Legal and Judicial Ethics_ Case Compilations 2010-2012

8/12/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics_ Case Compilations 2010-2012

1/83

July 2011 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Legal and Judicial EthicsPosted on August 15, 2011by Ramon G. Songco

Here are selected July 2011 rulings of te Su!reme "ourt of te Pili!!ines on legal and #udicial

etics$

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty and conduct !re#udicial. A com!laint &as filed against te

res!ondent alleging tat e acce!ted em!loyment as "ief Judicial Staff 'fficer of te Su!reme

"ourt, and tus recei(ed salaries and oter benefits as suc, &ile still remaining an acti(e

member and officer of te Pili!!ine )ational Police *P)P+. e "ourt found tat res!ondent&as liable for gross disonesty and conduct !re#udicial to te best interest of te ser(ice. His

non-disclosure of te material fact tat e &as still em!loyed as an acti(e member of te P)P

and recei(ing is montly salaries during te !eriod tat e &as already a "ourt em!loyee isconsidered substantial !roof tat e tried to ceatdefraud bot te P)P and te "ourt.

Res!ondent transgressed te "onstitution and te "i(il Ser(ice la& on te !roibition on dual

em!loyment and double com!ensation in te go(ernment ser(ice. Re: Gross violation of Civil

Service Law on the prohibition against dual employment and double compensation in thegovernment service committed by Mr. Eduardo . Escala! etc. ".M. #o. $%&&'%('SC! )uly *!

$%&&

"ourt !ersonnel% effect of absences &itout a!!ro(ed lea(e. An administrati(e case &as filedagainst "abrera, a /tility orer in te "" of 3i!a "ity, &o as failed to file is 4aily

ime Records *4Rs+ and to see lea(e for any of is absences. e "ourt eld tat !ursuant to

te 'mnibus Rules on 3ea(e, an em!loyees absence &itout official lea(e for at least 60&oring days &arrants is se!aration from te ser(ice. A !ublic office is a !ublic trust. Public

officers must at all times be accountable to te !eo!le, ser(e tem &it te utmost degree of

res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. 7y going on A'3, "abrera grossly

disregarded and neglected te duties of is office. He failed to adere to te ig standards of!ublic accountability im!osed on all tose in go(ernment ser(ice. Re: +ropping from the Rolls

of Cornelio Reniette Cabrera! etc.".M. #o. ,'&&'$-(. )uly &/! $%&&

"ourt !ersonnel% abitual tardiness. Res!ondent, a cler of court of te R" in 3ucena "ity, &as

found to a(e been tardy in re!orting for &or more tan ten times eac mont from July to'ctober 2010. "i(il Ser(ice emorandum "ircular )o. 26, Series of 1889 !ro(ides tat :any

em!loyee sall be considered abitually tardy if e incurs tardiness, regardless of te number of

minutes, ten *10+ times a mont for at least t&o *2+ monts in a semester or at least t&o *2+consecuti(e monts during te year. Habitual tardiness is an administrati(e offense tat seriously

com!romises &or efficiency and am!ers !ublic ser(ice. 7y being abitually tardy, res!ondent

as fallen sort of te stringent standard of conduct demanded from e(eryone connected &it teadministration of #ustice. e "ler of "ourt !lays a (ital role in ensuring te !rom!t and sound

administration of #ustice. oral obligations, !erformance of ouseold cores, traffic !roblems

and ealt, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to e;cuse abitualtardiness.Re: Leave +ivision! 0ffice of "dministrative Services! 0C" v. 1rancisco ". ,ua! )r.Cler2 of Court ! R3C! 4r. **! Lucena City.".M. #o. ,'&&'$-(*. )uly &/! $%&&
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/july-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/2011-04-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/2011-04-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/P-11-2946.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/P-11-2945.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/2011-04-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/2011-04-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/P-11-2946.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/P-11-2945.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/july-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/


2/83

"ourt !ersonnel% abitual tardiness. e 3ea(e 4i(ision of te 'ffice of te "ourt Administrator*'"A+ re!orted on te tardiness incurred by res!ondent court stenogra!er. e '"A

recommended tat te case be redoceted as a regular administrati(e matter and tat se be

re!rimanded for abitual tardiness &it a &arning tat a re!etition of te same or similar offense&ould &arrant te im!osition of a more se(ere !enalty. oral obligations, !erformance of

ouseold cores, traffic !roblems, ealt conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not

sufficient reasons to e;cuse abitual tardiness. Res!ondent submitted an ans&er to te com!laintacno&ledging er infraction and begging te indulgence of te "ourt. e "ourt found te

!enalty of se(ere re!rimand to be !ro!er for er infraction. 0ffice of the "dministrative Services!

0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Leda 0. 5ri! etc.".M. #o. ,'&%'$6*$. )uly $7! $%&&

"ourt !ersonnel% misconduct. Res!ondent seriff &as carged &it negligence and gra(emisconduct as e &as allegedly negligent in le(ying u!on a motor (eicle and !roceeding &it

its auction sale &itout looing into te cars "ertificate of Registration to determine &eter it

&as encumbered or not. e "ourt eld tat it &as irrele(ant for te com!lainant to argue tatte res!ondent failed to cec te cars certificate of registration to determine if it &as

encumbered because te encumbrance, until foreclosed, &ill not in any &ay affect te #udgment

debtors rigts o(er te !ro!erty or e;em!t te !ro!erty from te le(y in any e(ent. A seriffs

duty to e;ecute a &rit is sim!ly ministerial and e is bound to !erform only tose tass statedunder te Rules of "ourt and no more. Any interest a tird !arty may a(e on te !ro!erty

le(ied u!on by te seriff to enforce a #udgment is te tird !artys res!onsibility to !rotect

troug te remedies !ro(ided under Rule 68 of te Rules of "ourt. Golden Sun 1inanceCorporation! rep by Rachelle L. Marmito vs. Ricardo R. "lbano! etc! ".M. #o. ,'&&'$666. )uly

$7! $%&&

"ourt !ersonnel% seriffs duty to gi(e notice !rior to demolition. it res!ect to Seriff

"alsenia, te "ourt finds tat e failed to strictly com!ly &it te re


3/83

Judge% gross misconduct. Judge Rabang, a #udge of te "" in "otabato "ity, left tePili!!ines in ay 200? &itout an a!!ro(ed lea(e and as remained abroad and absent from

is court for more tan four years. Suc attitude betrays is lac of concern for is office. He as

abandoned is office and committed gross misconduct. e "ode of Judicial "onduct decreestat a #udge sould administer #ustice im!artially and &itout delay. A #udge sould lie&ise be

imbued &it a ig sense of duty and res!onsibility in te discarge of is obligation

to !rom!tlyadminister #ustice. e trial court #udges being te !aradigms of #ustice in te firstinstance a(e been e;orted to dis!ose of te courts business !rom!tly and to decide cases

&itin te re


4/83

court is an act of misa!!ro!riation of funds amounting to disonesty. ,roserpina . "nico v.Emerson 4. ,ilipi9a! Sheriff 8! 0ffice of the Cler2 of Court! Regional 3rial Court! Manila.".M.

#o. ,'&&'$6-. "ugust $! $%&&.

"ourt !ersonnel% inefficiency and incom!etence in te !erformance of official duties . e "ourt

found 'fficer-in-"arge *'="+ Bster Asilo administrati(ely liable for er inaccurate !re!arationof montly case re!orts, ine!t monitoring of case records, and incom!etent su!er(ision of court

!ersonnel. A "ler of "ourt is an essential officer in any #udicial system, er office being te

center of acti(ities, bot ad#udicati(e and administrati(e. us, '=" Asilo must recogniCe tater administrati(e functions are #ust as (ital to te !rom!t and !ro!er administration of #ustice.

Se cannot !roffer as an e;cuse tat se merely inerited and continued te !rocedure follo&ed

!rior to er designation. /!on acce!tance of er designation, er first concern &as to no& erassumed duties and res!onsibilities es!ecially &en administrati(e circulars, issuances and

manual of clers of court are at and. #ilda erginesa'Suare v. )udge Renato ). +ilag and

Court Stenographer 888 Concepcion ". ,ascua and 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )udge

Renato ). +ilag. Ester ". "silo! 0fficer'in'Charge! Court Stenographer 888! Regional 3rialCourt! 4ranch 7/! 0longapo City! ;ambales and "tty. Ronald +. Gavino! +eputy Cler2 of

Court! 0ffice of the Cler2 of Court! Regional trial Court! 0longapo City. ".M. #o. R3)'%'$%&(

and ".M. #o. R3)'&&'$$-/. "ugust &! $%&&

"ourt !ersonnel% sim!le misconduct. Giganto and DalenCuela, co-&orers in te Personnel

4i(ision of 'AS-'"A, got in(ol(ed in a fistfigt for &ic tey &ere found guilty of sim!le

misconduct by te "ourt. =n com!uting teir !enalties, te "ourt considered teir lengt of

ser(ice, satisfactory !erformance ratings, and number of !re(ious administrati(e carges asmitigating, aggra(ating and alternati(e circumstances, as te case may be. ime and again, te

"ourt as stressed te need for te conduct and bea(ior of e(ery !erson connected &it te

dis!ensation of #ustice to be caracteriCed by !ro!riety and decorum. is standard is a!!lied,not only &it res!ect to a court em!loyees dealings &it te !ublic, but also &it is or er co-

&orers in te ser(ice. "onduct (iolati(e of tis standard


5/83

unfounded com!laint must be sanctioned because, as an officer of te court, e does notdiscarge is duty by filing fri(olous !etitions tat only add to te &orload of te #udiciary.

Suc filing of baseless com!laints is contem!tuous of te courts. "om!lainant &as ordered to

so& cause &y e sould not be sub#ected to disci!linary action for filing a fri(olous and

baseless com!laint. "tty. Emmanuel R. "ndamo v. )udge Edwin G. Larida! )r.! Cler2 of CourtStanlee +. Calma and Legal Researcher +iana G. Rui! all of Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch &6

3agytay City. ".M. #o. R3)'&&'$$*. September $&! $%&&.

