UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

2008 DIGESTS BASCOS VS. RAMIREZ A.M. No. P-08-2418,, January 31, 2008 Facts : Petitioner charges respondent attorney with neglect of duty, arrogance and willful and deliberate violation of circulars of this Court in relation to P.D. 1079, and for several attempts at extortion. The latter failed to raffle judicial and extra-judicial notices and other court processes requiring publication on more than 20 instances, oftentimes showing his partiality to only one publication. The OCA recommended that respondent be fine for P2,000 with a warning. Issue/s: W/N the OCAs recommendation is sufficient. Held/Ratio: NO. Executive judges are required under the P.D. to distribute those notices by raffle for publication to qualified newspapers or periodicals. On the other hand, Resolution No. A.M. 01-01-07-SC dated October 16, 2001 provides for uniform and comprehensive guidelines in the accreditation of newspapers and other periodicals seeking to publish the notices mentioned in P.D. No. 1079 and Circular 5-98 dated January 12, 1998. The distribution of notices for publication by raffle is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. By failing to include more than twenty foreclosure cases in the raffle, respondent showed a blatant disregard for the procedure enjoined by P.D. No. 1079 and by this Court. Respondents failure to heed the mandate of the law and Supreme Court directives constitutes unjustified and neglectful conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judicial system and the public, and signifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. As a member of the bar, respondent is, moreover, charged with the duty to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. He deserves a penalty higher than that recommended by the OCA. Respondent is GUILTY of dereliction of duty, gross neglect, insubordination and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is ordered to pay a FINE of P20,000 with a WARNING. CONCIO VS. DOJ G.R. No. 175057, January 29, 2008 Facts : In light of the Wowowee Ultra tragedy, the DOJ, acting on a recommendation of the NBI based on complaints, formed an investigating panel of prosecutors to find probable cause to indict petitioners. Petitioners point out that they cannot be compelled to submit their counteraffidavits because the NBI-NCR Report, which they advert to as the complaint-affidavit, was not under oath. These affidavits, petitioners further point out, nonetheless do not qualify as a complaint within the scope of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court as the allegations therein are insufficient to initiate a preliminary investigation, there being no statement of specific and individual acts or omissions constituting reckless imprudence. Issue/s: W/N respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the preliminary investigation given the fatal defects in the supposed complaint. Held/Ratio: NO. A complaint for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation differs from a complaint for purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution. The former is conducted precisely to elicit further facts or evidence. Being generally inquisitorial, the preliminary investigation stage is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the preparation of a complaint or information.

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

As clearly worded n Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the complaint is not entirely the affidavit of the complainant, for the affidavit is treated as a component of the complaint. The phraseology of the rule recognizes that all necessary allegations need not be contained in a single document. It is unlike a criminal complaint or information where the averments must be contained in one document charging only one offense, noncompliance with which renders it vulnerable to a motion to quash. A preliminary investigation can thus validly proceed on the basis of an affidavit of any competent person, without the referral document, like the NBI-NCR Report, having been sworn to by the law enforcer as the nominal complainant. A complaint for purposes of conducting preliminary investigation is not required to exhibit the attending structure of a complaint or information laid down in Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses) which already speaks of the People of the Philippines as a party, an accused rather than a respondent, and a court that shall pronounce judgment. KAUNLARAN LENDING INVESTORS vs. UY G.R. No. 154974, February 04, 2008 Issue/s: W/N KLIIs president has authority to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. Held/Ratio: NO. For failure of KLII to present proof that its president, Rolando Tan, was authorized to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping on its behalf, the petition must be denied in light of this Courts ruling that In case of a corporation, it has long been settled that the certificate [of non-forum shopping] must be signed for and on its behalf by a specifically authorized officer or agent who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed. The merits of the petition, however, justify the relaxation of the rule on verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.

