Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Case 1 CARLITOS LAZO VS JUDGE ANTONIO V. TIONG A.M. NO.

MTJ-98-1173 DECEMBER 15,1998 Topic: Canon 1 Section 1

FACTS: A complaint was filed against respondent Judge Antonio V. Tiong of the Municipal Trial Court of Bolinao, Pangasinan for grave misconduct and abuse of authority relative to the case filed by the complainant Carlitos Lazo against Danilo D. Lazo for falsification and use of falsified document, which was assigned to respondent judge. Complainant charged that respondent did not inhibit himself from the case until after two (2) months despite the fact that respondent judge and the accused are related within the fourth degree of affinity, the wife of the accused being the first cousin of the judge. ISSUE: W/N Judge Tiong acted improperly in handling the case of his cousin. RULING: Yes. Under Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, a judge who is related within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity to party in a case is disqualified from the sitting in the case without the consent of all parties, expected in writing signed by them, and entered upon the record. This prohibition is not limited to cases in which a judge hears the evidence of the parties but includes as well cases in which he acts by resolving motions and issuing orders as respondent judge has done in the subject criminal case. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned and he should administer justice impartially and without delay.The respondent Judge Antonio V. Tiong is hereby REPRIMANDED with WARNING that repetition of the same or similar act or omission will be dealt with more severely. Case 2 ROAN I. LIBARIOS VS JUDGE ROSARITO F. DABALOS A.M. NO. RTJ-89-286 July 11, 1991 Topic: CANON 1 SECTION 4 FACTS: An administrative complaint was filed by Roan I. Libarios for and on behalf of his client Mariano Corvera, Jr. against respondent Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos, for grave ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, gross misconduct and partiality, relative to the issuance of a warrant of arrest of the respondent judge against the accused Tranquilino Calo Jr. and Belarmino Alloco for the crime of murder fixing their bail without any prior hearing. ISSUE: W/N Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. RULING: Yes. A judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan or personal interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. He should not have allowed himself to be swayed into issuing an order fixing bail for the temporary release of the accused charged with murder, without a hearing, which is contrary to established principles of law. It has been an established legal principle or rule that in cases where a person is accused of a capital offense, the trial court must conduct a hearing in a summary proceeding, to allow the prosecution an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all evidence it may desire to produce to prove that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong, before resolving the issue of bail for the temporary release of the accused. A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but should do so in a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity. The respondent judge is imposed of a FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) and WARNED to exercise more care and diligence in the performance of his duties as a judge, and that the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severally.

Case 3 A.M. No. 90-474 October 4, 1991 CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR., complainant vs. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, RTC, BRANCH 16, NAVAL, LEYTE, respondent. Topic:Canon 1 Section 3 FACTS: Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr., a practicing lawyer in Naval, Biliran Subprovince, Leyte, charged respondent, Judge Adriano R. Villamor of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Naval, Leyte, with falsification of his monthly Certificates of Service by making it appear that he had resolved all cases submitted for decision within the ninety-day period required by the Judiciary Act of 1948 Complainant further furnished the Court with an Affidavit of Judge Dulcisimo Pitao of the Municipal Trial Court of Maripipi, Leyte, stating that Respondent had intervened for the accused in Criminal Case No. 959 then pending with the said Municipal Court. In his Comment filed on 20 December 1990, Respondent claimed that the Complaint was more for harassment and vengeance. That there were other cases not decided within the 90-day rule, including those listed in the Complaint allegedly because the transcripts were incomplete. ISSUE: WON the respondent violated Section 3 Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct RULING: From the Investigative Report of Justice Fermin Martin, the imputation that respondent intervened in Criminal Case No. 959 is sufficiently substantiated. That a letter was sent to judge Pitao by the wife of he accused and that the respondent mentioned the case during their conversation. Cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. The Canons mince no words in mandating that a Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another Court (Canon 2, Rule 2.04). Interference by members of the bench in-pending suits with the end in view of influencing the course or the result of litigation does not only subvert the independence of the judiciary but also undermines the people's faith in its integrity and impartiality (Commentaries on the Code of Judicial Conduct). Respondent is dismissed from service.

