1995 (70 List of Cases) TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S

LIST OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST
LAWYERS & JUDGES
January- December
(1995)
By:
TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S.
LLB-3B
JANUARY
1) Guillermo vs. Judge Reyes, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-931088, January 18,
1995
CASE
NATURE:
Knowingly
Rendering
Unjust
Judgment,
Gross
Incompetence, Misconduct, and Ignorance of the Law

Supreme Courts Ruling:
We have heretofore ruled that a judge may not be held
administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he
renders. To unjustifiably hold otherwise, assuming that he has erred,
would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position
doubly unbearable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the
law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment. The error must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in
evident bad faith. It is only in this latter instance, when the judge acts
fraudulently or with gross ignorance that administrative sanctions are
called for as an imperative duty of this Court. As a matter of public policy
then, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. Good faith and
absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are
sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law
can find refuge.15 It does not mean, however, that a judge, given the
leeway he is accorded in such cases, should not evince due care in the
performance of his adjudicatory prerogatives. In this regard, as already
noted, respondent judge had been remiss in the grant of bail and the
scrupulous observance of the requisites therefor.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge Jose C. Reyes, Jr. is hereby
REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future shall definitely be dealt with more severely by
this Court.
2) Vda. de Eco vs. Atty. Ramirez, A.C. No. 1647, January 20, 1995
CASE NATURE: Malpractice (RULE 138, Section 27, Rules of Court)
By preponderance of evidence, it has been amply proved that
respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez deceived complainant by making it
appear in a document on January 15, 1976 that she received P4,880.00
or more than what she actually received. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. Respondents act of
defrauding an illiterate complainant of the monetary award for her
husbands death, for which she waited nearly ten years, is deplorable
and should not be viewed lightly. Not only does respondent degrade
himself as a lawyer but he thereby besmirches the honorable profession
to which he belongs. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year from
receipt of this Resolution.
3) Belen vs. Judge Soriano, A.M. No. MTJ-94920 January 20, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Incompetence and
Neglect of Duty
We agree with the findings of Executive Judge Panganiban. The
charge of gross ignorance of the law has no basis since the error lay with
the prosecution for filing the information directly before respondent MTC
judge instead of the RTC. The charge of gross incompetence likewise has
no merit since the same was not substantiated by complainant. There is
no question however, that it took respondent judge four years to act on
the motion to elevate Criminal Case No. 2431, and that the said omission
amounts to negligence, causing unreasonable delay in the disposition of
the
case
violated
the
constitutional
requirement
on
the
speedy
administration of justice.
4) Tan vs. Judge Coliflores, Adm. No. MTJ-94972 January 20, 1995
CASE NATURE: Delaying the Transmission of Court Records
As far as Judge Coliflores is concerned, we find him not liable for
the year-long delay in the transmission of the records. While he has
supervision of respondent Legaspi, respondent Judge cannot be expected
to constantly check on the latters performance of his duties since
respondent Legaspi is presumed to be a responsible employee. To the
contrary, respondent Judge had a right to expect that the Branch Clerk
of Court would enforce his order. We do not find respondent Legaspis
explanation for the delay to be persuasive. As the Branch Clerk of Court,
he is responsible for seeing to it that the records of appealed cases are
properly sent to the appropriate appellate court without delay. He has
shown in this case want of diligence for which he should be held
administratively liable. He has failed to set an example of official
integrity, responsibility and efficiency for others, especially those in his
staff. Respondent Legaspi deserves more than a stern reprimand.
WHEREFORE, in accordance with the recommendation of the
Office of the Court Administrator, the Court RESOLVED: (a) to DISMISS
the charges against Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores for lack of merit; and (b)
to IMPOSE on respondent Branch Clerk of Court Jose A. Legaspi a fine
equivalent to his salary for three (3) months for negligence in the
performance of his official functions.
5) Bongalonta vs. Atty. Castillo, CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995
CASE NATURE: Unjust and Unethical Conduct
A lawyer deserves to be suspended for using, apparently through
negligence, the IBP official receipt number of another lawyer. However, as
to the fact that indeed the two respondents placed in their appearances
and in their pleadings the same IBP No. 246722 dated 11288,
respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo deserves to be SUSPENDED for
using, apparently thru his negligence, the IBP official receipt number of
respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija. According to the records of the IBP
National Office, Atty. Castillo paid P 1,040.00 as his delinquent and
current membership dues, on February 20, 1990, under IBP O.R. No.
2900538, after Bongalonta filed her complaint with the IBP Committee
on Bar Discipline. The explanation of Atty. Castillos Cashier Secretary by
the name of Ester Fraginal who alleged in her affidavit dated March 4,
1993, that it was all her fault in placing the IBP official receipt number
pertaining to Atty. Alfonso M. Martija in the appearance and pleadings of
Atty. Castillo and in failing to pay in due time the IBP membership dues
of her employer, deserves scant consideration, for it is the bounden duty
and obligation of every lawyer to see to it that he pays his IBP
membership dues on time, especially when he practices before the
courts, as required by the Supreme Court. The Court agrees with the
foregoing findings and recommendations. It is well to stress again that
the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on
those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of
these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are
entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers
appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has
the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation. For this reason, he is
required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in