ESPINA vs CERUJANO, et. al. G.R. No. 149377, March 25, 2008. (This case is in Spanish, couldnt find an English version. So I found this digest instead among those uploaded sa acads yahoogroup) Facts : Jesus Clarito Espina, a Prosecutor of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Lao-ang, Northern Samar, filed a motion to dismiss a criminal case for robbery in band with multiple homicide on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Law had been repealed. The trial court granted petitioners motion. The decision in the said criminal case had already been final and executory. Miguel Cerujano, et. al. filed an administrative complaint for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against petitioner before the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Secretary of Justice later formally charged petitioner with conduct grossly prejudicial to the [best] interest of the service. Then President Joseph Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 62 dismissing petitioner from the service. The Court of Appeals (CA), upon a petition for review filed by Espina, ruled that Espina was actually found guilty of grave misconduct. Issue/s: WHETHER Espina was guilty of grave misconduct Held/Ratio: NO. Espina is guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

acts or omissions, among others, as such: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and property, making false entries in public documents and falsification of court orders. While grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service are both grave offenses under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, grave misconduct has a heavier penalty. Grave misconduct is penalized by dismissal from service. On the other hand, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service is penalized by dismissal from service only on the second offense; on the first offense, the penalty is suspension for six months and one day, to one year. The record does not show that any of the additional elements to qualify the charge of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service to grave misconduct had been established. SABERON vs. LARONG A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008. (Found this sa yahoogroups as well) Facts : Jose C. Saberon charged Atty. Fernando T. Larong before the Office of the Bar Confidant of grave misconduct for allegedly using abusive and offensive language in pleadings filed before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). Saberon filed in the BSP a petition against Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation and Alfredo Tan Bonpin for cancellation of the bank's registration and franchise. The petition arose from the bank's and/or Bonpin's refusal to return various checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan obtained by Saberons wife, despite alleged full payment of

A basic requirement of due process is that a person must be duly informed of the charges against him and that a person can not be convicted of a crime which he was not charged. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in investigations and hearings. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. Espina cannot be held liable for grave misconduct under a charge of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service does not necessarily include the elements of grave misconduct. The word gross connotes something beyond measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful while prejudicial means detrimental or derogatory to a party; naturally, probably or actually bringing about a wrong result. Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service may or may not be characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, although this Court has considered the following

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

the loan and interests. Larong, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an answer with affirmative defenses to the petition in which he stated that the petition was another in the series of blackmail suits filed by Saberon. The Investigation Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that Larong be found guilty of gross misconduct. The IBP Board of Governors, in a resolution, however disagreed with the recommendation and dismissed the case. Issue/s: 1. WHETHER Larong is guilty of gross misconduct 2. WHETHER the matters stated in the answer Larong filed before the BSP were privileged 3. WHETHER the IBP Board of Governor's Resolution is illegal and void ab initio 4. WHETHER Larong should be disbarred Held/Ratio: 1. NO. Larong is guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates: CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. The adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients. However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Members of the Bar should abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his pleadings must be dignified. 2. NO. Lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients, should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety in making such remark or comment. True, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may be, but only for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry. Granting that the proceedings before the BSP partake of the nature of judicial proceedings, the ascription of 'blackmail' in the answer and rejoinder filed by Larong is not legitimately related or pertinent to the subject matters of inquiry before the BSP. 3. YES. There was no compliance with the procedural requirement that the IBP Board of Governors' decision shall state clearly and distinctly the findings of facts or law on which the same is based. Thus Section 12 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

provides: SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. - (a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's report. 4. NO. Disbarment and suspension of an attorney are the most severe forms of disciplinary action, which should be imposed with great caution. They should be meted out only for duly proven serious administrative charges. Thus, while respondent is guilty of using infelicitous language, such transgression is not of a grievous character as to merit respondent's disbarment. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. PARDO and TULDAGUE A.M. No. RTJ-08-2109 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 062463-RTJ, formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-1-45-RTC), April 30, 2008. (from yahoogroups) Facts : Judge Moises M. Pardo, then Executive Judge and Presiding Judge of Branch 31 and acting Presiding Judge of Branch 32 of the two-sala Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabarroguis, Quirino, complained against Clerk of Court Jessie W. Tuldague. Pardo wrote to the Deputy Court Administrator about Tuldagues grave and disrespectful conduct in the conduct of raffle of cases by calling only the OIC Branch Clerks of Court, and furnishing only Pardo about the said raffle.