Case 4 A.M. No. MTJ-93-888 October 24, 1994 MAYOR ROGER S. PADILLA, complainant, vs. HON. ROBERTO V. ZANTUA, JR., Municipal Trial Court, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, respondent. Topic: Canon 1 Section 4 FACTS: Mayor Roger S. Padilla alleges that in Criminal Case Nos. 5935 and 5936 (People v. Ventura Calzada, et al.) for grave coercion and grave threats; Criminal Case No. 5973 (People v. Efren Dalde, et al.) for highgrading; Civil Case No. 610 (Vicente Enriquez v. Zaldy Suarez) for trespassing (sic); Criminal Case No. 5908 (People v. Rolando Racasa) for highgrading; and Criminal Case No. 5998 (People v. Job Riel) for alarms and scandals, the opposing counsel, Atty. Augusto B. Schneider is always seen eating and drinking in the constant company of respondent Judge in public establishments in the Municipality of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte. Respondent Judge denies that he is fraternizing with lawyers with pending cases in his sala, explaining that in the case of Atty. Schneider, he is the only lawyer in the Municipality of Jose Panganiban and it is but natural for respondent Judge to be friendly with him but maintains that their friendship has never been a hindrance to the proper disposition of the cases in his sala.

ISSUE: WON the respondent violated Section 4 Canon 1

RULING: Yes Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be asked from respondent judge which he may find hard to resist. The actuation of respondent Judge of eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer who has pending cases in his sala may well arouse suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to erode the trust of the litigants in the impartiality of the judge. This eventuality may undermine the people's faith in the administration of justice. It is of no moment that Atty. Augusto Schneider is the only lawyer in the locality. Respondent is admonished.

Case 5 LUCILA TAN, complainant, vs. Judge MAXWEL S. ROSETE, respondent. A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563 September 8, 2004 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1207-MTJ) Topic: Canon 1 Sec. 8 FACTS: Complainant filed the instant complaint against Respondent Judge for violation of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). Complainant claims that respondent judge, through his staff, required her to pay the amount of P150,000.00 for him to render judgment in her favor in the two criminal cases she filed. Respondent Judge, on the other hand, asserts that it was complainant who attempted to bribe him by offering to pay for the down payment of the car he was planning to buy, and she even sought the intervention of then San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to persuade him to rule for the complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120. ISSUE: Whether or not the acts committed by Respondent Judge violate the standard of judicial conduct? RULING: The Court ruled that respondents act of sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and show copies of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by members of the Bench. They constitute gross misconduct which is punishable under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court. After a thorough evaluation of the testimonies of all the witnesses, as well as the documentary evidence presented by both parties, the court find the complainants version more trustworthy. Not only did she testify with clarity and in full detail, but she also presented during the investigation the unsigned copy of the draft decision of respondent judge in Criminal Case No. 59440 given to her by a member of his staff. Said documentary evidence supports her allegation that a member of complainants staff met with her, showed her copies of respondent judges draft decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120, and demanded, in behalf of respondent judge, that she pays P150,000.00 for the reversal of the disposition of said cases. It would be impossible for complainant to obtain a copy of a judges draft decision, it being highly confidential, if not through the judge himself or from the people in his office. And an ordinary employee in the court cannot promise a litigant the reversal of a cases disposition if not assured by the judge who drafted the decision. The court repeatedly admonished that judges shall adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct. They must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. A judge must not only be pure but above suspicion. This is not without reason. The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the peoples confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount that a judges personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach. Respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete is suspended from office without salary and other benefits for four (4) months.

Case 6 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, City of Makati, Metro Manila, respondent. [A.M. No. RTJ-93-1021. January 31, 1997] Topic: Canon 1 Sec. 3 FACTS: In this administrative case, the Office of the Court Administrator filed against Respondent Judge Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr., Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati, Metro Manila, for serious misconduct in connection with the lifting of the notice of lis pendens in the case of Norvic Incorporated, represented by its president. Norvic filed the subject case which was assigned to the sala of Judge Cosico for the annulment of the Deed of Conveyance and Exchange dated on the ground that the transfer was fraudulent. Due to the filing of this case, Norvic caused the annotation of lis pendens on TCT No. 167832. SMIIT and SMIRM, the defendants in this Civil Case No. 911123, filed a motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens. Judge Cosico denied a partys motion to cancel notice of lis pendens. When case was re-raffled due to Cosicos retirement, the annotation of lis pendens was eventually cancelled by Judge de Guzman. Upon investigation, Cosico said that while he was hearing the case, Judge de Guzman approached him and asked him to grant the motion to lift the notice of lis pendens. When the motion was denied, Judge de Guzman was said to have come back to Cosicos office asking him (Cosico) to reconsider the order of denial. Following the resignation from the service of Judge Cosico, the said case was re-raffled to the sala of respondent who reconsidered the order of denial issued by then Judge Cosico and cancelled the notice of lis pendens, thereby showing keen personal interest on the said case to the prejudice of the administration of justice. The Court found that Judge de Guzman tried to influence the outcome of the case. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge de Guzman violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. RULING: YES. The act of interference by respondent De Guzman with the subject case pending in the sala of Judge Cosico clearly tarnishes the integrity and independence of the judiciary and subverts the peoples faith in our judicial process. Judge de Guzman approached Judge Cosico at least twice asking him to cancel the notice of lis pendens, thereby, trying to influence the course of the litigation in the case in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct. His evident misconduct collides with the established ethical standards mandated upon those who sit in the bench. It is significant to stress that judges are held to higher standards of integrity and ethical conduct than attorneys or other persons not invested with the public trust. They should inspire trust and confidence, and should bring honor to the judiciary. Being the dispensers of justice, judges should not act in a way that would invite suspicion in order to preserve faith in the administration of justice. They should inspire trust and confidence, and should bring honor to the judiciary. The Court finds sufficient evidence to hold respondent GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT for influencing the course of litigation in evident violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and ordered to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more SEVERELY.