court.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty of
committing a falsehood in violation of his Iawyers oath and of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND him from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a warning that
commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the
imposition of a more severe penalty. A copy of the Resolution shall be
spread on the personal record of respondent in the Office of the Bar
Confidant.
6) Mappala vs. Judge Nunez, A.M. No. RTJ-941208 January 26, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Inefficiency, Serious Misconduct and Violation of
the Code of Judicial Ethics
As to complainants charge of gross inefficiency, we find that
respondent rendered the decision beyond the reglementary period of
ninety days, reckoned from May 27, 1993, the date when the last
pleading was filed. We are not impressed with respondents excuse that it
took time to resolve the three consolidated actions involving grave
offenses. If respondent required more time to resolve the cases, he is not
without recourse. He should have asked for more time to decide the
cases from this Court, giving the justification therefor. In Alfonso-Cortes
v. Maglalang, 227 SCRA 482 (1993), we emphasized for the guidance of
the judges manning our courts, that cases pending before their salas
must be decided within the aforementioned period and that failure to
observe said rule constitutes a ground for administrative sanction
against the defaulting judge (citing Marcelino v. Cruz, Jr., 121 SCRA 51
[1983]).
WHEREFORE, respondent is FINED Five Thousand Pesos (P5,

000.00), to be paid within thirty days from receipt hereof, with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or of acts calling for disciplinary
action will be dealt with more severely.
7) Abad vs. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-92813, January 30, 1995
CASE NATURE: Delay in Disposition of Case
The charge of collusion to deliberately delay the disposition of S.P.
No. 2648 cannot be sustained. Mere suspicion that a Judge was partial
to a party is not enough; there should be evidence, adequate evidence, to
prove the charge. However, respondent failed to discharge his duty to
personally take note of and render a decision in S.P. No. 2648 within
ninety days from submission of the case for decision. That he forgot
about the case because of his heavy work load and advanced age is not
an adequate defense against respondents act of submitting false
certificates of service; that circumstance may, however, be taken into
account to mitigate his administrative responsibility. The Court observes
that the respondent Judge had shown candor and contriteness and that
no issue of integrity had been legitimately raised against him.
ACCORDINGLY, having regard to the particular circumstances of this
case, respondent Judge Antonio D. Belen is hereby FINED the amount of
One Thousand (P 1,000.00) Pesos, deductible from his accumulated leave
credits, for inadvertently delaying the disposition of S.P. No. 2648. The
respondent is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act(s) will
be dealt with more severely.
FEBRUARY
8) Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1183
February 06, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of
Discretion
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Armie E. Elma, presiding judge,
Branch 153, Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, is hereby found
guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion.
Respondent judge is hereby DISMISSED from service, with forfeiture of
all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. This Resolution
is immediately executory.
9) Judge Agcaoili vs. Judge Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-92-6-251, February
07, 1994
CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the law, Dereliction of Duty, and
Gross Misconduct
We sustain the findings of the Investigating Judge on the guilt of
respondent. Indeed, the evidence clearly shows that respondent Judge
committed acts amounting to gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of
duty, and serious misconduct. WHEREFORE, this Court finds
respondent JUDGE JOSE O. RAMOS guilty of gross ignorance of the law,
dereliction of duty, and serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of
the judicial service. Consequently, he is DISMISSED from the service
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, with prejudice to reemployment
in any branch of the government, including government owned or
controlled corporations.
10)
Re: Atty. Gener C. Endona, AM. No. 94-12-111-MeTC
February 13, 1995
CASE NATURE: Dereliction of Duty and Serious Misconduct
From the foregoing, it is clear that it is the duty of Atty. Endona to