Tuldague in turn charged Judge Pardo for having disregarded procedures and committed impropriety when he ordered the civil docket clerk of his sala (Branch 31) to get the records of a land registration case directly from the Office of the Clerk of Court without the benefit of raffle. Subsequently, Tuldague wrote a letter to Pardo stating: I hope you will realize that your line of thinking is not to my detriment but to the damage and prejudice of court users. If you want to make the issue big, then you can bring this small matter up to the Supreme Court again and I'm willing and ready to answer. From now on, I will be forwarding to your office all Petitions for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure so you can always be present and conduct the raffle yourself. I'm doing this in the interest of service and so as not to prejudice innocent court users who have nothing to do with the legal controversy and friction between us. Issue/s: WHETHER Tuldague should be held liable for the charges filed against him Held/Ratio: YES. Tuldague is guilty of violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 7-2002 and be should be reprimanded for such violation. Tuldague is additionally guilty of gross discourtesy in the course of official duties under Rule IV, Section 52 (B) (3) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for failure to accord respect for the person and rights of the Judge. The belligerence he showed to Pardo, reflected in his above-quoted letter - a case of res ipsa loquitur - betrays his below-par conduct as a court employee. As held in the case of Amane v. Atty. Mendoza-Arce, 376 Phil. 575 (1999): an employee of the judiciary is expected to accord respect

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

for the person and rights of others at all times, and his every act and word characterized by prudence,restraint, courtesy and dignity. Government service is people-oriented and where highstrung and belligerent behavior is not allowed. No matter how commendable respondent's motives may be, as a public officer, courtesy should be his policy always. RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST SOL GEN AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, ATTY. ROLANDO FALLER, AND ATTY. SANTIAGO VARELA A.M. No. 07-11-13-SC, June 30, 2008 Facts : Concerned Citizens filed a complaint for disbarment/disciplinary action against former Government Corporate Counsel (GCC), now Solicitor General Agnes Vst. Devanadera, along with the present GCC Alberto C. Agra and other lawyers of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), for "engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities" during the May 14, 2007 national and local elections, and for violating the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act." The respondents prayed for the outright dismissal of the complaint for being anonymous and contrary to the intent of Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court: Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts Issue/s: W/N the complaint for disbarment stands. Held/Ratio: NO. Section 1 of Rule 139-B (Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys) of the Rules of Court requires that the complaint against an attorney must be verified. In Fernandez v. Atty. Novero, Jr., however, this Court held that failure to verify the complaint constitutes a mere formal defect, and the Court may "order the correction of the unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may be served." A reading of the complaint also shows that the allegations are vague. And the attachments thereto are mere photocopies, not to mention the plaint of the Solicitor General et al. that they were not furnished copies of the annexes to the August 6, 2007 complaint. The Court is thus inclined to, as it does, dismiss the complaint. MANE VS. BELEN A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008 Facts : Atty. Mane charged Judge Belen of demeaning, humiliating and berating him during a hearing in which the former was counsel. According to Mane, Belen questioned Manes capability in relation to him citing the fact the Mane graduated from MLQU and Belen from UP. Issue/s: W/N Belens actions and statements constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Held/Ratio: YES. Judges must address the merits of the case, and not on the person of the counsel. And should conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court. (Canon 4 and 3; Rule 3.04)