Case 9 CONCERNED BOHOLANOS FOR LAW AND ORDER vs. JUDGE DIONISIO R. CALIBO, JR A.M. No. RTJ-01-1621 September 27, 2007 Topic: Canon 1, Sec. 3 FACTS: The Provincial Governor of Bohol plans to sell the two major assets of the province, the electric and water system, without consulting its customers. The residents vigorously protested against the projected sale and consequently filed a petition for injunction before the sala of Judge Melicor to stop the same. One of those who objected to the sale is Judge Calibo, herein respondent, who aired his oppositions by publicly speaking on radio and in public fora. He admitted of having taken a stand for the affected customers. During the pendency of the petition for injunction, Judge Calibo made two (2) telephone calls to Judge Melicor. Because of said act, the former was accused of attempting to influence the latter, in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Hence, this instant administrative case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Calibo violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. RULING: Yes, Judge Calibo violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Section 3 of Canon I of said Code states that, Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency. By making the inappropriate telephone calls to Judge Melicor who was presiding the Court where the injunction case was being heard and considering his stand regarding the issue in the case, Judge Calibo has clearly committed what is proscribed by the above-quoted provision. Accordingly, Judge Calibo is declared guilty of serious misconduct and is ordered to pay a FINE of P20,000. Case 10 JUDGE NAPOLEON E. INOTURAN vs.JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362 February 22, 2011 Topic: Canon 1, Sec. 7 and 8 FACTS: These are two (2) consolidated cases filed against respondent. The first case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to comply with the directives of the Court. In a complaint decided against him, Respondent Judge was directed to explain why he should not be administratively charged for approving the applications for bail of the accused and ordering their release in the other criminal cases filed with other courts. Judge Limsiaco twice moved for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of the above decision and to comply with the Courts directive requiring him to submit an explanation due to his poor health condition. Despite the extension of time given however, Judge Limsiaco failed to file his motion for reconsideration and the required explanation. The second case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to decide a case within the 90-day reglementary period. Guinanao claimed that Judge Limsiaco failed to seasonably decide the ejectment case he filed which had been submitted for resolution as early as April 25, 2005. Under the pain of a show cause order for contempt for failure to heed the OCA directives to file a comment, Judge Limsiaco informed the court that he had already decided the case on February 4, 2008. Subsequently, the court resolved to declare Judge Limsiaco in contempt and to impose a fine of P1,000.00 for his continued failure to file the required comment to the administrative complaint. The records show that Judge Limsiaco paid the P1,000.00 fine but did not submit the required comment.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents failure to comply with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Supreme Court violates Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. RULING: The Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court emphasized that compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This duty is verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct: SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the Judiciary. SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the Judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence. Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by Judge Limsiaco constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Courts authority. His conduct also reveals his deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court, shown by his failure to heed its warnings and directives. Moreover, his conduct failed to provide a good example for other

court personnel, and the public as well, in placing significance to the Courts directives and the importance of complying with them. This behavior is unacceptable to the Court. Public confidence in the judiciary can only be achieved when the court personnel conduct themselves in a dignified manner befitting the public office they are holding. They should avoid conduct or any demeanor that may tarnish or diminish the authority of the Supreme Court. Considering that he respondent judge has already retired from service, the Court declared all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, forfeited. Furthermore, he is barred from re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen