Court Administrator v. Hermoso and Bautista v. Guevarra, we decreed the disbarment of judges, apart from their dismissal from service, who were charged with bribery. The case at bar should be no different. All lawyers who desire to practice their profession in this jurisdiction are required to take an oath of office whereby they undertake, among other obligations, to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court xxx without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."The practice of law is a privilege, and only those adjudged qualified are permitted to do so. Respondent’s conduct falls short of the exacting standards demanded by the legal profession, such that his malfeasance in office merits the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from our esteemed brotherhood.

Section 15. Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public disclosure, judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate to the occasion on which it is made, provided that such gift, award or benefit might not be reasonably perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of official judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of partiality.

Token gifts on reasonable occasions are acceptable. Three factors would be relevant:

1. The value of the gift which obviously should not be excessive. 2. The regularity of the occasion. Thus, it should not be for a frivolous

occasion not normally celebrated. 3. The source of the gift. If the gift-giver happens to be a party-litigant

with a pending case before the judge, the value of the gift might be immaterial as the propriety of the gesture might be misconstrued or questioned.