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty. e !ractice of res!ondent in offsetting er collection is notallo&ed under accounting and auditing rules and regulations. 7y failing to !ro!erly remit te

cas collections constituting !ublic funds, se (iolated te trust re!osed in er as disbursement

officer of te Judiciary. 3ie&ise, er claim tat se did not no& tat se is te accountable

officer for te court collections does not con(ince te "ourt. "lers of "ourt are !resumed tono& teir duty to immediately de!osit &it te autoriCed go(ernment de!ositories te (arious

funds tey recei(e, for tey are not su!!osed to ee! funds in teir !ersonal !ossession. Her

failure to de!osit te said amount u!on collection &as !re#udicial to te court, &ic did not earninterest income on te said amount or &as not able to oter&ise use te said funds. e "ourt

found res!ondent guilty of disonesty and dismissed er from te ser(ice. 0ffice of the Court

"dministrator v. Evelyn Elumbaring! Cler2 of Court 88! &stMunicipal Circuit 3rial Court!Carmen'Sto. 3omas'4raulio E. +u=ali! +avao del #orte. ".M. #o. ,'&%'$7*. September &/!

$%&&.

"ourt !ersonnel% failure to !erform duty. Res!ondent admitted tat e failed to ser(e te )otice

of Pre-rial "onference and Pre-rial to com!lainant, u!on instruction of te #udge, since tecom!lainant &as already informed of te sceduled earing. Res!ondent, as !rocess ser(er, is

reminded to !erform is duty diligently for te orderly administration of #ustice. ere is a need

to ser(e te notice on te com!lainant not only to mae te act official but also to enable im tomae te !ro!er return to reflect &at trans!ired. e !ossibility tat te com!lainant migt

deny tat e ad been so informed by te Judge is not remote. Col. Mauricio ". Santiago! )r. v.

"rthur M. Camangyan! ,rocess Server! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch $-! 3oledo City. ".M. #o.

,'&&'$-77. September &(! $%&&.

"ourt !ersonnel% sim!le misconduct. /!on recei!t of te !rocess ser(er fee, res!ondent issued

an acno&ledgment recei!t instead of an official recei!t. is is in (iolation of te Su!reme

"ourt "ircular )o. 2E-8? &ic mandates te issuance of official recei!ts for !ayments

recei(ed. Her e;!lanation tat te acno&ledgment recei!t &as sufficient since te !rocessser(er fee se collected &as not !art of te Judiciary 4e(elo!ment @und, S!ecial Allo&ance for

te Judiciary or sub#ected to any fund allocation &as not a (alid #ustification for er non-

com!liance &it te court circular. Se (iolated te trust and confidence re!osed in er ascasier and disbursement officer of te court. e "ourt &ill not tolerate any conduct, act or

omission by any court em!loyee (iolating te norm of !ublic accountability and diminising or

tending to diminis te fait of te !eo!le in te Judiciary. +olores C. Seliger v. "lma ,. Licay!Cler2 of Court! Municipal Circuit 3rial Court! San )uan! La 5nion. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$-7%.

September &(! $%&&.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/RTJ-11-2265.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/RTJ-11-2265.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-10-2765.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-10-2765.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-10-2765.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2970.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2970.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2970.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/RTJ-11-2265.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-10-2765.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-10-2765.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2970.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/P-11-2970.htm


6/83

October 2011 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics

Posted on)o(ember 11, 2011by Ramon G. Songco

Here are selected 'ctober 2011 rulings of te Su!reme "ourt of te Pili!!ines on legal and

#udicial etics$

Attorney% disonesty. =t is clear from te records tat res!ondent Atty. BdiCa decei(ed te

S!ouses @loran &en e ased tem to unno&ingly sign a deed of sale transferring a !ortion ofteir land to im. Res!ondent also made it a!!ear tat te original o&ner of te land con(eyed

er rigts terto to res!ondent and not to te S!ouses @loran. en te sale of te S!ouses

@lorans land !used troug, res!ondent recei(ed alf of te !roceeds gi(en by te buyer andfalsely misled te S!ouses @loran into tining tat e &ill register te remaining !ortion of te

land. 3amentably, Atty. BdiCa !layed on te naF(et of te S!ouses @loran to de!ri(e tem of

teir (alued !ro!erty. is is an unsa(ory bea(ior from a member of te legal !rofession.

Aside from gi(ing ade


7/83

Attorney% notariCation. e fact tat te affiant !re(iously a!!eared in !erson and signed te4eed of 4onation before te res!ondent notary !ublic does not #ustify te res!ondents act of

notariCing te 4eed of 4onation, considering te affiants absence on te (ery day te document

&as actually notariCed. =n te notarial acno&ledgment of te 4eed of 4onation, res!ondentattested tat Atty. 3inco !ersonally came and a!!eared before im on July 60, 2006. et

ob(iously, Atty. 3inco could not a(e a!!eared before im on July 60, 2006, because te latter

died on July 28, 2006 I a day before te 4eed of 4onation &as notariCed, and res!ondent &asa&are of tat fact. "learly, res!ondent made a false statement and (iolated Rule 10.01 of te

"ode of Professional Res!onsibility and is oat as a la&yer. @aitful obser(ance and utmost

res!ect of te legal solemnity of te oat in an acno&ledgment or #urat is

sacrosanct. Res!ondent sould not notariCe a document unless te !ersons &o signed te sameare te (ery same !ersons &o e;ecuted and personally appeared beore himto attest to te

contents and trut of &at are stated terein. "tty. 1lorita S. Linco v. "tty. )immy +. Lacebal.

".C. #o. 7$(&. 0ctober &7! $%&&.

Attorney% notariCation of illegal document. A notary !ublic sould not facilitate te

disintegration of a marriage and te family by encouraging te se!aration of te s!ouses and

e;tra#udicially dissol(ing te con#ugal !artnersi!, &ic is e;actly &at res!ondent did in tis

case. =n !re!aring and notariCing an agreement for e;tra#udicial dissolution of marriage a(oid document res!ondent (iolated Rule 1.01, "anon 1 of te "ode of Professional

Res!onsibility &ic !ro(ides tat :KaL la&yer sall not engage in unla&ful, disonest, immoral

or deceitful conduct.> Res!ondent ne& fully &ell tat te :?asunduan #g ,aghihiwalay> asno legal effect and is against !ublic !olicy. erefore, res!ondent may be sus!ended from office

as an attorney for breac of te etics of te legal !rofession as embodied in te "ode of

Professional Res!onsibility. Rodolfo ". Espinosa and Ma@imo ". Glindo v. "tty. )ulieta ".0ma9a. ".C. #o. -%6&. 0ctober &$! $%&&.

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty. e "ourt deems 7enedictoss falsification of er bundy cards

tantamount to disonesty. is "ourt as defined disonesty as te :*d+is!osition to lie, ceat,

decei(e, or defraud% untrust&ortiness% lac of integrity% lac of onesty, !robity or integrity in!rinci!le% lac of fairness and straigtfor&ardness% dis!osition to defraud, decei(e or betray.>

4isonesty, being in te nature of a gra(e offense, carries te e;treme !enalty of dismissal fromte ser(ice &it forfeiture of retirement benefits e;ce!t accrued lea(e credits, and !er!etualdis


8/83

Judge% failure to file statement of assets and liabilities. Res!ondent clearly (iolated te Anti-Graft and "orru!t Practices Act and te "ode of "onduct and Btical Standards for Public

'fficials and Bm!loyees &en e failed to file is Statement of Assets, 3iabilities and )et ort

*SA3)+ for te years 200-2009. He ga(e no e;!lanation &y e failed to file is SA3) for fi(econsecuti(e years. ile e(ery office in te go(ernment ser(ice is a !ublic trust, no !osition

e;acts a greater demand on moral rigteousness and u!rigtness of an indi(idual tan a seat in

te Judiciary. Hence, #udges are strictly mandated to abide &it te la&, te "ode of Judicial"onduct and &it e;isting administrati(e !olicies in order to maintain te fait of our !eo!le in

te administration of #ustice. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )udge 5yag ,. 5sman!

,residing )udge! ShariAa Circuit Court! ,agadian City. ".M. #o. SCC'%6'&$. 0ctober &-!

$%&&.

Judge% gross ignorance of te la&. e failure of Judge =nfante to conduct a earing !rior to te

grant of bail in a criminal case in(ol(ing a crime !unisable by a ca!ital offense, and is mere

reliance on te recommendation for bail by te !ublic !rosecutor, &as ine;cusable and reflectedgross ignorance of te la& and te rules as &ell as a ca(alier disregard of its re


9/83

"o#ember 2011 Philippine Supreme Court


Posted on 4ecember 18, 2011by Ramon G. Songco

Here are selected )o(ember 2011 rulings of te Su!reme "ourt of te Pili!!ines on legal and

#udicial etics$

Attorney% aiding illegal !ractice of la&. =t as been establised tat 4ela Rosa &o is not a

member of te 7ar misre!resented erself as res!ondents collaborating counsel. ere &as alsosufficient e(idence to !ro(e tat res!ondent allo&ed 4ela Rosa to illegally !ractice la&, a!!ear

in court, and gi(e legal assistance to res!ondents client. is is in (iolation of "anon 8 of te

"ode of Professional Res!onsibility &ic states tat :KaL la&yer sall not, directly or indirectly,assist in te unautoriCed !ractice of la&.> e term :!ractice of la&> im!lies customarily or

abitually olding oneself out to te !ublic as a la&yer for com!ensation as a source of

li(eliood or in consideration of is ser(ices. Holding ones self out as a la&yer may be so&n

by acts indicati(e of tat !ur!ose, suc as identifying oneself as attorney, a!!earing in court inre!resentation of a client, or associating oneself as a !artner of a la& office for te general

!ractice of la&. "tty. Edita #oe'Lacsamana v. "tty. Bolando 1. 4usmente. ".C. #o. 7$-.

