[A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591.

July 14, 2005]

RODRIGO JING N. VIDAL, complainant, vs. JUDGE JAIME L.

DOJILLO,
JR.,
Municipal
Trial
Court,
Manaoag,
Pangasinan, respondent.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before us is a complaint filed by complainant Rodrigo Jing N. Vidal against Judge

Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of
Manaoag,Pangasinan.
The antecedent facts, as accurately narrated in the report of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), are as follows:

The Hon. Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court at Manaoag,
Pangasinan is here charged with Misconduct. The charge stemmed from an Election
Protest filed by the brother of Judge Dojillo at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
stationed at San Fabian, Pangasinan to protest the proclamation of herein complainant
as Barangay Captain in the 2002 election.
Mr. Vidal [herein complainant] alleged that during the 29 and 30 July 2003 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 piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from manifesting
something to the court, and other similar acts.
Complainant continued that herein respondents 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 respondents brother.
Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present during the mentioned hearings but
explained that he did not sit beside his brothers 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.
This matter was referred for investigation and, in her report, the Hon. Tita RodriguezVillarin, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 46, Urdaneta City observed that:
From the evidence submitted by the parties, [the] undersigned noted that although the
complainant and his witness claim they saw the respondent talking to the lawyer and
respondents brother and handing notes they did not hear the alleged conversation and
they did not state what were those notes. Neither did they see respondent do other acts
to interfere with the proceedings.
Considering that the presence of the respondent during the hearings of the election
protest of his brother was admitted by both parties, the only issue left is whether or
not such presence constitutes misconduct. In this respect, [the] undersigned further
noted that the complainant, by himself or thru his lawyer, did not call the attention of
the court much less raised objection to the respondents presence. This is an indication
that during the hearings[,] respondents presence did not stir any impression or
suspicion of intention to influence [the] courts ruling. As declared by the complainant,
he became suspicious and apprehensive he lost the case even before receiving the
decision when he was informed later that not having a brother judge he was surely a
loser.
The OCA then recommended that the complaint against respondent be dismissed
but respondent judge should be advised to be more circumspect in his actions in the
future.
We do not agree with the OCA recommendation.
Respondent, in his defense, stated that he attended the hearing of his brothers
election protest case just to give moral support and, in the process, also observe how
election protest proceedings are conducted. Although concern for family members is
deeply ingrained in the Filipino culture, 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 activities. Even if
respondent did not intend to use his position as a judge to influence the outcome of his
brothers election protest, it cannot be denied that his presence in the courtroom during
the hearing of his brothers 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. The fact that neither complainant nor his counsel objected to
the presence of respondent during the hearing is immaterial. Respondent himself
should have refrained from publicly showing his seemingly active interest and
participation in the case, for he does not deny that he whispered and passed notes to
his brothers lawyer during the course of the hearing. Thus, we emphasize our ruling
in Caeda vs. Alaan,[1] that:

Judges are required not only to be impartial but also to appear to be so, for appearance
is an essential manifestation of reality. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
enjoins judges to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere
appearance of impropriety.
They must conduct themselves in such a manner that they give no ground for
reproach.
[Respondents] acts have been less than circumspect. He should have kept himself free
from any appearance of impropriety and endeavored to distance himself from any act
liable to create an impression of indecorum.
...
This reminder applies all the more sternly to municipal trial court judges like
respondent because they are the judicial frontliners who have direct contact with the
parties. They are the embodiments of the peoples sense of justice. . . .
Indeed, respondent must always bear in mind that:
A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as personal conduct, a
price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond
which he may not freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
enjoins a judge to avoid not just impropriety in the performance of judicial
duties but in all his activities whether in his public or private life. He must
conduct himself in a manner that gives no ground for reproach. (Emphasis
supplied)
Verily, respondent failed to live up to the degree of propriety required of him by the
Code of Judicial Conduct.

IN VIEW OF THE ALL THE FOREGOING, Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., is found
GUILTY of violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and is hereby
REPRIMANDED with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

[AM No. RTJ-02-1669. April 14, 2004]

HON. JULIETA A. DECENA, HON. VIRGILIO D. PONTANAL, HON.

AMELITA A. IBASCO, HON. GERRY D. RAA, HON. PEDRO N.
MORA. JR., and HON. FERDINAND T. AGUILAR, complainants,
vs. JUDGE NILO A. MALANYAON, Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Pili, Camarines
Sur, respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J.:

The regular session of a municipal council was interrupted by a heckler in

the audience hurling various accusatory remarks and insults at the council
members. The heckler is a judge, the incident, the subject of this case.
On 26 May 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator received a
Joint Affidavit-Complaint executed by various municipal officials of Bula,
Camarines Sur. The affiants-complainants, Mayor Julieta A. Decena (Decena),
Vice-mayor Virgilio D. Pontanal (Pontanal), and Councilors Amelita A. Ibasco
(Ibasco), Gerry D. Raa (Raa), Pedro N. Mora, Jr. (Mora), and Ferdinand T.
Aguila (Aguilar) sought the dismissal from the service and the disbarment of
respondent Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon (Judge Malanyaon), Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, of Pili, Camarines Sur, on account
of his conduct during the 21 February 2000 session of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Bula.
In a Resolution dated 19 June 2002, the Court referred the matter for
investigation, report and recommendation to Court of Appeals Justice Eriberto
U. Rosario, Jr. After Justice Rosario sought to be excused owing to his
forthcoming retirement then, the Court referred the matter to the Court of
Appeals for assignment to a Justice by court-wide raffle. The case was raffled
to Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. After conducting several hearings on the case,
Justice Reyes, Jr. rendered a Report and Recommendation (Report), which
[1]

[2]

[3]

was received by this Court on 22 July 2003. From the Report, we draw the
following antecedent facts:
On 21 February 2000, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, Camarines Sur
convened its regular session, with Vice-mayor Pontanal presiding. Among the
matters on the agenda was the revocation of two previous council
resolutions authorizing Rolando N. Canet (Canet) to operate a cockpit in the
municipality. A former vice-mayor of Bula, Canet is also the nephew-in-law of
Judge Malanyaon. Both Judge Malanyaon and Canet attended the 21
February 2000 session of the Sangguniang Bayan. Canet, however, came
along with many supporters. Noticing his presence, the Sanggunian offered
to recognize Judge Malanyaon; but he declined, saying that he merely wanted
to be an observer.
[4]

[5]

[6]

From that point on, the episode during the Sanggunian session as culled
in the Report on the basis of the submitted affidavits transpired in this wise:
Subsequently, during the deliberations, the vice mayor attested that respondent
interrupted the session by shouting comments in their vernacular such as: Ambog,
Ambog iyan (lies, they are lies); Butig! Caya mo yan? Maski Butig! Maski Piglalado
Camo! (Lies! Can you do that? Even if they are lies? Even if you are being
deceived?) and Dale Sana Camong Dale! (You do things recklessly). During the
deliberations relative to the authority of Mr. Rolando N. Canet to operate a cockpit,
the respondent judge, with blazing eyes and a red face further interrupted the session
by lambasting the municipal councilors with disparaging and insulting remarks, which
left the whole proceedings in confusion.
In the heat of respondents outbursts, he uttered the following remarks to the vice
mayor:
Ika Bondying (the vice mayors nickname),. So kag-igin MO BUKO ADTONG
MADAYA, Di adto nag gagamit kana kuwa kan municipyo, o camo ginagamit mo si
Revo mo! Mag adal kamo, a biente uno mil, susmareosep kamo. Sabi co ka ninyo
mig-lecture aco pero abo man kamo, o taono, basta camo matugaan ni alkalde? Mga
uda ugali! (You Bodying, your father was not deceitful. He was not using the
property of the municipality, now you are using your Revo. You all study! You
are receiving twenty one thousand pesos, my god, I told you I will lecture you,

but you did not want me to. Why? As long as you were promised by the
mayor? You have no etiquette!)
O Bondying ika, maski ambugan camo kana alkalde, tutubudon ninyo? Urgent na
ono? Din a kamo pwendeng butigan. Pigbubutigan camo. Amo yan sabihon ko ka
ninyo! (You Bondying, even if the mayor is telling you lies, will you follow
her? What urgent? You could not be lied upon again! You are being deceived,
thats what I will tell you!)
Pedro N. Mora, former municipal councilor of Bula, Camarines Sur, in his affidavit
also conformed that he heard the respondent judge utter: Ambog, Ambog iyan (lies,
they are lies); Butig! Caya mo yan?Maski Butig! Maski Piglalado Camo! (Lies! Can
you do that? Even if they are lies? Even if you are being deceived?) and Dale
Sana Camong Dale! (You do things recklessly) during the session of Sangguniang
Bayan of Bula, held on 21 February 2000.
xxx
Ferdinand T. Aguilar, another former councilor of Bula, Camarines Sur, likewise
attested to the intemperate language used by the respondent during the regular session
of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula on 21 February 2000. Aguilar however adds that
he too became the object of respondents ire when the latter publicly told him the
following:
O, Aguilar, ono pigsusunod mo? Ilinga, ilinga tolos ninyo, ono regal, o ono regal
ninyo? You cannot suspend the rule without 2/3 votes! Ono, magbasa kamo! Saying
kito sweldo ninyo! (You Aguilar, What are you following? Look, look at this, what
is the regulation, what are your regulations? You cannot suspend the rule
without the 2/3 votes! You read! Your salary is just a waste!);
O, ika (pointing at Aguilar) O ono pigsusunod mo? O, kua raw, basaha ninyo! Onong
klaseng Sanggunian adi? Di nagsusunod sa regal a, Ferdinand? Di ninyo piggagamit
to mga payo ninyo! O, ilinga! Basaha Ferdinand. (You, [pointing at Aguilar] what
are you following? You get [the rules] and read them! What kind of Sanggunian
is this? You not following the rules a, Ferdinand? You are not using your
head! You look and read it, Ferdinand.);

Ika sana Ferdinand saying kito alintak mo! Uray ni ina nya, onong urgent na
nakakaptan ninyo? Kon pig-gagamit ya mga gamit kot munisipyo, di ninyo
pigaactibaran! (You Ferdinand you what is in your head is such a waste. Ass of
your mother! To what urgent matter that you are holding on? If it is the property
of this municipality is the one being used, you are not acting on it.);
Ika Ferdinand nag-aadal ka kin abugasiya, nagpapabuta man ika, ining,
pigbubutigan na kamo? (You Ferdinand, you are studying law and yet you were
blinded even though you are cheated);
Ika, Ferdinand basahon ko, kon gusto mo bikolon ko, di san sinasabing bago
magtaong permit agko Ordinansa. Si isay ya nagsasabi? Ya tinatawam kin poder
ngowan uya Sangguniang Bayan ya mig-taong lisensya! Tinawan na kin lisensa o ono
pa? (You Ferdinand, I will read to you, if you want I will read it to you in our
dialect. That it is never stated there that before issuing permit, there should be an
ordinance first. Who said that? The one that is given the power is the
Sangguniang Bayan the one that will issue the license! He [Rolando Canet] was
already given a license, what else?);
Ika Aguilar, basahon mo iton a! da siton nagsasabing bago tawan kin lisensya,
kumasta ngona kin ordinansa! O sa cockfighting o kon sa demonyo! Ining sa
bulangan na ini 1964 pa ako, a! ngani ninyong maintindihan. Ngowan, si Rolando
Canet agko lisensiya, huli ta abo ni Decena, natugon man kamo gusto ninyong
anularan! Ngowan, gusting bumayad abong pabayadon. Magbasa kamo, 21 mil,
buray ni ina niya! Ako, nag-absent akong kabangang aldow para magatender kading
session, sangribo ana nauda kanako! Gusto ko sanang porbaran kamo adding osipon
na kon talagang nakastahan na kamo!Magbasa kamo, 21 mil, buray ni ina niya, 21
mil. (You Aguilar, read that [referring to the rules], it is never stated here that
before you issue a license, you have to pass first an ordinance, in the cockfighting
or whatever devil is that! This law about the cockfighting this has been the law
since 1964 so that you will understand. Now, Rolando Canet has a license, just
because Decena does not want to give permit you want the same annulled. Now,
he wants to pay but does not want to accept the same. You read, 21 thousand
[referring to our salary] ass of your mother! I did not report for half a day just to
attend this session and I lost P1,000.00 in the process in the form of salary just so
I will be able to prove for myself about the rumors that you have been bought [or

to that effect]! You read! Twenty one thousand! Ass of your mother, twenty one
thousand!)
Sayang Ferdinand, kun arog ya naturan mo, di ida makakapasar, amo yan sasabihon
ko kanimo! Kon arog kito ya studio mo, babaliktaron mo to demonyong iton, a, maski
ton butig, amo tutuboron mo a, tibaad di ika maka-abogado, kon maka-abogado man,
makakarsel ka! (What a waste Ferdinand, if thats what you learned, you will not
pass [the Bar exams] thats what I will tell you. What are you going to tell them, if
that is how you understand, that you will reverse this kind of devil even if it is a
lie and yet you will follow the same. You might not become a lawyer, and if you
become one you will go to jail.)
Ernesto B. Ballaber, who is the incumbent Barangay Captain of Salvacion, Bula,
Camarines Sur, testified through his affidavit that he was present and seated beside the
respondent judge on the date in question. He noticed that the respondent judge was
drunk as the latter gave off a strong alcoholic scent. Moreover, Ballebar observed that
the respondents eyes were watery and red.
Ballebars deduction that Judge Malanyaon was drunk was reinforced when the
respondent stood up, banged the table and shouted in the vernacular: Butig!, Butig!
Butig! (Lies! Lies! Lies!) and Ambog! Ambog iyan! (Lie! Its a lie!) during the
session. Ballebar further testified that the respondent also verbally abused the
members of the Sangguniang.
xxx
Gerry D. Raa asseverated that when the issue on the resolutions affecting the
operation of the cockpit arena by Rolando N. Canet was being taken up by the
council, Judge Malanyaon suddenly pushed the table in front of him, bolted from his
chair and fiercely castigated the members of the Sangguniang Bayan with every
personal attacks. In fact, Raa attested that the respondent publicly discredited and
humiliated him during the session by imputing that he was operating an illegal cockpit
in the municipality. (Emphasis not ours.)
[7]

Mora and Raa, as well as two other witnesses for the complainants
confirmed that Judge Malanyaon reeked of liquor as he proceeded with his
tirade.
[8]

According to Bartolome D. Parro, the Sangguniang Bayan OIC Secretary,

because of the outbursts of Judge Malanyaon the session was suspended.
Meanwhile, the Sanggunian members were involuntarily detained at the
session hall. They were unable to leave as the entrance and exits were
blocked by supporters of Canet. Meanwhile, Judge Malanyaon continued his
outbursts against the councilors.
[9]

Admitting his presence during the Sanggunian session, Judge Malanyaon

explained, however, that he was there not as a judge but in his private
capacity as a taxpayer. He denied he was drunk, even as he admitted he was
enraged and furious over the proceedings at the Sanggunian. He did not deny
delivering a diatribe, but he claimed his actions were appropriate since the
proposed revocation of his nephew-in-laws cockpit license was illegal in his
estimation.
[10]

All told, Judge Malanyaon did not dispute the facts as laid down by the
complainants and the latters witnesses. He justified his behavior though as
the fulminations of a righteously outraged citizen which according to him
should be segregated from his function as a judge.
Judge Malanyaon deserves to be taken to task for his outrageous
behavior as it clearly violates the Code of Judicial Conduct.
First. The remarks uttered are patently defamatory and even vulgar.
Indeed, such utterances should not be expected of a public official worthy of
his office. At fault is not the sentiment harbored, but the impolitic choice of
words employed to express such sentiment. It is not even particularly
relevant if Judge Malanyaon was inebriated at that time, for the reckless
character of his remarks are in themselves palpable, whether they were
delivered in a drunken or sober state.
[11]

Second. Judge Malanyaons harangue was directed at the members of the

Sangguniang Bayan in the course of a regular session of the body. The
members of the Sanggunian are, by reason of their public office, entitled to
the respect of other people, especially their fellow public officers. Judge
Malanyaons diatribe indicates his inability to accord his fellow public officials
their due.

Third. Judge Malanyaon made his remarks in a public forum. Obviously,

however, he forgot or even failed to realize that he is a representative of the
judicial branch of government, the judge being the visible representation of the
law and, more importantly, of justice. The judiciary is loathe to interfere with
the due exercise by co-equal branches of government of their official
functions, absent any justiciable action brought in due course.
[12]

Fourth. It must be understood that Judge Malanyaons remarks were

aimed at preventing the Sanggunian from revoking the cockpit license of
Canet. In doing so, he was attempting to interfere with the will of the
Sanggunian as an independent legislative body. As observed by Investigating
Justice Reyes, Jr., the awkward situation was aggravated when Judge
Malanyaon publicly humiliated the councilors in front of their constituents,
making them look witless and obtuse, and thereby creating a mockery of the
proceedings. The disruptive presence of several supporters of Canet, a local
town politician, porated the protest against the plan to revoke the cockpit
license with political color. Judge Malanyaons active participation in apparent
concert with Canets supporters exposed him as nothing but a common
lobbyist, as he forgot to act as a judge with the standard judicial temperament
and prudence.
[13]

Fifth. Judge Malanyaon obstructed the Sangguniang members from

performing their official duties. As Investigating Justice Reyes, Jr. pointed out,
the acts complained of Judge Malanyaon is no less a crime under Article 144
of the Revised Penal Code. As a judge, respondent should very well know
how deleterious it would be to the discharge of his functions if the court
hearings he presides over would be rudely interrupted by fulsome tirades
delivered by a spectator in the audience. If such a situation arise in his
courtroom, Judge Manlayaon would have every right to take offense to the
disruption in the proceedings. A legislative session is no less an official
proceeding as a court session and any one who disrupts either proceedings
deserves to be sanctioned.
[14]

Sixth. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge shall neither
allow family relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment, nor allow
the prestige of judicial office to be used or lent to advance the private interests
of others. It does not escape our attention that Judge Malanyaon was
[15]

agitated during the Sanggunian session because the interests of his nephewin-law were under attack. Perhaps, Judge Malanyaon honestly believed that
the revocation of Canets cockpit license was illegal. Yet, it would not justify his
undisguised attempt to prevent the threatened detrimental action against his
relative with his influence. We agree with the conclusion of Investigating
Justice Reyes, Jr. that Judge Malanyaon allowed himself to be used by his
nephew-in-law to promote the latters private interests, in contravention of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
[16]

Judge Malanyaon needs to be reminded that his judicial identity does not
terminate at the end of the day when he takes off his judicial robes. Even
when garbed in casual wear outside of the halls of justice, a judge retains the
air of authority and moral ascendancy that he or she wields inside the sala. As
the Court once held:
Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly
accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen.
A judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The
personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private
life should be above suspicion.
[17]

It may strike perhaps as a poetically tragic notion, but for very good
reasons, a judge's official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his
personal existence. Indeed, the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 in
particular, mandates that a judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities, as well as behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Thus, the Court has to dismiss outright Judge Malanyaons suggestion that
his actions be evaluated as one of a taxpayer or ordinary citizen and not as
that of a judge. In fact, his utterances were not made under a cloak of
anonymity, for the members of the council, as well as some of the people in
the gallery knew very well that he was a judge. It is highly probable that his
invectives took on a greater imperative on the listeners precisely because he
was a judge, with all the authority attendant to the office.
[18]

[19]

The conduct of Judge Malanyaon relative to the 21 February 2000

legislative session of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula is inexcusable and
simply cannot be condoned. His actuations constitute palpable violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct:
CANON 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE
OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.
Rule 2.01. A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
xxx
Rule 2.03. A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent
to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that respondent be
fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). In his seventeen (17) years in the
judiciary, Judge Malanyaon has not been sanctioned, except once by
reprimand. With the comparative seriousness of the offense, a fine of Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) would serve as an appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon is hereby found
GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a judge, in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.01
and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered to pay a FINE of
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that
the commission of the same or a similar act or omission in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Puno, (Chairman), J., no part due to close relation to the parties.
Austria-Martinez, J., no part in view of close relation to one of the parties.

FLORENDA V. TOBIAS,
Complainant,

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734

[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1933-MTJ]

Present:
- versus -

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.

JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO,

JR., Presiding Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid-San
Promulgated:
Enrique-Pulupandan, NegrosOccid
ental,
January 19, 2011
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This administrative case stemmed from the complaint filed by complainant
Florenda V. Tobias against respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., Presiding
Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Valladolid-San
Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental. Complainant charged respondent with
corruption for allegedly offering package deals to litigants who plan to file cases in
his court.

In her verified Complaint[1] dated June 6, 2007, complainant alleged that

respondent Judge Limsiaco, Jr. offers package deals for cases filed in the court
where he presides. She stated that sometime in June 2006, she requested her sister,
Lorna V. Vollmer, to inquire from the Fourth MCTC of Valladolid-San EnriquePulupandan, Negros Occidental about the requirements needed in filing an
ejectment case. Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero[2] allegedly proposed to
Vollmer that for the sum of P30,000.00, respondent would provide the lawyer,

prepare the necessary pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment
case which they contemplated to file against the spouses Raymundo and Francisca
Batalla. Fegidero allegedly required them to pay the initial amount of P10,000.00
and the remaining balance would be paid in the course of the proceedings. It was
made clear that they would not get any judicial relief from their squatter problem
unless they accepted the package deal.
Further, complainant alleged that on June 23, 2006, Lorna Vollmer,
accompanied by Salvacion Fegidero, delivered the amount of P10,000.00 to
respondent at his residence.Subsequently, an ejectment case was filed in
respondents court, entitled Reynold V. Tobias, represented by his Attorneyin-fact
Lorna V. Vollmer v. Spouses Raymundo Batalla and Francisca Batalla, docketed as
Civil Case No. 06-007-V.[3] Respondent allegedly assigned a certain Atty. Robert
G. Juanillo to represent the complainant in the ejectment case.Complainant stated
that respondent, however, immediately demanded for an additional payment
of P10,000.00. She allegedly refused to give the additional amount and earned the
ire of respondent. She asked her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to request
Atty. Robert Juanillo to voluntarily withdraw as counsel,[4] which he did on April
16, 2007. Complainant also asked Vollmer to withdraw the case. [5] Respondent
granted the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on April 23, 2007 and the Motion to
Withdraw Case on May 3, 2007.[6]
In his Comment,[7] respondent denounced the allegation that he offers
package deals to prospective litigants as malicious, baseless and a lie. He denied
that he demanded from complainant the additional payment of P10,000.00. He
alleged that he does not know complainant and she is a total stranger to him.
Respondent attached to his Comment the Affidavit[8] dated September 29,
2007 of Atty. Robert G. Juanillo, who stated therein that he received as counsel of
the complainant in the ejectment case the sum of P10,000.00 from complainants
sister, Lorna Vollmer. From the P10,000.00, he paid filing fees and miscellaneous
fees in the amount of P3,707.00, while the remaining balance of P6,293.00 was
paid to him for his services, consisting of the preparation and filing of the
complaint for ejectment, including acceptance fee.
Respondent also attached to his Comment the Affidavit [9] dated September
29, 2007 of Court Stenographer Salvacion B. Fegidero, denying the allegation that
she offered a package deal to complainants sister, Lorna Vollmer. She declared that

the allegations of complainant were malicious and unfair, and that complainant and
her sister could have been misled by some people who lost cases in the said court.

Meanwhile, the ejectment case was assigned to Judge Herminigildo S.

Octaviano, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bago City, Negros Occidental, in view
of respondents inhibition on July 30, 2007.[10]
On February 20, 2008, the Court issued a Resolution, [11] which noted the
Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the complaint against
respondent. Due to the conflicting allegations of the parties, the OCA opined that a
formal investigation was necessary to afford the parties opportunity to substantiate
their respective claims and to determine the alleged participation of court employee
Salvacion Fegidero. Upon recommendation of the OCA, the Court referred
the complaint to Executive Judge Frances V. Guanzon, Regional Trial
Court, Bago City, Negros Occidental for investigation, report and recommendation
within 60 days from receipt thereof.
On May 20, 2008, the parties were summoned for a formal investigation
before Investigating Judge Frances V. Guanzon. Those who appeared before the
Investigating Judge were complainant Florenda V. Tobias, respondent Judge
Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero and respondents
witness, Atty. Robert Juanillo. Complainants witness, Lorna Vollmer, did not attend
the investigation, because per information of complainant, Vollmer was
in Germany and she was expected to be back in the country in December 2008.
In his Report dated June 2, 2008, Investigating Judge Guanzon stated that
complainant testified that it was her sister, Lorna Vollmer, who informed her about
the alleged package deal through long distance telephone call. Complainant
testified that she met Salvacion Fegidero only after the filing of the instant
administrative complaint and that she did not talk with her even once.
[12]
Complainant further claimed that she had no personal dealings with respondent
or with Salvacion Fegidero, and that she met respondent only after the filing of the
ejectment case.[13]
Moreover, complainant testified that respondent neither personally received
from her the initial payment of P10,000.00 for the alleged package deal
nor personally asked from her for an additional payment of P10,000.00.[14] It was

her sister, Lorna Vollmer, who told her through telephone about the demand for an
additional P10,000.00, but she (complainant) did not send the money.[15]
Complainant testified that she was the one who went to the house of Atty.
Robert Juanillo, bringing with her the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel prepared by
respondent for Atty. Juanillo to sign.[16]
Respondent and Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero categorically denied
the accusation that they had a package deal with Lorna Vollmer.
Respondent testified that he met and talked with Vollmer when she went to his
court to inquire about the filing of an ejectment case against the spouses
Raymundo and Francisca Batalla. Respondent advised Vollmer that since there was
no lawyer in Valladolid, Negros Occidental, she had to choose the nearest town
lawyer as it would lessen expenses in transportation and appearance fee, and
respondent mentioned the name of Atty. Robert Juanillo.[17] Moreover, respondent
testified that Vollmer, together with her husband and Salvacion Fegidero, went to
his house once to ask him for the direction to the house of Atty. Robert
Juanillo. Respondent denied that he received the amount of P10,000.00 from
Vollmer.[18]
Further, respondent testified that he met with complainant after the
ejectment case was filed, when she went to his court and told him that she was
withdrawing the services of Atty. Robert Juanillo. Respondent admitted that he
prepared the motion for the withdrawal of appearance of Atty. Juanillo, since
respondent wanted to help complainant as she said it was urgent, but respondent
did not charge her.[19]
Atty. Robert Juanillo testified that he received the amount of P10,000.00
from Lorna Vollmer at the Municipal Court of Valladolid, Negros Occidental. From
the amount, he paid filing fees amounting to P3,707.00 to the Clerk of Court of the
Municipal Circuit Court of Valladolid-Pulupandan and San Enrique, which
payment was evidenced by five official receipts. Atty. Juanillo testified that the
balance of P6,293.00 was payment for his legal services.
Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero denied that she was involved in the
alleged package deal complained of by Florenda Tobias. She testified that she met
Lorna Vollmer for the first time when Vollmer went to the court in Villadolid and
asked if there was a lawyer in Valladolid, because she was intending to file an
ejectment suit. She referred Vollmer to respondent Judge Limsiaco, since there was
no lawyer in the Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental. The courtroom
of Valladolid, Negros Occidental consists only of one room where everybody holds

office, including respondent. She saw respondent talk with Vollmer for 15 minutes,
but she did not hear what they were talking about.[20]
Investigating Judge Guanzon found that the complainant did not have
personal knowledge of the alleged package deals to litigants who file cases in the
court of respondent. The allegations in the Complaint were all based on the
information relayed to complainant though telephone by her sister, Lorna Vollmer.
During the investigation, complainant admitted that respondent did not personally
receive from her the amount of P10,000.00 as payment for the alleged package
deal, and respondent did not ask from her an additional P10,000.00.
According to Investigating Judge Guanzon, the only person who could have
shed light on the alleged offer of package deals to litigants was Lorna Vollmer,
complainants sister. Unfortunately, Vollmer was not present during the
investigation. Per manifestation of complainant, Vollmer was then in Germany and
she was expected to return to thePhilippines in December 2008. Hence, the
complaint of corruption was unsubstantiated.
Nevertheless, Investigating Judge Guanzon stated that although the alleged
offer of package deals by respondent to litigants was unsubstantiated, it was
improper for respondent to talk to prospective litigants in his court and to
recommend lawyers to handle cases. Likewise, Judge Guanzon found respondents
act of preparing the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo to be
improper and unethical.
Investigating Judge Guanzon recommended the dismissal of the
administrative complaint against respondent as regards the alleged offer of package
deals to litigants who plan to file cases in his court. However, Judge Guanzon
recommended that respondent be reprimanded for talking to a prospective litigant
in his court, recommending the counsel to handle the case, and preparing the
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo, which pleading was filed
in respondents court and was acted upon by him.
In a Resolution dated August 4, 2008, the Court referred the Report of
Investigating Judge Guanzon to the OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation within 30 days from notice.
The OCA found respondents acts, consisting of (1) advising Lorna Vollmer
about the ejectment case she was about to file before his court; (2) recommending
Atty. Robert Juanillo as counsel of the complainant in the ejectment case; and (3)
helping complainant to prepare the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, to be violative
of the rules on integrity,[21] impartiality,[22] and propriety[23] contained in the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. The OCA recommended that

the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be

found guilty of gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct and be fined in the amount ofP20,000.00.
In a Resolution dated February 25, 2009, the Court required the parties to
manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for decision, on the basis of
the pleadings/records already filed and submitted, within 10 days from notice.
On August 18, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution resolving to inform the
parties that they are deemed to have submitted the case for resolution on the basis
of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted, considering that they have not
submitted their respective manifestations required in the Resolution dated February
25, 2009, despite receipt thereof on April 1, 2010.
The Court agrees with the findings of Investigating Judge Guanzon that
complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence her allegation that respondent
offers package deals to prospective litigants in his court.
However, the investigation revealed that respondent committed acts
unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to a prospective litigant in his court,
recommending a lawyer to the litigant, and preparing the Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo, which pleading was filed in his court and was
acted upon by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond reproach and
reflective of the integrity of his office. Indeed, as stated by the OCA, the said acts
of respondent violate Section 1 of Canon 2 (Integrity), Section 2 of Canon 3
(Impartiality), and Section 1 of Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,[24] thus:
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office
but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
xxxx
CANON 3

IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It
applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision
is made.
xxxx
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of
court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession
and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
CANON 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.
SEC. 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 office.

The
aforementioned
acts
of
respondent
constitute
gross
misconduct. Misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.[25] Gross has been
defined as out of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct
as is not to be excused.[26] Respondents act of preparing the Motion to Withdraw
the Appearance of Atty. Juanillo as counsel of complainant is inexcusable. In so
doing, respondent exhibited improper conduct that tarnished the integrity and
impartiality of his court, considering that the said motion was filed in his own sala
and was acted upon by him.
Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct is
a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. [27] Under Section
11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the sanctions against a respondent guilty of a
serious charge may be any of the following:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court
may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public
office,
including
government-owned
or
controlled

corporations; Provided, however, That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no

case include accrued leave credits;

2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three
(3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

In imposing the proper sanction against respondent, the Court takes note that
respondent had been found guilty of grave misconduct in A.M. No. MTJ-031509[28] and was fined P20,000.00, with a warning against repetition of the same or
similar act. Moreover, per verification from court records, respondent compulsorily
retired from the service onMay 17, 2009.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., former
Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Valladolid-San
Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct
for which he is FINED in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00). The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to deduct the
fine of P25,000.00 from the retirement benefits due to Judge Limsiaco, Jr.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

A.M. No. RTJ-03-1810. October 21, 2004]

BERNABE L. CARRIAGA, complainant, vs. Judge ISMAEL O.

BALDADO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, Bais City,
Negros Oriental,respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988,
inhibitions are judicial actions that are not subject to prior administrative approval.
Consequently, executive judges have no power to reverse or overrule orders of
inhibition of judges under their administrative supervision.
The Case and the Facts
In an Administrative Complaint dated October 28, 2002, Bernabe L. Carriaga
charged Executive Judge Ismael O. Baldado of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bais
City, Negros Oriental (Branch 45), with (1) bias and partiality and (2) abuse of authority.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) summarized the factual antecedents as
follows:
[1]

Complainant alleges that:

1. On 19 July 2002, Judge Romeo L. Anasario, Acting Presiding Judge,
MCTC, Manjuyod-Bindoy-Ayungan, Negros Oriental issued an Order
inhibiting himself from hearing Criminal Cases Nos. B-36-2000, B-552000, B-62-2000, B-08-2001, B-09-2001 and B-126-2001 on the ground
that the filing of an administrative case against him by accused Bernabe L.
Carriaga has already affected his emotions and cold neutrality as a judge;
2. Judge Ismael O. Baldado, as Executive Judge, issued an Order dated 1
August 2002 revoking Judge Anasarios Order of Inhibition. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed but respondent judge insisted that Judge
Anasario should hear the cases;

3. Complainant filed a Motion Entreating the Honorable Judge to Endorse

Administrative Aspect of Inhibition to the Supreme Court, which motion
respondent judge also denied;
4. The private complainant in Criminal Case No. B-55-2000, Edna
Baldado Iso, is a second cousin of Judge Baldado, while an eye witness is
a nephew of Edna Baldado Iso; and
5. Another witness, Roque Amorganda, is the baptism sponsor of the late
Bonifacio Benitez who, together with Edna Isos father were defeated in a
case filed by Carriaga. The private complainant in Criminal Case No. B62-2000 is the husband of Edna Baldado Iso.
In his Comment dated 4 March 2003, Judge Baldado denied the allegations in the
complaint. He maintained that:
1. This is the first time that the complainant raised the issue of conflict of
interest arising from his alleged blood relationship with one of the parties;
2. He does not personally know Edna Baldado Iso and has never met her.
However, his late father once informed him that they have relatives in
Bindoy;
3. He reversed the Order of Inhibition of Judge Anasario because the
ground cited by [the latter], i.e., that the accused has filed an
administrative case against him, is not meritorious. Well-settled is the rule
that the filing of an administrative case against a judge is not sufficient
basis for inhibiting [himself] from hearing and deciding a case;
4. He disapproved Judge Anasarios inhibition also because the other two
(2) municipal court trial judges under his administrative supervision,
Judges Leoncio N. Bancorro and Tirso F. Banquerigo, were already
handling more than one court. If he will allow Judge Anasario to inhibit
from these six (6) cases, it will be an added burden to them;
5. He should not be held administratively liable for revoking the Order of
Inhibition of Judge Anasario because he merely exercised his judicial

discretion and there was no manifestation of malice and bad faith on his
part;
6. On several occasions, the Supreme Court had also reversed his Orders
of Inhibition and ordered him to continue with the hearing of the cases;
and
7. Complainant has the penchant of filing administrative cases against
judges with the end view of seeking their inhibition from the cases.
On 03 April 2003, this Office received complainants Reply dated 17 March 2003
claiming that Judge Baldado gravely abused his discretion when he revoked the Order
of Inhibition of Judge Anasario. He contended that respondent judge should have
instead forwarded the matter to the Supreme Court because the same is already
beyond his authority as Executive Judge.
[2]

In a Resolution dated September 29, 2003 , this Court resolved to re-docket the
Complaint as a regular administrative matter and to designate Judge Jayme E. Ananson
of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose, Negros
Oriental, to hear and decide the subject six (6) criminal cases at the MCTC, BindoyAyungon-Manjuyod.
[3]

In his letter dated December 17, 2003 , Judge Ananson recused himself from
hearing the criminal cases on the ground of delicadeza, because he had represented
the complainant and his family in a related litigation prior to his appointment as judge. In
its Resolution dated April 5, 2004, this Court noted his letter and designated Judge
Leoncio R. Bancoro, MCTC of Bais City, Negros Oriental, to hear the cases.
[4]

[5]

Evaluation and Recommendation of the OCA

The OCA opined that Judge Baldado had exceeded his authority when he revoked
the Order of Inhibition of Judge Romeo L. Anasario. The power of respondent as an
executive judge was merely to designate another judge to try the case that was the
subject of inhibition. He had no authority to reverse the Order, as the authority to affirm
or reverse a judges inhibition is vested in the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the OCA
recommended that Judge Baldado be fined in the amount of two thousand pesos
(P2,000) for abuse of authority.
Agreeing with the reason for Judge Anasarios inhibition, the OCA affirmed it,
explaining that the accused had lost confidence [i]n him and he believes that he could

no longer hear and decide the case with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge
because of the administrative case previously filed by the accused against him. After
finding that the Administrative Complaint against Judge Anasario had been instituted
long before the filing of the six criminal cases, the OCA disbelieved respondents
contention that this had been filed to force the former to inhibit himself from hearing the
cases.
Since there is no sufficient proof that the action taken by respondent had been
prompted by his desire to favor private complainant, the OCA recommended the
dismissal of the charge of bias and partiality against the executive judge. Furthermore,
the court administrator said that there was no proof of the alleged use by respondent of
his position to promote his own interests.
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the findings of the OCA.
Administrative Liability
A judges decision to recuse on account of some disqualification is not conclusive.
However, orders of inhibition are not administrative in character; they are judicial in
nature. Questions on the inhibition or the competency of the inhibiting judge should be
determined with finality in an appropriate judicial proceeding.
[6]

In conformity with this rule, parties may avail themselves of the ordinary remedies of
reconsideration and appeal or of the extraordinary remedies of certiorari or mandamus.
Disciplinary proceedings against the inhibiting judge are not complementary or
suppletory to, or a substitute for, the aforementioned judicial remedies.
[7]

[8]

The administrative matter before us differs from petitions assailing a judges

disqualification from hearing a particular case. In the present case, the judge voluntarily
inhibited himself; the parties had not filed any motion on the matter. It was the executive
judge who insisted that Judge Anasario should continue hearing the case. Respondents
action was improper.
Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988, provides that inhibitions and
disqualifications [of judges] are judicial actions which do not require prior administrative
approval. Administrative intervention is necessary only when the inhibition is by a judge
of a single sala court, and the case has to be transferred to another judge of another
station.
[9]

The duty of executive judges, therefore, is merely to elevate an order of inhibition to

the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator or, otherwise, to
appoint another trial court judge under their supervision to handle the case. It is not
within their authority to resist or overrule the order of recusation. By disapproving Judge
Anasarios inhibition, respondent acted contrary to the aforesaid Circular.
[10]

On the other hand, the actuations of Judge Anasario are justified by the terms of
paragraph 2, Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. The records do not indicate
any improper exercise of a prerogative conferred on him by law. Absent any abuse of
discretion or manifest error, this Court shall not reverse an inhibition or a recusation.
Neither will the wisdom of such inhibition be delved into in cases in which the reasons
therefor are concededly subjective. Besides, the question of whether to inhibit is best
left to the sound discretion and the conscience of the judge, based on his rational and
logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him.
[11]

[12]

Respondent judges lack of awareness of the Circular and the decisions concerning
inhibitions of judges indicates a failure to live up to the Code of Judicial Conduct that
enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence. Being
the visible representation of the law, judges must be familiar with the circulars and
issuances of this Court and must diligently keep themselves abreast with developments
in our legal system. Only in doing so can they live up to their sacred judicial duties.
Hence, they are called upon to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with the
statutes and procedural rules, lest public confidence in the judiciary be eroded.
[13]

The charge of partiality has no factual support. Mere suspicion is not enough. Bias
and partiality must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. While palpable error
may be inferred from respondents contested Order, there is no evidence on record that
would justify a finding of partiality or bias.
[14]

[15]

WHEREFORE, Judge Ismael O. Baldado of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 45) of
Bais City, Negros Oriental is found guilty of administrative abuse and is
hereby FINED in the sum of two thousand pesos (P2,000). A repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely. However, he is found innocent of the
charge of bias and partiality.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio, Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concur.