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

BONDAGJY VS. ARTADI GR NO. 2170406, August 11, 2008 Facts : February 4, 1988 Petitioner and respondent were married in accordance with Islamic Law March 1996 Respondent filed a complaint for divorce by faskh before the Third Shari'a Circuit Court at Isabela, Basilan, alleging as ground petitioner's neglect or failure to provide support since October 1994. The Sharia Court dismissed respondents complaint as well as her motion for reconsideration, which became final and executory. March 20, 1998 respondent filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, custody and support before the RTC but was dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the parties, they being Muslims at the time of the marriage, and res judicata in view of the dismissal order of the Third Shari'a Circuit Court. February 7, 2005 respondent filed another petition for divorce by faskh before the Second Shari'a Circuit Court at Marawi City on the grounds of neglect and failure of petitioner to provide support and to perform his marital obligations. The court dimissed respondents petition on the ground of res judicata and failure to comply with the rule on forum shopping. On respondents appeal to the Fourth Shari'a Judicial District Court, the latter ruled that res judicata does not apply in the case at bar since respondent may have new evidence to prove that she is indeed entitled to divorce.

Issue/s: W/N the Fourth Sharia District Court erred in reversing the findings of the Second Sharia Circuit Court that a) the case is barred by prior judgement or res judicata, which was decided with finality involving the same parties and issues and b) non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping. Held/Ratio: NO. (a) For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; and (4) there must be, as between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action. The presence of the first three requisites is not disputed. It is with respect to the presence of the fourth requisite - that there is identity of causes of action in SCC Case No. 541 and Civil Case No. 2005-111 - that the decision of the present petition hinges. The Court finds no such identity of causes of action. The test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and present causes of action. If the same evidence would sustain both actions, they are considered the same and covered by the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action. The Court finds that the causes of action are based on different periods during which petitioner allegedly neglected or failed to support his family and perform his marital obligations.

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

In the first case, petitioner's alleged negligence and/or failure to support and perform his marital obligations occurred at least six months before March 1996. Whereas in the second case, similar grounds-bases of the cause of the action occurred at least six months before February 7, 2005. The causes of action in the two cases are thus independent of each other, the circumstances relating to non-support and nonperformance of marital obligations being disparate. (b)The sworn certification of non-forum shopping need not be in a separate segment. Section 5 of Rule 7 of the ROC provides:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping . -The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasijudicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

MEDIAN CONTAINER CORPORATION VS. METROPOLITAN BANK GR NO. 166904, August 11, 2008 Facts : Respondent filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner for failure to settle the amount of more than P5,000,000 representing the outstanding balance of loans contracted by MCC. Petitioner questions the certificate of non-forum shopping filed by respodent which was signed by a certain Atty. Alexander P. Mendoza on May 28, 2003. Petitioner claims that Atty. Mendoza was only given authority to execute the certificate only on June 3, 2003. The trial and appellate court denied petitioners motion to dismiss. Issue/s: W/N respondent failed to comply with the proper procedure on the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Held/Ratio: NO. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement. It is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. That explains why a court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice. As for the required certification against forum shopping, failure to comply therewith is generally not curable by its submission subsequent to the filing of the petition nor by amendment, and is cause for its dismissal. A certification against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which

As for the omission by respondent to include in the certification the dismissal of the annulment case she filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa City, it is not fatal. An omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute res judicata and litis pendencia is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings, given that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certification are not present.

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

is unaccompanied by proof that the signatory is authorized to file the petition is generally likewise cause for dismissal. In several cases, however, this Court relaxed the application of these requirements upon appreciation of attendant special circumstances or compelling reasons. In the case at bar, simultaneous with the filing of the complaint, Metrobank submitted both a certification of non-forum shopping and proof that Atty. Mendoza who signed it on its behalf was authorized to do so. The proof of authorization of Atty. Mendoza was dated later than the date of his signing of the certification of non-forum shopping, however, thus giving the impression that he, at the time he affixed his signature, was not authorized to do so. The passing on June 3, 2004 of a Board Resolution of authorization before the actual filing on June 23, 2004 of the complaint, however, is deemed a ratification of Atty. Mendoza's prior execution on May 28, 2004 of the verification and certificate of nonforum shopping, thus curing any defects thereof.