#ovember $/! $%&&.

Attorney% com!etence and diligence re


10/83

relationsi! can e;ist not&itstanding te close friendsi! bet&een com!lainant and res!ondent.e relationsi! &as establised te moment com!lainant sougt legal ad(ice from res!ondent

regarding te disonored cecs. 7y drafting te demand letter res!ondent furter affirmed suc

relationsi!. e fact tat te demand letter &as not utiliCed in te criminal com!laint filed andtat res!ondent &as not e(entually engaged by com!lainant to re!resent er in te criminal cases

is of no moment. 3ie&ise, te non-!ayment of !rofessional fee &ill not e;cul!ate res!ondent

from liability. Absence of monetary consideration does not e;em!t la&yers from com!lying&it te !roibition against !ursuing cases &it conflicting interests. e !roibition attaces

from te moment te attorney-client relationsi! is establised and e;tends beyond te duration

of te !rofessional relationsi!. Lydia Castro')usto v. "tty. Rodolfo Galing. ".C. #o. &7(.

#ovember &! $%&&.

Attorney% gross misconduct. "om!lainant engaged te legal ser(ices of res!ondent to assist er

and er cild in !ursuing and !rotecting teir rigts as eirs of er deceased usband &o &as a

7ritis national, including claiming insurance !roceeds due to te com!lainant and er cild, as&ell as !rocessing (isa a!!lications for tra(el to Bngland. Res!ondent solicited (arious sums

from te com!lainant, allegedly for !ur!oses do defraying e;!enses in connection &it te

engagement. Res!ondent admitted a(ing recei(ed money from com!lainant but failed to render

an accounting or, at least, a!!rised te com!lainant of te actual e;!enses incurred. orse,res!ondent e(en inculcated in te mind of te com!lainant tat se ad to adere to te nefarious

culture of gi(ing :grease money> or lagay to te 7ritis Bmbassy !ersonnel! as if it &as an

ordinary occurrence in te normal course of conducting official business transactions as a meansto e;!edite te (isa a!!lications. is runs afoul te dictum in Rule 1.01 of "anon 1 of te "ode

of Professional Res!onsibility &ic states tat :a la&yer sall not engage in unla&ful,

disonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.> Res!ondents re!eated re!reensible acts ofem!loying cicanery and unbecoming conduct to conceal er &eb of lies, to te e;tent of

miling com!lainants finances dry, and deceitfully arrogating u!on erself te insurance

!roceeds tat sould rigtfully belong to com!lainant, in te guise of rendering legitimate legal

ser(ices, clearly transgressed te norms of onesty and integrity re from aguinod does not s!are im from liability.

Section 5 of Presidential 4ecree )o. 10?8 not only !roibits local court !ersonnel from:demanding> !ay-offs, it also bars recei!t of suc !ay-offs. 7y acce!ting !ay-offs, res!ondent

also (iolated Section 2*e+, "anon === of te "ode of "onduct, mandating tat court !ersonnel

sall not :KsLolicit or acceptany gift, loan, gratuity, discount, fa(or, os!itality or ser(ice undercircumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a ma=or purpose of the donor is to

influence the court personnel in performing official duties.> ese (iolations of res!ondent

constitute gra(e misconduct or corru!t conduct in flagrant disregard of &ell-no&n legal rules.@urtermore, by ee!ing te discounts or rebates for imself and tereby !rofiting from tem, e

ad committed a clear case of disonesty. 1rancisco 3aguinod v. +eputy Sheriff Rolando

3omas! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch $&! Santiago City. ". M. #o. ,'%-'$%. #ovember $-!

$%&&.

"ourt !ersonnel% abitual tardiness. /nder emorandum "ircular )o. 26, Series of 1889, :KaLn

em!loyee sall be considered abitually tardy if e incurs tardiness, regardless of te number of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6246.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-09-2660.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-09-2660.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-09-2660.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-09-2660.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6246.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-09-2660.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-09-2660.html


11/83

minutes, ten *10+ times a mont for at least t&o *2+ monts in a semester or at least t&o *2+consecuti(e monts during te year.> =t is clear from te facts tat "alingasan as been

abitually tardy. "onse


12/83

December 2011 Philippine Supreme Court


Posted on January 11, 2012by Ramon G. Songco

Here are selected 4ecember 2011 rulings of te Su!reme "ourt of te Pili!!ines on legal and

#udicial etics$

Affida(it of 4esistance% no effect on disci!linary !roceeding. =t bears to stress tat a case of

sus!ension or disbarment issui generisand not meant to grant relief to a com!lainant in a ci(ilcase but is intended to cleanse te rans of te legal !rofession or its undesirable members in

order to !rotect te !ublic and te courts. =t is not an in(estigation into te acts of res!ondent as

a usband but on is conduct as an officer of te "ourt and is fitness to continue as a member ofte 7ar. Hence, te Affida(it dated arc 15, 1885, &ic is ain to an affida(it of desistance,

cannot a(e te effect of abating te instant !roceedings.Elpidio ,. 3iong vs. "tty. George M.

1lorendo.".C. #o. (($6. +ecember &$! $%&&

Attorney% gross immorality. Possession of good moral caracter is not only a condition foradmission to te 7ar but is a continuing re


13/83

crusaders. 'ffice of te "ourt Administrator (s. Atty. 4aniel 7. 3iangco A.". )o. 5655.4ecember 16, 2011

"ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct. /nder Section 8, Rule 11 of te Rules of "ourt, te seriff

is re


14/83

"ourt !ersonnel% immoral conduct. Res!ondents act of maintaining an illicit relationsi! &it amarried man comes &itin te !ur(ie& of disgraceful and immoral conduct, &ic is classified

as a gra(e offense. e image of a court of #ustice is mirrored in te conduct of te official and

!ersonnel &o &or tereat. "ourt em!loyees a(e been en#oined to adere to te e;actingstandards of morality and decency in teir !rofessional and !ri(ate conduct in order to !reser(e

te good name and integrity of courts of #ustice. is "ourt as tus consistently !enaliCed court

!ersonnel &o ad been found &anting of suc standards, e(en if tey a(e !reci!itatelyresigned from teir !ositions. Resignation sould not be used eiter as an esca!e or as an easy

&ay out to e(ade an administrati(e liability or an administrati(e sanction. Evelina C. 4anaag vs.

0livia C. Espeleta! 8nterpreter 888! 4ranch 6$! R3C. Dueon City. A.. )o. P-11-6011.

4ecember 1E, 2011

"ourt !ersonnel% lea(e for foreign tra(el &itout autority. e e;ercise of ones rigt to tra(el

or te freedom to mo(e from one !lace to anoter is not absolute. Section 5 *E+, Article D=== of

te 189? "onstitution !ro(ides tat te Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision

over all courts and the personnel thereof.Fis !ro(ision em!o&ers te "ourt to o(ersee all

matters relating to te effecti(e su!er(ision and management of all courts and !ersonnel under it.

Pursuant to tis, te "ourt issued '"A "ircular )o. 8-2006 to regulate teir foreign tra(el in an

unofficial ca!acity. Suc regulation is necessary for te orderly administration of #ustice. =f#udges and court !ersonnel can go on lea(e and tra(el abroad at &ill and &itout restrictions or

regulations, tere could be a disru!tion in te administration of #ustice. A situation &ere te

em!loyees go on mass lea(e and tra(el togeter, des!ite te fact tat teir in(aluable ser(ices areurgently needed, could !ossibly arise. us, #udges and !ersonnel &o sall lea(e te country

&itout tra(el autority issued by te 'ffice of te "ourt Administrator sall be sub#ect to

disci!linary action. A #udge or a member of te Judiciary, &o is not being restricted by acriminal court or any oter agency !ursuant to any statutory limitation, can lea(e for abroad

&itout !ermission but e or se must be !re!ared to face te conse


15/83

January 2012 Philippine Supreme Court


Posted on @ebruary 16, 2012byRamon G. Songco

Here are selected January 2012 rulings of te Su!reme "ourt of te Pili!!ines on legal and

#udicial etics$

Attorney% accounting of funds. en a la&yer collects or recei(es money from is client for a

!articular !ur!ose, e sould !rom!tly account to te client o& te money &as s!ent. =f e doesnot use te money for its intended !ur!ose, e must immediately return it to te client. His

failure eiter to render an accounting or to return te money *if te intended !ur!ose of te

money does not materialiCe+ constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 1E.01 of te "ode ofProfessional Res!onsibility. oreo(er, a la&yer as te duty to deli(er is clients funds or

!ro!erties as tey fall due or u!on demand. His failure to return te clients money u!on demand

gi(es rise to te !resum!tion tat e as misa!!ro!riated it for is o&n use to te !re#udice of

and in (iolation of te trust re!osed in im by te client. e issuance of cecs &ic &ere laterdisonored for a(ing been dra&n against a closed account indicates a la&yers unfitness for te

trust and confidence re!osed on im, so&s lac of !ersonal onesty and good moral caracter

as to render im un&orty of !ublic confidence, and constitutes a ground for disci!linary action.>ector 3renas vs. ,eople of the ,hilippines.G.R. )o. 185002. January 25, 2012$

Attorney% mistae of counsel.e general rule is tat te mistae of a counsel binds te client,

and it is only in instances &erein te negligence is so gross or !al!able tat courts must ste! in

to grant relief to te aggrie(ed client. =t can be gleaned from te circumstances tat !etitioner&as gi(en o!!ortunities to defend is case and &as granted concomitant reliefs by te court.

us, it cannot be said tat te mistae and negligence of is former counsel &ere so gross and

!al!able to a(e de!ri(ed im of due !rocess. Cresencio C. Milla vs. ,eople of the ,hilippinesand Carlo . Lope. G.R. )o. 199?2E. January 25, 2012.

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty. B(ery em!loyee of te Judiciary sould be an e;am!le of integrity,

u!rigtness and onesty. 3ie any !ublic ser(ant, se must e;ibit te igest sense of onesty

and integrity not only in te !erformance of er official duties but in er !ersonal and !ri(atedealings &it oter !eo!le, to !reser(e te courts good name and standing. e image of a

court of #ustice is mirrored in te conduct, official and oter&ise, of te !ersonnel &o &or

tereat, from te #udge to te lo&est of its !ersonnel. "ourt !ersonnel a(e been en#oined toadere to te e;acting standards of morality and decency in teir !rofessional and !ri(ate

conduct in order to !reser(e te good name and integrity of te courts of #ustice. /nder Section

52*A+*1+ of te /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in te "i(il Ser(ice, disonesty is agra(e offense !unisable by dismissal for te first offense. /nder Section 59 of te same rules,

dismissal carries &it it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and !er!etualdis


16/83

relati(e to te im!lementation of &rits of e;ecution, and sould, at all times so& a ig degreeof !rofessionalism in te !erformance of is duties. Administrati(e "ircular )o. 12 &as

!romulgated in order to streamline te ser(ice and e;ecution of court &rits and !rocesses in

courts and to better ser(e te !ublic good and facilitate te administration of #ustice. Paragra! 2of Administrati(e "ircular )o. 12 !ro(ides tat :All "lers of "ourt of te etro!olitan rial

"ourt and unici!al rial "ourts in "ities, andor teir de!uty seriffs sall ser(e all court

!rocesses and e;ecute all &rits of teir res!ecti(e courts &itin teir territorial #urisdiction.@urtermore, !aragra! 5 of te same circular !ro(ides tat :)o seriff or de!uty seriff sall

e;ecute a court &rit outside is territorial #urisdiction &itout first notifying in &riting! and

seeing te assistance of, te seriff of te !lace &ere te e;ecution sall tae !lace.> =t is clear

tat res!ondents act of im!lementing te sub#ect &rits in San @ernando "ity, &en is territorial#urisdiction is confined only to Angeles "ity, is a (iolation of te "ircular and tantamount to

abuse of autority. ile res!ondent claimed tat e !ersonally informed te '"" of San

@ernando "ity, e, o&e(er, failed to !ro(e tat e made &ritten notice as re


17/83

#uris!rudence.Re: erified complaint of Engr. 0scar L. 0ng=oco! Chairman of the 4oardCE0etc. against >on. )uan D. Enriue! )r.! et al. A.. )o. 11-19-"A-J. January 61, 2012$

Judges% court !ersonnel% gross misconduct% neglect of duty. Res!ondent Judge failed to e;ert due

diligence re


18/83

Attorney% dis


19/83

"drministrative Services! 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Leoncio ?. Gutierre 888! Cler2888! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch &&! ,asay City. A.. )o. P-11-2851, @ebruary 15, 2012.

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty, misre!resentation.'"A "ircular )o. 8-2006 !ro(ides tat court

!ersonnel &o &is to tra(el abroad must secure a tra(el autority from te 'ffice of te "ourt

Administrator. Section E? of te 'mnibus Rules on 3ea(e !ro(ides tat any (iolation of telea(e la&s, rules or regulations, or any misre!resentation or dece!tion in connection &it an

a!!lication for lea(e sall be a ground for disci!linary action. e res!ondent court stenogra!er

tra(eled &itout securing a tra(el autority and did not state er foreign tra(el in er lea(ea!!lication. Se is guilty of (iolating at least t&o office rules and regulations. is so&s

dece!tion amounting to disonesty.

4isonesty means te concealment of trut in a matter of fact rele(ant to ones office or

connected &it te !erformance of is duties. =t is an absence of integrity, a dis!osition to betray,ceat, decei(e or defraud, bad fait. e discre!ancy in te res!ondents date of birt in er

records does not amount to disonesty, as se made no false statement. )o deliberate intent to

mislead, decei(e or defraud a!!ears from te cited circumstances of tis case. e res!ondentsdate of birt is not a fact directly rele(ant to er functions or


20/83

teir legal !o&ers and #urisdiction. )ot e(ery error or mistae tat a #udge commits in te!erformance of is duties renders im liable, unless e is so&n to a(e acted in bad fait or

&it deliberate intent to do an in#ustice. o old oter&ise &ould be to render #udicial office

untenable, for no one called u!on to try te facts or inter!ret te la& in te !rocess ofadministering #ustice can be infallible in is #udgment. o constitute gross ignorance of te la&,

it is not enoug tat te sub#ect decision, order or actuation of te res!ondent #udge in te

!erformance of is official duties is contrary to e;isting la& and #uris!rudence but, mostim!ortantly, e must be mo(ed by bad fait, fraud, disonesty or corru!tion. "om!lainants failed

to adduce !roof to so& tat res!ondent #udge &as moti(ated by bad fait, ill &ill or malicious

moti(e &en e granted te R' and !reliminary in#unction. =n addition, res!ondent #udge

sould not be !enaliCed for failing to conduct te re


21/83

Court "dministrator vs. )udge Celso L. Mantua! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch &7! ,alompon!Leyte. A.. )o. RJ-11-2281. @ebruary 9, 2012.

&arch 2012 Philippine Supreme Court


Posted on A!ril 19, 2012byRamon G. Songco

Here are select arc 2012 rulings of te Su!reme "ourt of te Pili!!ines on legal and #udicial

etics$

Attorney% lifting of indefinite sus!ension. Professional misconduct in(ol(ing te misuse ofconstitutional !ro(isions for te !ur!ose of insulting embers of te Su!reme "ourt is a serious

breac of te rigid standards tat a member of good standing of te legal !rofession must

faitfully com!ly &it. us, te !enalty of indefinite sus!ension &as im!osed. Ho&e(er, in te!ast t&o years during &ic Atty. 3oCano as been sus!ended, e as re!eatedly e;!ressed is

&illingness to admit is error, to obser(e te rules and standards in te !ractice of la&, and to

ser(e te ends of #ustice if e sould be reinstated. And in tese t&o years, tis "ourt as notbeen informed of any act tat &ould indicate tat Atty. 3oCano ad acted in any unscru!ulous

!ractices unsuitable to a member of te bar. ile te "ourt &ill not esitate to disci!line its

erring officers, it &ill not !rolong a !enalty after it as been so&n tat te !ur!ose for im!osingit ad already been ser(ed. Re: subpoena +uces 3ecum dated )anuary &&! $%&% of "cting+irector "leu ". "mante! ,8"4'C! 0ffice of the 0mbudsmanRe: 0rder of the 0ffice of the

0mbudsman referring the complaint of "ttys. 0liver 0. Loano H Evangeline ). Loano'

Endriano against Chief )ustice Reynato S. ,unoIret.J.".M. #o. &%'&'&/'SC H ".M. #0. &%'-'-'SC! March $%! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% administrati(e case%

e &eigt of e(idence re


22/83

"ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct. isconduct is a transgression of some establised anddefinite rule of action, more !articularly, unla&ful bea(ior or gross negligence by te !ublic

officer. e misconduct is gra(e if it in(ol(es any of te additional elements of corru!tion,

&illful intent to (iolate te la& or to disregard establised rules. "orru!tion, as an element ofgra(e misconduct, consists in te act of an official or fiduciary !erson &o unla&fully and

&rongfully uses is !osition or office to !rocure some benefit for imself or for anoter !erson,

contrary to duty and te rigts of oters. Section 2, "anon 1 of te "ode of "onduct for "ourtPersonnel states$ :"ourt !ersonnel sall not solicit or acce!t any gift, fa(or or benefit based on

any or e;!licit understanding tat suc gift, fa(or or benefit sall influence teir official actions.>

Res!ondents use of er !osition as "ler === in 7ranc 29 to solicit money from 4ela "ruC &it

te !romise of a fa(orable decision (iolates Section 2, "anon 1 of te "ode of "onduct for "ourtPersonnel and constitutes te offense of gra(e misconduct meriting te !enalty of dismissal.

Sheryll C. +ela Cru vs. ,amela ,. Malunao! Cler2 888! R3C! 4ranch $6! 4ayombong! #ueva

icaya.".M. #o. ,'&&'$%&-! March $%! $%&$.

Judges% #udicial clemency. =n A.. )o. 0?-?-1?-S" *Re: Letter of )udge "ugustus C. +ia!Metropolitan 3rial Court of Dueon City! 4ranch /7! "ppealing for Clemency+, te "ourt laid

do&n te follo&ing guidelines in resol(ing re


23/83

oreo(er, te =ntegrated 7ar of te Pili!!ines *=7P+ 7ool "a!ter as so&n its ig regardfor !etitioner !er te letter of su!!ort signed by a number of its members addressed to te =7P

dated 'ctober 15, 1888 during te !endency of er administrati(e cases and te =7P Resolution

)o. 11, Series of 2008 endorsing er a!!lication for lateral transfer to te R" of agbilaran"ity.Re: ,etition for =udicial clemency of )udge 8rma ;ita . Masamayor.".M. #o. &$'$''SC!

March ! $%&$.

April 2012 Philippine Supreme Court


Posted on ay 19, 2012by Ramon G. Songco

Here are select A!ril 2012 rulings of te Su!reme "ourt of te Pili!!ines on legal and #udicialetics$

Attorney% falsification. /nder Section 2?, Rule 169 of te Rules of "ourt, a la&yer may be

remo(ed or sus!ended on te follo&ing grounds$ *1+ deceit% *2+ mal!ractice% *6+ gross

misconduct in office% *+ grossly immoral conduct% *5+ con(iction of a crime in(ol(ing moraltur!itude% *E+ (iolation of te la&yers oat% *?+ &illful disobedience of any la&ful order of a

su!erior court% and *9+ corru!tly or &illfully a!!earing as a la&yer for a !arty to a case &itout

autority so to do.

e crime of falsification of !ublic document is contrary to #ustice, onesty, and good moralsand, terefore, in(ol(es moral tur!itude. oral tur!itude includes e(eryting &ic is done

contrary to #ustice, onesty, modesty, or good morals. =t in(ol(es an act of baseness, (ileness, or

de!ra(ity in te !ri(ate duties &ic a man o&es is fello&men, or to society in general,contrary to te acce!ted and customary rule of rigt and duty bet&een man and &oman, or

conduct contrary to #ustice, onesty, modesty, or good morals.

4isbarment is te a!!ro!riate !enalty for con(iction by final #udgment for a crime in(ol(ing

moral tur!itude. Re: SC +ecision date May $%! $%%6 in G.R. #o. &&(** under Rule &/-'4 ofthe Rules of Court vs. "tty. Rodolfo +. ,actolin.".C. #o. 7-(%! "pril $(! $%&$.

Attorney% groundless im!utation of bribery. As officers of te court, la&yers are duty-bound to

obser(e and maintain te res!ect due to te courts and #udicial officers. ey are to abstain from

offensi(e or menacing language or bea(ior before te court and must refrain from attributing toa #udge moti(es tat are not su!!orted by te record or a(e no materiality to te case.

Atty. PeNa cannot be e;cused for uttering snide and accusatory remars at te e;!ense of te

re!utation and integrity of members of tis "ourt, and for using tose unsubstantiated claims as

basis for te sub#ect otion for =nibition.

)ot only as res!ondent PeNa failed to so& sincere remorse for is malicious insinuations of

bribery and &rongdoing against Justice "ar!io, e in fact continually a(ailed of suc unetical

tactics in mo(ing for te inibition of ele(en Justices of te "ourt. =ndeed, is !attern of

bea(ior can no longer be seen as isolated incidents tat te "ourt can !ardon gi(en certain
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/12-2-6-SC.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/12-2-6-SC.htmlhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/april-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7940.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/12-2-6-SC.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/12-2-6-SC.htmlhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/april-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7940.htm


24/83

mitigating circumstances. Res!ondent PeNa as blatantly and consistently cast unfoundedas!ersions against #udicial officers in utter disregard of is duties and res!onsibilities to te

"ourt.

Res!ondent PeNas actions betray a similar disres!ectful attitude to&ards te "ourt tat cannot

be countenanced es!ecially for tose !ri(ileged enoug to !ractice la& in te country. 8n re:Supreme Court Resolution dated $6 "pril $%%/ in G.R. #os. &(*6&7 and &(*6$$. ".C. #o. //$!

"pril &7! $%&$.

Attorney% lac of diligence. en a la&yer taes a clients cause, e co(enants tat e &ille;ercise due diligence in !rotecting te latters rigts. @ailure to e;ercise tat degree of (igilance

and attention e;!ected of a good fater of a family maes te la&yer un&orty of te trust

re!osed on im by is client and maes im ans&erable not #ust to is client but also to te legal

!rofession, te courts and society. His &orload does not #ustify neglect in andling ones casebecause it is settled tat a la&yer must only acce!t cases as muc as e can efficiently andle.

Suette +el Mundo vs. "tty. "rnel C. Capistrano.".C. #o. -%/! "pril &! $%&$.

Attorney% obligation to old in trust money of is client. A la&yer is obliged to old in trust

money of is client tat may come to is !ossession. As trustee of suc funds, e is bound toee! tem se!arate and a!art from is o&n. oney entrusted to a la&yer for a s!ecific !ur!ose

suc as for te filing and !rocessing of a case if not utiliCed, must be returned immediately u!on

demand. @ailure to return gi(es rise to a !resum!tion tat e as misa!!ro!riated it in (iolationof te trust re!osed on im. And te con(ersion of funds entrusted to im constitutes gross

(iolation of !rofessional etics and betrayal of !ublic confidence in te legal !rofession. Suette

+el Mundo vs. "tty. "rnel C. Capistrano.".C. #o. -%/! "pril &! $%&$.

Attorney% re!resentation of conflicting interests. :e !roscri!tion against re!resentation ofconflicting interests a!!lies to a situation &ere te o!!osing !arties are !resent clients in te

same action or in an unrelated action.> e !roibition also a!!lies e(en if te :la&yer &ould

not be called u!on to contend for one client tat &ic te la&yer as to o!!ose for te oterclient, or tat tere &ould be no occasion to use te confidential information ac o be eld accountable

under tis rule, it is :enoug tat te o!!osing !arties in one case, one of &om &ould lose tesuit, are !resent clients and te nature or conditions of te la&yers res!ecti(e retainers &it eac

of tem 'ould aect te !erformance of te duty of undi(ided fidelity to bot clients.> "ni9on

vs. Sabistsana.".C. #o. *%-6! "pril &&! $%&$.

Attorney% submission of falsified internal court documents. e falsification, sub#ect of teinstant administrati(e case, lies in te fact tat res!ondent PeNa submitted to te "ourt a

document e &as absolutely certain, at te time of suc submission, &as a co!y of te Agenda of

te tenponente.

"andor and trutfulness are some of te


25/83

Res!ondent led te "ourt to belie(e tat &at e submitted &as a faitful re!roduction of teponentes Agenda, #ust to su!!ort te sub#ect otion to =nibit. e original of te !ur!orted

co!y &as later found to a(e been ine;istent in te courts records.

e "ourt noted tat respondent Pe(a has not e)plained! to the Court*s satisaction! ho' he

managed to obtain internal and conidential documents$

Res!ondent PeNa is sanctioned for no&ingly using confidential and internal court records and

documents, &ic e sus!iciously obtained in bolstering is case. His unbridled access to

internal court documents as not been !ro!erly e;!lained. e ca(alier e;!lanation ofres!ondent PeNa tat tis "ourts confidential documents &ould sim!ly find temsel(es

con(eniently falling into res!ondents la! troug registered mail and tat te en(elo!es

containing tem could no longer be traced is un&orty of belief. is gi(es te "ourt reason to

infer tat la&s and its o&n internal rules a(e been (iolated o(er and o(er again by some court!ersonnel, &om res!ondent PeNa no& aids and abets by feigning ignorance of o& te internal

documents could a(e reaced im. =t is not unreasonable to e(en conclude tat criminal

liabilities a(e been incurred in relation to te Re(ised Penal "ode and te Anti-Graft and"orru!t Practices Act, &it Atty. PeNa benefitting from te same. Res!ondents actions clearly

merit no oter !enalty tan disbarment.8n re: Supreme Court Resolution dated $6 "pril $%%/ in

G.R. #os. &(*6&7 and &(*6$$.".C. #o. //$! "pril &7! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% conduct unbecoming of a court !ersonnel. Res!ondent is liable for conductunbecoming a court em!loyee for is continued refusal to coordinate &it com!lainants in te

im!lementation of te &rit of !ossession, des!ite numerous attem!ts on teir !art to get in touc

&it im. =t may be recalled tat com!lainants endea(ored, no less tan four *+ times, tocommunicate &it res!ondent for te !ro!er and e;!editious e;ecution of te &rit, but eac

time, res!ondent rebuffed teir efforts. @inally, on25 A!ril 2011, te day res!ondent finally

im!lemented te &rit, res!ondent refused to allo& s. 4e Jesus to inform com!lainants of teintended im!lementation and o!ted to be accom!anied by an ordinary ban em!loyee to &itness

te enforcement of te &rit.

e !ersistent refusal of res!ondent to coo!erate &it com!lainants in te im!lementation of te

&rit runs afoul of te e;acting standards re


26/83

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty. @alsification of daily time record constitutes disonesty. 4isonestyis defined as te :dis!osition to lie! cheat! deceive! or defraudK untrustworthinessK lac2 of

integrityK lac2 of honesty probity or integrity in principleK lac2 of fairness and

straightforwardnessK disposition to defraud! deceive or betray.FSection 52*A+, Rule =D of te/niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in te "i(il Ser(ice *" )o. 18, dated Se!tember 1,

1888+ classifies disonesty as a gra(e offense !unisable by dismissal e(en for first time

offenses. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. "raya.".M. #o. ,'&$'/%*/! "pril &&! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct. e bea(ior of all em!loyees and officials in(ol(ed in teadministration of #ustice, from #udges to te most #unior clers, is circumscribed &it a ea(y

res!onsibility. eir conduct must be guided by strict !ro!riety and decorum at all times in order

to merit and maintain te !ublics res!ect for and trust in te #udiciary. )eedless to say, all court!ersonnel must conduct temsel(es in a manner e;em!lifying integrity, onesty and u!rigtness.

Res!ondents souting at com!lainant &itin te court !remises, re!orting com!lainant to te

!olice after se &as re!rimanded for er solicitation, and refusing to tal &it com!lainant #udge

are not only acts of discourtesy and disres!ect but lie&ise an unetical conduct sanctioned byRe!ublic Act )o. E?16, oter&ise no&n as 3he Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for

,ublic 0fficials and Employees.

Hig-strung and belligerent bea(ior as no !lace in go(ernment ser(ice &ere te !ersonnel are

en#oined to act &it self-restraint and ci(ility at all times e(en &en confronted &it rudenessand insolence. Suc conduct is e;acted from tem so tat tey &ill earn and ee! te !ublics

res!ect for and confidence in te #udicial ser(ice. is standard is a!!lied &it res!ect to a court

em!loyees dealings not only &it te !ublic but also &it is or er co-&orers in te ser(ice."onduct (iolati(e of tis standard


27/83

gi(en te loans because tey &ere considered !rominent !ersons in te community% and tat tey&ere considered as suc, !resumably because tey &ored in te #udiciary.

=n illase9or v. +e Leon, te "ourt em!asiCed tat :to !reser(e decency &itin te #udiciary,

court !ersonnel must com!ly &it #ust contractual obligations, act fairly and adere to ig

etical standards>. =n tat case, te "ourt said tat res!ondent &as :e;!ected to be a !aragon ofu!rigtness, fairness and onesty not only in all er official conduct but also in er !ersonal

actuations, including business and commercial transactions, so as to a(oid becoming er courts

albatross of infamy.>Re: Complaint filed by ,a +e era Laaro against Edna Magallanes and4onifacio Magallanes.".M. #o. ,'&&'/%%/! "pril $*! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% neglect of duty. Settled is te role of clers of court as #udicial officers

entrusted &it te delicate function &it regard to collection of legal fees. ey are e;!ected to

correctly and effecti(ely im!lement regulations relating to !ro!er administration of court funds.4elay in te remittance of collection constitutes neglect of duty. 0ffice of the Court

"dministrator vs. #ini.".M. #o. ,'&&'/%%$! "pril &&! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% neglect of duty. e follo&ing are te duties of a seriff$ irst!to gi(e notice of

te &rit and demand tat te #udgment obligor and all !ersons claiming under im (acate te!ro!erty &itin tree *6+ days% second!to enforce te &rit by remo(ing te #udgment obligor

and all !ersons claiming under te latter% third!to remo(e te latters !ersonal belongings in te

!ro!erty as &ell as destroy, demolis or remo(e te im!ro(ements constructed tereon u!ons!ecial court order% and ourth!to e;ecute and mae a return on te &rit &itin 60 days from

recei!t of te &rit and e(ery tirty *60+ days tereafter until it is satisfied in full or until its

effecti(ity e;!ires.

Res!ondent &as clearly remiss in te !erformance of is mandated duties$ e unilaterally ga(ete occu!ants 6 monts, instead of te tree *6+ days !ro(ided by te Rules, to (acate te

!ro!erty% &en e did e(ict te occu!ants from te !remises, a room containing teir !ersonal

effects &as !adloced, terefore delaying te demolition of te im!ro(ements introduced on te!ro!erty% finally, res!ondent failed to mae a return on te &rit of !ossession after e

im!lemented te same."ttys. Gonale! et al. vs. Calo.".M. #o. ,'&$'/%$6! "pril &&! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty. Sim!le neglect of duty is te failure to gi(e attention to

a tas, or te disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. 0ffice of the Court"dministrator vs. Sarmiento! et al.".M. #o. ,'&&'$-&$! "pril &%! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% unautoriCed absences. /nder te "i(il Ser(ice rules, an em!loyee sould

submit in ad(ance, &ene(er !ossible, an a!!lication for a (acation lea(e of absence for action

by te !ro!er cief of agency !rior to te effecti(e date of te lea(e. =t is clear from te facts tat4acsig ad failed to ac


28/83

conference sould be eld not later tan 60 days after te last ans&er as been filed. "onsideringtat no !reliminary conference at all &as eld in "i(il "ase )o. E62, Judge 3iterato e(idently

failed to com!ly &it a basic rule of !rocedure for &ic e sould accordingly be eld

accountable. Judge 3iteratos inaction in "i(il "ase )o. E62 for 622 days constitutes utterdisregard for te summary nature of an e#ectment case.

"om!etence is a mar of a good #udge. en a #udge dis!lays an utter lac of familiarity &it

te rules, e erodes te !ublics confidence in te com!etence of our courts. =t is igly

im!erati(e tat #udges be con(ersant &it te la& and basic legal !rinci!les. 7asic legal!rocedures must be at te !alm of a #udges ands. =n sum, Judge 3iterato is administrati(ely

guilty of gross ignorance of te Rule on Summary Procedure and undue delay in rendering a

decision. +r. Ramie G. >ipe vs. )udge Rolando 3. Literato! Municipal 3rial Court! Mainit!Surigao +el #orte.".M. #o. M3)'&&'&76&! "pril $*! $%&$.

Judge% gross misconduct. =n Guerrero vs. )udge +eray, te "ourt eld tat a #udge :&o

deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to com!ly &it te resolution of Kte Su!remeL

"ourt is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination.>

=n te !resent case, te "ourt found tat Judge Go failed to eed te "ourts !ronouncements. Hedid not file te re


29/83

business agreeing to te !erformance of suc ser(ice. His offense constitutes a (iolation ofAdministrati(e "ircular 5 &ic in essence !roibits !ublic officials from !erforming or

agreeing to !erform functions or ser(ices outside of teir official functions for te reason tat te

entire time of te officials and em!loyees of te #udiciary sall be de(oted to teir official &orto ensure te efficient and s!eedy administration of #ustice. Ramoncito and )uliana Luarca vs.

)udge 8reneo 4. Molato! M3C! 4ongabong! 0riental Mindoro )eny "gbay vs. )udge 8reneo 4.

Molato! M3C! 4ongabong! 0riental Mindoro. ".M. #o. M3)'%6'&7&&".M. #o. M3)'%6'&7&! "pril $/! $%&$.

)otary !ublic% duty to ascertain te identities of te !arties e;ecuting te document. A notary

!ublic is em!o&ered to !erform a (ariety of notarial acts, most common of &ic are te

acno&ledgement and affirmation of documents or instruments. =n te !erformance of tesenotarial acts, te notary !ublic must be mindful of te significance of te notarial seal affi;ed on

documents. e notarial seal con(erts a document from a !ri(ate to a !ublic instrument, after

&ic it may be !resented as e(idence &itout need for !roof of its genuineness and duee;ecution. us, notariCation sould not be treated as an em!ty, meaningless or routinary act.

A notary !ublics function sould not be tri(ialiCed and a notary !ublic must discarge is

!o&ers and duties &ic are im!ressed &it !ublic interest, &it accuracy and fidelity. A notary

!ublic e;ercises duties calling for carefulness and faitfulness. )otaries must inform temsel(esof te facts tey certify to% most im!ortantly, tey sould not tae !art or allo& temsel(es to be

!art of illegal transactions.

e "ourt cautioned all notaries !ublic to be (ery careful and diligent in ascertaining te true

identities of te !arties e;ecuting te document before tem, es!ecially &en it in(ol(esdis!osition of a !ro!erty, as tis "ourt &ill deal &it suc cases more se(erely in te future.

Maria vs. Corte.".C. #o. 766%! "pril &&! $%&$.

June 2012 Philippine Supreme CourtDecisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics

Posted on July 26, 2012by Ramon G. Songco

Here are select June 2012 rulings of te Su!reme "ourt of te Pili!!ines on legal and #udicialetics$

Administrati(e "om!laint% moot and academic. e "ourt dismissed te com!laint filed by

=nter-Petal Recreational "or!oration against "ief Justice Renato "orona for being moot and

academic after considering te #udgment of te Senate sitting as an =m!eacment "ourt, &icfound te "ief Justice guilty of te carge under Article == of te Articles of =m!eacment, &it

te !enalty of remo(al from office and disonorable Chief )ustice Renato C. Corona dated September &(! $%&& filed by 8nter',etal Recreational Corporation, A.. )o. 12-E-10-S". June 16, 2012
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/MTJ-08-1711.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/MTJ-08-1711.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7880.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/june-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/12-6-10-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/12-6-10-SC.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/MTJ-08-1711.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/MTJ-08-1711.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7880.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/june-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/12-6-10-SC.htm


30/83

Attorneys% disbarment cases im!rescri!tible. e defense of !rescri!tion is untenable. e "ourtas eld tat administrati(e cases against la&yers do not !rescribe. e la!se of considerable

time from te commission of te offending act to te institution of te administrati(e com!laint

&ill not erase te administrati(e cul!ability of a la&yer. 'ter&ise, members of te bar &ouldonly be emboldened to disregard te (ery oat tey too as la&yers, !rescinding from te fact

tat as long as no !ri(ate com!lainant &ould immediately come for&ard, tey stand a cance of

being com!letely e;onerated from &ate(er administrati(e liability tey ougt to ans&er for.1idela 4engco and 3eresita 4engco vs. "tty. ,ablo 4ernardo!A.". )o. E6E9, June 16, 2012.

Attorney% @alse and untrutful statements in !leadings. e !ractice of la& is a !ri(ilege

besto&ed on tose &o so& tat tey !ossess and continue to !ossess te legal


31/83


32/83

"ourt !ersonnel% discourtesy. /nless s!ecifically !ro(ided by te rules, clers of court a(e noautority to !ass u!on te substanti(e or formal correctness of !leadings and motions tat !arties

file &it te court. "om!liance &it te rules is te res!onsibility of te !arties and teir

counsels. And &eter tese conform to te rules concerning substance and form is an issue tatonly te #udge of te court as autority to determine. e duty of clers of courts to recei(e

!leadings, motions, and oter court-bound !a!ers is !urely ministerial. Altoug tey may on

ins!ection ad(ise te !arties or teir counsels of !ossible defects in te documents tey &ant tofile, &ic may be regarded as !art of !ublic ser(ice, tey cannot u!on insistence of te filing

!arty refuse to recei(e te same.

"anon =D, Section 2 of te "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel !ro(ides tat court !ersonnel

sall carry out teir res!onsibilities as !ublic ser(ants in as courteous a manner as !ossible.Atty. Ramos &as counsel in a case before e(es branc. He &as an officer of te court &o

e;!ressed a desire to a(e te !residing #udge, to &om e addressed is motion, see and

consider te same. e(es arrogated onto imself te !o&er to decide &it finality tat te!residing #udge &as not to be botered &it tat motion. He denied Atty. Ramos te courtesy of

letting te !residing #udge decide te issue bet&een im and te la&yer. As eld inMacalua v.

3iu! )r., an em!loyee of te #udiciary is e;!ected to accord res!ect for te !erson and rigt of

oters at all times, and is e(ery act and &ord sould be caracteriCed by !rudence, restraint,courtesy and dignity. ese are absent in tis case.

"i(il Ser(ice Resolution 88-186E classifies discourtesy in te course of official duties as a ligt

offense, te !enalty for &ic is re!rimand for te first offense, sus!ension of 1-60 days for te

second offense, and dismissal for te tird offense. =n t&o consolidated administrati(e cases,one for gra(e misconduct and immorality and te oter for insubordination, te "ourt meted out

on e(es te !enalty of sus!ension for si; monts in its resolution of 'ctober 5, 2011. e

"ourt of course decided tese cases and &arned e(es to cange is &ays more tan a year afterte Se!tember 9, 2009 incident &it Atty. Ramos. "onse


33/83

tat tis is 3aribos Jr. first infraction. Shirley +. +iomampo! Records 0fficer 88! Sandiganbayanvs. 1elipe C. Laribo )r.! Shuttle 4us +river! Sandiganbayan . A.. )o. S7-12-19-P. June 16,

2012.

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty. e "ode of "onduct and Btical Standards for Public 'fficials and

Bm!loyees enunciates te States !olicy of !romoting a ig standard of etics and utmostres!onsibility in te !ublic ser(ice. And no oter office in te go(ernment ser(ice e;acts a

greater demand for moral rigteousness and u!rigtness from an em!loyee tan te #udiciary.

Persons in(ol(ed in te dis!ensation of #ustice, from te igest official to te lo&est cler, mustli(e u! to te strictest standards of integrity, !robity, u!rigtness and diligence in te !ublic

ser(ice. As te assum!tion of !ublic office is im!ressed &it !aramount !ublic interest, &ic

re


34/83

only one su!!orting er fi(e cildren, te recommended !enalty of sus!ension for a !eriod of si;*E+ monts is in order. )udge "mado Caguioa Iret.J vs. Eliabeth "ucena! Court Legal

Researcher 88! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch (! 4aguio City. A.. )o. P-08-2EE, June 19,

2012.

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty.@or Aguam to assert tat se erself too and !assed tee;amination &en in fact somebody else too it for er constitutes disonesty. B(ery em!loyee

of te Judiciary sould be an e;am!le of integrity, u!rigtness and onesty. 3ie any !ublic

ser(ant, se must e;ibit te igest sense of onesty and integrity not only in te !erformanceof er official duties but also in er !ersonal and !ri(ate dealings &it oter !eo!le, to !reser(e

te courts good name and standing. e image of a court of #ustice is mirrored in te conduct,

official and oter&ise, of te !ersonnel &o &or tereat, from te #udge to te lo&est of its!ersonnel. "ourt !ersonnel a(e been en#oined to adere to te e;acting standards of morality

and decency in teir !rofessional and !ri(ate conduct in order to !reser(e te good name and

integrity of te courts of #ustice. Here, Aguam failed to meet tese stringent standards set for a#udicial em!loyee and does not terefore deser(e to remain &it te Judiciary.

=n Cru v. Civil Service Commission,Civil Service Commission v. Sta. "na, and Concerned

Citien v. +ominga #awen "bad, te "ourt dismissed te em!loyees found guilty of similar

offenses. =n Cru, enaida Paitim mas


35/83

em!loyment in te Judiciary% and c+ tis case being te first com!laint against im, e sould beeld liable for discourtesy and be meted out te !enalty of re!rimand.

Res!ondent committed oter la!ses in te !erformance of is duties as "ler of "ourt. =nstead of

strictly obser(ing te re


36/83

to te re!eated omissions. Hence, tere no reason to o(erturn or mitigate te !enaltyrecommended by te '"A.Ricardo +ela Cru et al.! vs. Ma.

Gross insubordination is te indifference of a res!ondent to an administrati(e com!laint and to

resolutions re


37/83

e mere e;!edient of resigning from te ser(ice &ill not e;tricate a court em!loyee from teconse


38/83

"ourt Personnel% Procedure in te ser(ice and e;ecution of court &rits and !rocesses. ere &asa (alid substituted ser(ice of summons in tis case. As a rule, !ersonal ser(ice of summons is

!referred as against substituted ser(ice and substituted ser(ice can only be resorted to by te

!rocess ser(er if !ersonal ser(ice cannot be made !rom!tly. ost im!ortantly, te !roof ofsubstituted ser(ice of summons must *a+ indicate te im!ossibility of ser(ice of summons &itin

a reasonable time% *b+ s!ecify te efforts e;erted to locate te defendant% and *c+ state tat te

summons &as ser(ed u!on a !erson of sufficient age and discretion &o is residing in teaddress, or &o is in carge of te office or regular !lace of business, of te defendant. =t is

lie&ise re


39/83

deemed it !ro!er to reduce te fine, considering te e;istence of factors tat mitigated tecommission of te offense, namely$ *a+ tis is is first infraction, and *b+ is delay in te

dis!osition of te case resulted from is serious medical conditions. Leticia )acinto vs. )udge

)osephus )oannes >. "sis! Me3C! 4r. (%! Dueon CityA.. )o. J-12-1911, June 16, 2012

Judge% delay in rendering decision. Section 15*1+, Article D=== of te "onstitution, mandates tatcases or matters filed &it te lo&er courts must be decided or resol(ed &itintree monts from

te date tey are submitted for decision or resolution. it res!ect to cases falling under te

Rule on Summary Procedure, first le(el courts are only allo&ed 60 days follo&ing te recei!t ofte last affida(it and !osition !a!er, or te e;!iration of te !eriod for filing te same, &itin

&ic to render #udgment. As a general !rinci!le, rules !rescribing te time &itin &ic

certain acts must be done, or certain !roceedings taen, are considered absolutely indis!ensableto te !re(ention of needless delays and te orderly and s!eedy discarge of #udicial business.

7y teir (ery nature, tese rules are regarded as mandatory.

Judges are oft-reminded of teir duty to !rom!tly act u!on cases and matters !ending before

teir courts. Rule 6.05, "anon 6 of te "ode of Judicial "onduct, directs #udges to dis!ose of tecourts business !rom!tly and decide cases &itin te re


40/83

from er accrued lea(e credits 1e alde vs. )udge Liabeth Gutierre'3orres! Metropolitan3rial Court! 4ranch %! Mandaluyong City.A.. )o. J-11-1?8E, June 16, 2012.

Judge% gross abuse of autority and gross ignorance. =n tis case, te contem!t carge &as

commenced not troug a (erified !etition, but by Judge 7elen motu proprio troug te

issuance of an order re


41/83


42/83

=n tis case, te decision &as !ur!ortedly issued on ? A!ril 2011, or more tan four monts sincete last submission of te !arties !osition !a!er. e !retrial 'rder &as !ur!ortedly issued on

2E January 2010, or more tan tree monts since te !retrial. Section 9 of te Rules on

Summary Procedure !ro(ides tat &itin fi(e days after te termination of te !reliminaryconference, te court sall issue an order stating te matters taen u! terein.

@urter, !aragra! 9, itle =*A+ of A.. )o. 06-1-08-S", entitled :Guidelines to be 'bser(ed by

rial "ourt Judges and "lers of "ourt in te "onduct of Pre-rial and /se of 4e!osition-

4isco(ery easures,> mandates tat a #udge must issue a !retrial order &itin 10 days after tetermination of te !retrial. Since te e#ectment case fell under te Rules on Summary Procedure,

res!ondent #udge sould a(e andled it &it !rom!tness and aste. e reason for te ado!tion

of tose Rules is !recisely to !re(ent undue delays in te dis!osition of cases, an offense for&ic res!ondent #udge may be eld administrati(ely liable. Section 8, Rule 10 of te Rules of

"ourt classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious carge, &ic

under Section 1*b+ of te same Rule is !unisable &it sus!ension from office, &itout salaryand oter benefits, for not less tan one *1+ nor more tan tree *6+ monts% or a fine of more

tan 10,000, but not e;ceeding 20,000. "onsidering tat te instant administrati(e carge is

only te tird against res!ondent #udge *te first as been dismissed, &ile te second is still

!ending+, and considering is relati(ely long tenure in te #udiciary starting in 188?, e may bereasonably meted out a !enalty of 5,000 for being administrati(ely liable for undue delay in

rendering a decision. ,ilar S. 3anoco vs. )udge 8nocencio 4. Saguin! )r. M3CC 4r. /!

Cabanatuan City.A.. )o. J-12-1912. June 20, 2012.

Judge% unreasonable delay in te dis!osition of cases. Judges a(e te s&orn duty to administer#ustice &itout undue delay, for #ustice delayed is #ustice denied. ey a(e al&ays been

e;orted to obser(e strict aderence to te rule on s!eedy dis!osition of cases, as delay in case

dis!osition is a ma#or cul!rit in te erosion of !ublic fait and confidence in te #udicial system./nder te 189? "onstitution, trial #udges are mandated to decide and resol(e cases &itin 80

days from submission. "orollary to tis constitutional mandate, Section 5, "anon E of te )e&

"ode of Judicial "onduct for te Pili!!ine Judiciary re


43/83

under te circumstances.Re: Report of the )udicial "udit Conducted in the Regional trial Court!4ranches 7$ and $$! #arvacan 8locos Sur.A.. )o. 0E-8-525-R", June 16, 2012.

Public 'fficials% SA3)s. ile no !roibition could stand against access to official records,

suc as te SA3), te same is undoubtedly sub#ect to regulation. Section 9 *c+ and *d+ of R.A.

)o. E?16 !ro(ides for te limitation and !roibition on te regulated access to SA3)s ofgo(ernment officials and em!loyees as &ell as te =m!lementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.

)o. E?16. e !o&er to regulate te access by te !ublic to tese documents stems from te

inerent !o&er of te "ourt, as custodian of tese !ersonal documents, to control its (ery officeto te end tat damage to, or loss of, te records may be a(oided% tat undue interference &it

te duties of te custodian of te boos and documents and oter em!loyees may be !re(ented%

and tat te rigt of oter !ersons entitled to mae ins!ection may be insured. =n tis connection,Section 11 of te R.A E1?6 !ro(ides for te !enalties in case tere sould be a misuse of te

SA3) and te information contained terein. e "ourt found no reason to deny te !ublic

access to te SA3), P4S and "D of te Justices of te "ourt and oter magistrates of teJudiciary sub#ect, of course, to te limitations and !roibitions !ro(ided in R.A. )o. E?16, its

im!lementing rules and regulations, and in te guidelines set fort in te decretal !ortion.

e "ourt noted te (alid concerns of te oter magistrates regarding te !ossible illicit moti(es

of some indi(iduals in teir re


44/83

stated !ur!ose% and sall be submitted in a duly accom!lised re


45/83

=n eiter of te t&o instances abo(e-mentioned, Judge acarambons case does not render imeligible to retire under RA )o. 810,as amended. @irst, Judge acarambon failed to satisfy te

age re


46/83

or to society in general, contrary to #ustice, onesty, modesty, or good morals.Section 2?, Rule169 !ro(ides tat :a member of te bar may be disbarred or sus!ended from is office as

attorney by te Su!reme "ourt for any deceit, mal!ractice, or oter gross misconduct in

suc office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of is con(iction of a crime in(ol(ing moraltur!itude, or for any (iolation of te oat &ic e is re

=n a disbarment case, te "ourt &ill no longer re(ie& a final #udgment of con(iction. e crime

of direct bribery is a crime in(ol(ing moral tur!itude. e la&yers final con(iction of te crimeof direct bribery clearly falls under one of te grounds for disbarment under Section 2? of Rule

169. 4isbarment follo&s as a conse


47/83

Attorney% saring of fees. A la&yer is !roscribed by Rule 8.02 of te "ode of ProfessionalRes!onsibility to di(ide or agree to di(ide te fees for legal ser(ices rendered &it a !erson not

licensed to !ractice la&. =n 3an 3e2 4eng v. +avid , it &as rule tat an agreement bet&een a

la&yer and a lay!erson to sare te fees collected from clients secured by te lay!erson is nulland (oid, and tat te la&yer in(ol(ed may be disci!lined for unetical conduct. Manuel G.

illatuya vs. "tty. 4ede S. 3abalingcos".C. #o. $$! )uly &%! $%&$.

Attorney% solicitation of clients. 7ased on te facts of te case, res!ondent (iolated Rule 2.06 of

te "ode, &ic !roibits la&yers from soliciting cases for te !ur!ose of !rofit. A la&yer is not!roibited from engaging in business or oter la&ful occu!ation. =m!ro!riety arises, toug,

&en te business is of suc a nature or is conducted in suc a manner as to be inconsistent &it

te la&yers duties as a member of te bar. is inconsistency arises &en te business is onetat can readily lend itself to te !rocurement of !rofessional em!loyment for te la&yer% or tat

can be used as a cloa for indirect solicitation on te la&yers bealf% or is of a nature tat, if

andled by a la&yer, &ould be regarded as te !ractice of la&

Rule 15.09 of te "ode mandates tat te la&yer is mandated to inform te client &eter teformer is acting as a la&yer or in anoter ca!acity. is duty is a must in tose occu!ations

related to te !ractice of la&. e reason is tat certain etical considerations go(erning te

attorney-client relationsi! may be o!erati(e in one and not in te oter. Manuel G. illatuya vs."tty. 4ede S. 3abalingcos".C. #o. $$! )uly &%! $%&$.

"ourt Personnel% conduct !re#udicial to te best interest of te ser(ice. "onduct !re#udicial to te

best interest of te ser(ice refers to acts or omissions tat (iolate te norm of !ublic

accountability and diminis I or tend to diminis I te !eo!les fait in te Judiciary. =f anem!loyees


48/83

Gambito! Court Stenographer! MC3C! 4inalonan! ,angasinan".M. #o. ,'%'$&6 H ".M. #o. ,'&$'/%$. )uly /! $%&$

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty and gra(e misconduct. =n "lenio v. Cunting, te "ourt defined

disonesty and gra(e misconduct as te :dis!osition to lie, ceat, decei(e, defraud or betray%

untrust&ortiness% lac of integrity% lac of onesty, !robity, or integrity in !rinci!le% and lac offairness and straigtfor&ardness.> isconduct, on te oter and, is a transgression of some

establised and definite rule of action, more !articularly, unla&ful bea(ior or gross negligence

by te !ublic officer. o &arrant dismissal from te ser(ice, te misconduct must be gra(e,serious, im!ortant, &eigty, momentous, and not trifling. e misconduct must im!ly &rongful

intention and not a mere error of #udgment. e misconduct must also a(e a direct relation to

and be connected &it te !erformance of te !ublic officers official duties amounting eiterto maladministration or &illful, intentional neglect, or failure to discarge te duties of te

office.

aing monetary e(idence &itout !ro!er autority constitutes teft. =n )udge San )ose! )r. v.

Camurongan!te "ourt eld tat, :e act of taing monetary e;ibits &itout autority fromteir custodian constitutes teft. ie(ery, no matter o& !etty, as no !lace in te #udiciary.>

0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Ma. 8rissa G. Musni! Court Legal Researcher 88 R3C!

)udicial Region 888! 4ranch /! Gapan City! #ueva Eci=a".M. #o. ,'&&'/%$(! )uly &7! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% disonesty, gross neglect, gra(e misconduct. Section 1, Article O= of te"onstitution declares tat a !ublic office is a !ublic trust, and all !ublic officers and em!loyees

must at all times be accountable to te !eo!le, ser(e tem &it utmost res!onsibility, integrity,

loyalty, and efficiency, act &it !atriotism and #ustice, and lead modest li(es. e demand formoral u!rigtness is more !ronounced for te members and !ersonnel of te #udiciary &o are

in(ol(ed in te dis!ensation of #ustice. e conduct of court members and !ersonnel must not

only be caracteriCed &it !ro!riety and decorum but must also be abo(e sus!icion, for any actof im!ro!riety ca seriously erode or diminis te !eo!les confidence in te #udiciary. As

frontliners in te administration of #ustice, tey sould li(e u! to te strictest standards of

onesty and integrity in te !ublic ser(ice.

"lers of "ourt act as custodians of te courts funds, re(enues, records, !ro!erty and !remisesand are tus, liable for any loss, sortage, destruction or im!airment of suc funds and !ro!erty.

=n Re: Report on the )udicial and 1inancial "udit of R3C'4r. (! ,anabo! +avao +el #orte! it

&as eld tat te failure of te "ler of "ourt to remit te court funds constitutes gross neglect of

duty, disonesty, and gra(e misconduct !re#udicial to te best interest of te ser(ice. =n tis case,Peradilla is guilty of disonesty, gross neglect of duty, and gra(e misconduct for er$ *1+ non-

remittance of collections of #udiciary funds% *2+ non-issuance of official recei!ts and non

re!orting in te ontly Re!orts and "ollections and 4e!osits of some of te collections%and *6+ erroneous re!orting in te ontly Re!orts and "ollections and 4e!osits of some

of te collections. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Lunalinda M. ,eradilla! Cler2 of Court

88! MC3C! E& #ido'Linapacan! ,alawan".M. #o. ,'%-'$(7! )uly &7! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% sim!le misconduct. e Seriff disregarded te !rocedure for te e;ecution of#udgments as mandated by Section 10, Rule 11 of te Rules of "ourt. A seriff is mandated to

mae an estimate of te e;!enses &ic sall be a!!ro(ed by te court. =t is only after te

a!!ro(al of te court tat an interested !arty sall de!osit te amount &it te cler of court./!on te return of te &rit, te seriff must submit a li


49/83

to be incurred in te e;ecution of te &rits, &itout first maing an estimate and securing !riora!!ro(al from te "", as &ell as is failure to render accounting after its e;ecution, are clear

(iolations of te rule. B(en if conceding tat te sum demanded by Seriff is reasonable, tis

does not #ustify is de(iation from te !rocedure laid do&n by te rule. )eiter te acAs officers of te court, seriffs are carged &it te

no&ledge of &at !ro!er action to tae in case tere are


50/83

&arrants te im!osition of administrati(e sanctions. All em!loyees in te #udiciary sould bee;am!les of res!onsibility, com!etence and efficiency. =t is troug te !rocess ser(er tat

defendants learn of te action brougt against tem by te com!lainant. =t is also troug te

ser(ice of summons by te !rocess ser(er tat te trial court ac


51/83


52/83

"anon 1E-A la&yer sall old in trust all moneys and !ro!erties of is client tat may come intois !ossession.

Rule 1E.01-A la&yer sall account for all money or !ro!erty collected or recei(ed for or from

te client.

Rule 1E.02-A la&yer sall ee! te funds of eac client se!arate and a!art from is o&n andtose of oters e!t by im.

Rule 1E.06-A la&yer sall deli(er te funds and !ro!erty of is client &en due or u!on demand.

oney entrusted to a la&yer for a s!ecific !ur!ose but not used for te !ur!ose, sould be

immediately returned. A la&yers failure to return u!on demand te funds eld by im on bealf

of is client gi(es rise to te !resum!tion tat e as a!!ro!riated te same for is o&n use in(iolation of te trust re!osed in im by is client. Suc act is a gross (iolation of general

morality as &ell as of !rofessional etics. =t im!airs !ublic confidence in te legal !rofession and

deser(es !unisment. Emilia 0. +haliwal vs. "tty. "

Legal and Judicial Ethics_ Case Compilations 2010-2012

Documents

Transcript of Legal and Judicial Ethics_ Case Compilations 2010-2012