Issue/s: W/N respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for filing a malicious, false and untruthful complaint. Held/Ratio: YES. respondent violated the proscription of the Code of Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or willingly promot[ing] or su[ing] any groundless suit" including baseless administrative complaints against judges and other court officers and employees he violated Canons 10, 11, & 12 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility under his oath of office Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee or a lawyer is to be disciplined, the evidence against him should be substantial, competent and derived from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay. Respondent is fined P5000 with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar questioned act will be dealt with more severely

CERVANTES VS. SABIO A.C. 7828, August 8, 2008 Facts : In another case, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for allegedly accepting bribes from ExtraOrdinary Development Corporation (EDC), a company involved in an edjectment case against respondents clients. The case against petitioner judge was dismissed for lack of merit for being based on unfounded suspicion. Petitioner then filed a disbarment case against respondent.

A.M.

SINSUAT VS. HIDALGO No. RTJ-08-2133, August 6, 2008

Facts : Petitioner filed an anonymous complaint against respondent judge for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law for issuing a TRO and injunction despite the clear proscription of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1818 and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8975 and this Court's Administrative Circular No. 11-2000 of November 13, 2000 against the issuance of TROs and writs of injunction on government

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

infrastructure projects. The OCA informed complainants, however, that the complaint against respondent could not be given due course as it failed to comply with Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-08-10-SC. Respondent also seeks to for the dismissal of the complaint since it was made after his compulsory retirement on July 19, 2006 at which time the Court no longer had administrative jurisdiction over him Issue/s: (1) W/N the complaint may be given due course despite non-compliance with Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court; (2) W/N respondent was administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law Held/Ratio: (1) YES. Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. How instituted. -- Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.

which may substantiate said allegations; or (3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity. While the copy of the Motion which complainants furnished the OCA was unverified as were their subsequent letters, the OCA correctly treated them as anonymous complaint. The Court has, on several occasions, been entertaining complaints of this nature especially where respondents admitted the material allegations of the complainants as in respondent's case. Anonymous complaints, as a rule, are received with caution. They should not be dismissed outright, however, where their averments may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence. Here, the motion and letters sufficiently averred the specific acts upon which respondent's alleged administrative liability was anchored. And the averments are verifiable from the records of the trial court and the CA's Decision. (2) YES. Respondent's retirement in the interim does not per se warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint. The Court finds that, indeed, respondent is liable for gross misconduct. As the CA explained, respondent failed to heed the mandatory ban imposed by P.D. No. 1818 and R.A. No. 8975 against a government infrastructure project, which the rural electrification project certainly was. He thereby likewise obstinately disregarded this Court's various circulars enjoining courts from issuing TROs and injunctions against government infrastructure projects in line with the proscription under R.A. No. 8975. The questioned acts of respondent also constitute gross

Under the above-quoted Rule, there are three ways by which administrative proceedings against judges may be instituted: (1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court; (2) upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

ignorance of the law for being patently in disregard of simple, elementary and well-known rules which judges are expected to know and apply properly. The Court finds respondent, then Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo, GUILTY of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law and imposes upon him a fine of P40,000. a public instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale or real estate produces effects between the parties.

CAMCAM VS. CA GR NO. 142977, September 30, 2008 Issue/s: W/N an irregular notarization of a deed renders it null and void. Held/Ratio: NO. An irregular notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of a document to that of a private document, which requires proof of its due execution and authenticity to be admissible as evidence. The irregular notarization - or, for that matter, the lack of notarization does not thus necessarily affect the validity of the contract reflected in the document. Tigno v. Aquino enlightens: x x x [F]rom a civil law perspective, the absence of notarization of the Deed of Sale would not necessarily invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a public document, yet it is also an accepted rule that the failure to observe the proper form does not render the transaction invalid. Thus, it has been uniformly held that the form required in Article 1358 is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but required merely for convenience. We have even affirmed that a sale of real property though not consigned in