deposit the daily collections of the fund every day with the local or
nearest Land Bank of the Philippines branch. Thus, Atty. Endona was
remiss in the performance of his duties when he deposited the fund
collections for the month of June, 1994 only on August 1,1994 and for
the months of July and August on September 16, 1994. We find Atty,
Endona guilty of dereliction of duty and serious misconduct prejudicial
to the interest of the judicial service. IN VIEW WHEREOF, Atty. Gener C.
Endona is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00 payable to this
Court within five (5) days from notice hereof, with stern WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.
11)
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Antonio, A.M. No. MTJ93-858. February 15, 1995
CASE NATURE: Robbery/ Extortion and Violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act
There is no excuse for such corrupt behavior. Respondent judge's
actions were a conscious and deliberate attempt to subvert justice for his
personal gain. His dishonesty and evident bad faith are appalling and
seriously damage the reputation of a magistrate's most honorable
profession, where public and private conduct should be beyond reproach.
Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and a judge should
perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.
Clearly, there is no place for respondent judge in the judiciary.
Dismissing him from service is necessary to protect the public from his
maleficence in office.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DISMISS
respondent Pedro C. Antonio from the service with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, and to FORFEIT
all his retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, if any. This
resolution shall be immediately executory.
12)
Gil vs. Judge Son, A. M. No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Misconduct and Oppression

The judge is the visible representation of the law and, more
importantly, of justice. From him, the people draw their will and
awareness to obey the law. They see in him an intermediary of justice
between two conflicting interests, especially in the station of municipal
judges, like respondent Judge, who have that close and direct contact
with the people before anybody else in the judiciary. Thus, for the judge
to return that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave
an example for others to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid
even the slightest infraction of the law." It is thus evident that Judge
Son's conduct has failed to measure up to what is expected of a member
of the bench, and has demonstrated his unfitness to remain in office.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Eufronio T. Son is hereby
DISMISSED from the Judiciary with prejudice to reinstatement in the
government service in any capacity, and with concomitant forfeiture of all
earned or accrued retirement or other benefits. He is ORDERED to pay
Teotimo L. Gil the amount of P 15,000.00, with legal interest computed
from the date of the filing of the complaint until actual payment. He is
also ORDERED to immediately vacate his office and henceforth cease
and desist from performing any function or act in connection therewith.
13)
Muez vs. Judge Ario, A.M. No. MTJ-94-985 February 21,
1995
CASE NATURE: Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment
In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge
done in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even
though such acts may be erroneous. But, while judges should not be
disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or
errors of judgment, yet, it is highly imperative that they should be
conversant with basic legal principles.
WHEREFORE, a FINE of P5,000.00 is imposed on respondent Judge

Ciriaco Ario. He is enjoined to exercise greater care and diligence in the
performance of his duties as a judge and warned that a repetition of the
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
14)
Arvisu vs. Judge Sumilang, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-94-922
February 23, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Negligence
The Respondent Judge cannot attribute the delay in the resolution
of the motion to dismiss to his staff. Respondent Judge is aware of the
motion to dismiss and the opposition thereto. On 15 April 1993,
respondent Judge issued an Order stating that the motion to dismiss as
well as the opposition thereto is deemed submitted for resolution. It is
his obligation to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and
maintain professional competence in court management. It is also his
duty to organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt
and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the
observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.
A Judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement by
Court Personnel. Proper and efficient Court management is as much his
responsibility. He is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge
of his official functions. Court personnel are not the guardians of a
Judge's responsibilities.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, We find respondent Judge Augusto O.
Sumilang guilty of gross negligence and he is hereby ordered to pay a
fine of P3, 000.00.
MARCH
15)
Gamido vs. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials & Atty. De la
Rea, 242 SCRA 83 March 01, 1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct
Atty.
dela
Reas
explanation
is
unsatisfactory;
however,
his
spontaneous voluntary admission may be considered in mitigation of his

liability. As a notary public for a long time, as evidenced by the fact that
his questioned jurat is indicated to have been entered in Book 45 of his
notarial register, he should know the similarities and differences between
a jurat and an acknowledgment. The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that
the presence of petitioner Gamido was not necessary for the jurat
because it is not an acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this had
been his belief since he was first commissioned as a notary public, then
he has been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a
jurat. Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths
or to take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn
duties appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by public
policy and are impressed with public interest.
WHEREFORE, for grave misconduct, ATTY. ICASIANO M. DELA REA
is hereby FINED in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00),
without prejudice to criminal prosecution as may be warranted under the
circumstances. He is WARNED that the commission of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
16)
Kaw vs. Judge Anunciacion, Jr., Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-93-811
March 01, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct, Incompetence and Impartiality
The Court hereby imposes a FINE of P10,000.00 each on
respondent Judge Casiano P. Anunciacion and Sheriff III Samuel A.
Aribuabo and WARNS them that a repetition of the same or similar acts
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
17)
Panganiban vs. Judge Guerrero, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-94-1200,
March 01, 1995
CASE NATURE: Oppressive Conduct
A judges official conduct should be free from and be untainted by the
appearance of impropriety, and his or her personal behavior, not only
upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his
or her everyday life, should be beyond reproach. Respondent judge has
not been exactly scrupulous in exemplifying such high ideals, as earlier
narrated. One improvident act committed in an unguarded moment
could have been understandable, but not a regrettable series thereof.
It need only be said that public confidence in the judiciary is eroded
by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. What is worse in the case
of respondent judge is that the hapless recipient of his deplorable
behavior was a subordinate fellow worker in government and a lady to
boot. Certainly, nothing could be more demoralizing to an employee than
an insensitive and unkind colleague who is her superior at that.
WHEREFORE, a FINE of P1,000.00 is hereby imposed upon
respondent Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero, Jr., which shall be deducted
from the amount retained by this Court from his retirement benefits.
18)
Tucay vs. Judge Domagas, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1286 March 02,
1995
CASE NATURE: Ignorance of the Law, Serious Misconduct and Grave
Abuse of Discretion.
We agree with the foregoing observations of the OCA. We wish to
add that, although the Provincial Prosecutor had interposed no objection
to the grant of bail to the accused, respondent judge should nevertheless
have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained from
the prosecution whether the latter was not really contesting the bail
application.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas is hereby ordered
to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and is sternly warned that the commission of
a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
19)
Antonino vs. Judge Velez, Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-92-789, March
07, 1995
CASE NATURE: Abuse of Authority and Inefficiency
The Canons of Judicial Ethics provides in Canon 3 that a judges
official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and
his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance
of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
reproach. Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a
judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. This Court has consistently
demanded
faithful
compliance
with
these
canons
and
imposed
administrative sanctions against erring judges. A fine of P2,000.00 is

reasonable under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, for abuse of authority and for inexcusable neglect of
duty or inefficiency, respondent Judge FRANCISCO X. VELEZ is hereby
FINED in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2, 000.00) and WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
20)
Atty. Padilla vs. Arabia, A.M. No. 93-774, March 08, 1995
CASE NATURE: Serious Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty.

It is undisputable that the most difficult phase of any proceeding is

the execution of judgment. Hence, the officers charged with the delicate
task of the enforcement and/or implementation of the same must, in the
absence of a restraining order, act with considerable dispatch so as not
to unduly delay the administration of justice; otherwise, the decisions,
orders or other processes of the courts of justice and the like would be
futile. Stated differently, the judgment if not executed would be just an
empty victory on the part of the prevailing party.
WHEREFORE, respondent Deputy Sheriff Paisal M. Arabia is hereby
DISMISSED from the service for serious misconduct and dereliction of
duty, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to
reemployment in any branch of government including government-owned
or controlled corporations.
21)
Gonzaga vs. Atty.Realubin, A.C. No. 1955, March 14, 1995
CASE NATURE: Disbarment

The very first canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal process. Moreover, Rule 138,
Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every lawyer to take an
oath to obey the laws of the Republic of the Philippines as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein. And for any
violation of this oath, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred by this
Court. All of these underscore the role of the lawyer as the vanguard of
our legal system. The transgression of any provision of law by a lawyer is
a repulsive and reprehensible act which the court will not countenance.
In the instant case, respondent clearly violated the provisions of the
Revised Administrative Code, more particularly Section 246 thereof.
Then too, respondent has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a
lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. Not only that, he has likewise
violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides: Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court, nor shall be misled or allow the court to be
misled by any artifice.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent Atty.
Crisanto P. Realubin from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months commencing upon receipt of this Resolution. Copies of this
Resolution shall be distributed to the courts and to the Bar Confidant
and shall be spread on the personal record of respondent.
22)
Balantes vs. Judge Ocampo III, A.M. No. MTJ-93-853, March
14, 1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Abuse of Authority
We find respondent judge to have grossly abused his authority in
issuing the questioned writs of demolition. WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, respondent Judge Julian Ocampo III, MTCC, Branch I, Naga
City is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00 with WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar infraction in the future will merit a
stiffer penalty. The complaint against respondent Clerk of Court and ExOfficio Sheriff Lilia S. Buena is hereby DISMISSED.
23)
Wingarts vs. Judge Mejia, A.M. No. MTJ-94-1012 March 20,
1995
CASE NATURE: Incompetence and Ignorance of the law
A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence and should administer justice impartially and without
delay. He should be faithful to the law and maintain professional
competence, dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods. A judge owes it to the public and to the legal
profession to know the factual bases of the complaint and the very law he
is supposed to apply to a given controversy. He is called upon to exhibit
more than just cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural
rules. Party litigants will have greater faith in the administration of
justice if judges cannot just be accused of apparent deficiency in the
analysis of the facts of the case and in their grasp of the legal principles.
For, service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on
the law from beginning to end.
In any event, respondent judge deserves to be appropriately
penalized for his regrettably erroneous action in connection with
Criminal Case No. 2664 of his court. We have repeatedly stressed that a
municipal trial judge occupies the forefront of the judicial arm that is
closest in reach to the public he serves, and he must accordingly act at
all times with great constancy and utmost probity.20 Any kind of failure
in the discharge of this grave responsibility cannot be countenanced in
order to maintain the faith of the public in the judiciary, especially on the
level of courts to which most of them resort for redress.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Servillano M. Mejia is ORDERED to
pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), with a STERN WARNING
that the commission of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
24)
Cardines vs. Judge Rosete, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-94-1000,
March 22, 1995
CASE NATURE: Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law
In the case of respondent Judge, even assuming arguendo that he did
not give the prosecution an opportunity to be heard and present evidence
on the guilt of the accused, he cannot be faulted because the crime
charged is punishable with life imprisonment which at the time of its
commission and the filing of the criminal complaint was bailable as a
matter of right. Verily, respondent Judge acted accordingly in initially
granting bail to the accused. ACCORDINGLY, the complaint against
respondent Judge Gregorio L. Rosete, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Moncada-San Manuel-Anao, Tarlac, for misconduct and gross ignorance
of the law is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
25)
Atty. Zarate vs. Judge Romanillos, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1140,
March 23, 1995
CASE NATURE: Illegal Solicitation, Grave Abuse of Position, Dishonesty,
Immorality, Oppression, Other Acts Inimical to Public Service, and Gross
Ignorance of the Law (Grave & serious misconduct)
The Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that a
judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities and a judge should perform official duties honestly, and with
impartiality and diligence.
ACCORDINGLY, in view of our aforestated finding that respondent
Judge Romanillos is guilty of grave and serious misconduct which would
have warranted his dismissal from the service had he not resigned
during the pendency of this case, and it appearing that respondent has
yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges if any; the
Court, consistent with the penalties imposed in Valenzuela (supra.),
hereby orders the FORFEITURE of all leave and retirement benefits and
privileges to which herein respondent Judge Romanillos may be entitled
WITH PREJUDICE to reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch
or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or
controlled agencies or corporations.
26)
Legaspi vs. Judge Garrete, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-92-713, March
27, 1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct, Abuse of Authority, Dishonesty and
Immorality.
The purported joke of respondent requiring complainants to remain
single as a precondition to their continued employment is not amusing at
all. Granting that such statement was made in jest, it was done in poor
taste. Respondent forgets that a judge should be prudent and more
circumspect in his utterances, remembering that his conduct in and
outside the courtroom is under constant observation. To make matters
worse, respondent has not shown that he made any clarification of his
facetious statement. He allowed his remarks to stand uncorrected

thereby giving the color of veracity and, consequently, force to his words.
Naturally, being temporary employees, Lanie and Glenita who was made
to sign an undated letter of resignation, would unquestionably comply
with the directives of respondent judge as their continuance in office
depended on his good graces.
These highly irregular and anomalous actuations of respondent
plainly contravene the mandates of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
particularly Rules 3:08 and 3:09 of Canon 3. He has demonstrated that
he cannot maintain professional competence in court management,
organize and supervise court personnel for efficient dispatch of business,
and observe unceasingly the high standards of public service. Indeed, the
conduct of respondent could hardly create in his salas an atmosphere
conducive to industry, dedication and commitment to excellence. We
have held that a judge must be at the forefront of all efforts to preserve
and enhance the public trust character of a public office and anyone who
cannot do so should not be allowed to stay a minute longer in any
judicial seat.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Francisco A. Garrete of the 3rd
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Loreto-La Paz, Agusan del Sur, is
DISMISSED from the service with prejudice to reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or
controlled corporation, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and
privileges. This dismissal shall be immediately executory, hence,
respondent judge is ordered to VACATE his position forthwith and to
CEASE AND DESIST from further performing his official functions.
27)
Philippine National Bank vs. Atty. Cedo, Adm. Case No. 3701
March 28, 1995
CASE NATURE: Violations of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility & Canon 6 of Professional Ethics
The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent
were fully substantiated. Respondents averment that the law firm
handling the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves
scant consideration in the light of the attestation of complainants
counsel, Atty. Pedro Singson, that in one of the hearings of the Almeda
spouses case, respondent attended the same with his partner Atty.
Ferrer, and although he did not enter his appearance, he was practically
dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court.
Furthermore, during the hearing of the application for a writ of
injunction in the same case, respondent impliedly admitted being the
partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of record that respondent was
working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer. Moreover, the IBP noted that
assuming the alleged set-up of the firm to be true, it is in itself a violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 15.02) since the clients
secrets and confidential records and information are exposed to the other
lawyers and staff members at all times. In addition to the findings of the
IBP, this Court finds this occasion appropriate to emphasize the
paramount importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting
interests. The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with
equal force and effect to respondent in the case at bar. Having been an
executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as
counsel for the opposite side, a case against his former employer
involving a transaction which he formerly handled while still an employee
of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent
ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3)
YEARS, effective immediately.Let copies of this resolution be furnished
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in Metro Manila.
28)
Roces vs. Atty. Aportadera, Adm. Case No. 2936, March 31,
1995
CASE NATURE: Malpractice and Gross Misconduct
The Court cannot accept respondents claim that he notarized the
questioned Deed of Sale in good faith, without knowledge of any defect
therein. He undoubtedly knew that Isabel Roces could not have executed
the deed in Iloilo City on January 4, 1980 because she was hospitalized
in Metro Manila. Nevertheless, he notarized the same, expressly
subscribing that Isabel had appeared before him in Iloilo City on January
4, 1980 exhibiting a Residence Certificate issued on February 1, 1980 (at
which time Isabel was already dead) and acknowledging to him that it
was her free and voluntary act. Clearly, respondents conduct is not in
accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent ATTY. JOSE G. APORTADERA is
found GUILTY of malpractice and gross misconduct, and is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
29)
Asinas, Jr. vs. Judge Trinidad, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-94-902,
March 27, 1995
CASE NATURE: Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty and Knowingly Rendering
Unjust Judgment
ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds respondent Judge Ernesto T.
Trinidad of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Branch 63 guilty of
unjustifiable delay in the resolution of Criminal Cases Nos. 130338 and
130339 and hereby imposes upon him a FINE in the sum of FIVE
THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS, with a warning that a repetition of the
same or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely. The charge of
knowingly rendering an unjust and unfounded judgment is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
30)
Atienza vs. Judge Brillantes, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, March
29,1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Immorality and Impropriety
It is evident that respondent failed to meet the standard of moral
fitness for membership in the legal profession. While the deceit employed
by respondent existed prior to his appointment as a Metropolitan Trial
Judge, his immoral and illegal act of cohabiting with De Castro began
and continued when he was already in the judiciary.
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge
must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his
performance of his judicial duties but also as to his behavior as a private
individual. There is no duality of morality. A public figure is also judged
by his private life. A judge, in order to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at
all times, in the performance of his judicial duties and in his everyday
life. These are judicial guideposts too self-evident to be overlooked. No
position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and
uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary.
APRIL
31)
Reyes vs. Atty. Maglaya, Adm. Case No. 2125, April 03, 1995
CASE NATURE: Misconduct

The Court is in full accord with the findings and recommendation of
the IBP that respondent by his admissions has sufficiently demonstrated
conduct showing his unfitness for the confidence and trust which
characterize the attorney-client relationship. By his unexplained failure
to return the amount of P1,500.00 demanded by complainant-client
receipt of which he had acknowledged and which he had agreed to return
at the earliest possible opportunity, he failed to live up to his duties as a
lawyer. He has in particular disregarded Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that a lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand x
x x. His inexcusable act of withholding money belonging to his client
warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanction. Considering the
foregoing, the recommendation of the IBP that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year is approved.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby SUSPENDS ATTY. LEOPOLDO T.
MAGLAYA from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from notice
hereof, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or any other
misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
32)
Dr. Alforte vs. Judge Santos, A.M. No. MTJ-94-914, April 10,
1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct, Knowingly Rendering Unjust
Judgment, Malfeasance and Nonfeasance
On the charge of rendering an unjust judgment, even assuming that
respondent erred in acquitting Baltao, she still cannot just be charged
administratively lacking the element of bad faith, malice or corrupt

purpose (Re: Judge Silverio S. Tayao, RTC, Br. 143, Makati, 229 SCRA
723 [1994]). Malice and bad faith on the part of the judge in rendering
an unjust decision must still be proved(Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Villanueva,
216 SCRA 121 [1992]). Thus, failure on the part of complainantas she
indeed failed to prove malice and bad faith to have been committed by
respondent when she rendered the decision acquitting Balta warrants
the dismissal of the administrative complaint. WHEREFORE, the
administrative complaint against respondent is DISMISSED.
33)
Sule vs. Judge Biteng, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-95-1018, April
18, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law & Incompetence
We also find completely unacceptable the respondents explanation
that notice to the prosecutor would have been an idle ceremony because
in view of the voluntary surrender of accused Villalobos, he was already
predisposed to grant the petition for bail. This aggravates his
unfamiliarity with the constitutional mandate and the substantive and
the procedural principles involved in the grant of bail in cases involving
capital offenses.
WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of law and incompetence,
respondent JUDGE JONATHAN S. BITENG is hereby ordered to pay a
FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20, 000.00) and WARNED that
the commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
34)
Alcantara vs. Judge Tamin & Atty. Aloot, A.M. No. RTJ-951305, April 21, 1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct, Gross Negligence, Grave Abuse of
Discretion, and Bias and Partiality
The Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, in his
memorandum to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa dated February 7,
1995, found respondent judge to have committed grave abuse of

discretion in rendering the order allowing his brothers mother-in-law to
be an oppositor in the special civil action knowing fully well that on very
same date he no longer have (sic) the jurisdiction to act on the motion of
the would be oppositor.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to ADOPT the above-mentioned
recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, and
hereby imposes a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) upon
respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same or similar act or offense in the future shall be dealt with
more severely. The administrative case against Attorney Rufino Aloot is
hereby REFERRED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for whatever
action it may deem proper.
35)
Marcelino vs. Judge Singson, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-94-962,
April 24, 1995
CASE NATURE: Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Judiciary
The Court has held in a number of instances that mere desistance on the
part of the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of administrative
cases against members of the bench. The withdrawal of complaints
cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to
determine the veracity of the charges made and to discipline, such as the
results of its investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. The
Courts interest in the affairs of the judiciary is a paramount concern
that must not know bounds.
The Canons of Judicial Ethics requires a judge to keep himself free from
any appearance of impropriety. His personal behavior, not only while in
the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be
beyond reproach, for he is, as he so aptly is perceived to be, the visible
personification of law and of justice. A judicial office circumscribes a
personal conduct, and imposes a number of inhibitions, whose faithful
observance is the price one has to pay for holding an exalted position.
We agree with the Office of the Court Administrator in finding
respondent Judge guilty of misconduct. It would appear, however, that
respondent Judge somehow has relented and realized that his actuations
have, indeed, been intemperate that could warrant a mitigation of his

liability.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is hereby ordered to pay a fine of One
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and ADMONISHED to be more circumspect
than he has heretofore shown.
MAY
36)
Manlavi vs. Judge Gacott, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293, May
09, 1995
CASE NATURE:
Partiality, Miscarriage of Justice and Knowingly
Rendering an Unjust Decision
The acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial capacity are not
subject to disciplinary power, unless when they are committed with
fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. WHEREFORE, the complaint
is DISMISSED.
37)
Paredes vs. Judge Manalo, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-93-842, May
10, 1995
CASE NATURE: Violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct
The Respondent Judge must also be reminded that the court is not
helpless with regard to numerous postponements requested by counsel
for complainants. Judges should be vigilant in avoiding unreasonable
delay in the resolution of cases. If the need arises, the court motu proprio
could use its coercive power to direct compliance by the parties. Besides,
we find no cause for respondent Judge to be anxious over the possible
non-appearance of complainants. The records show that the policemen
were able to keep track of complainants whereabouts. There was
therefore no basis for his fears.
Under the foregoing circumstances, we find no valid reason for
respondents departure from the procedure laid down by the Rule on
Summary Procedure. Shortcuts in judicial processes are to be avoided
where they impede rather than promote a judicious dispensation of
justice. However respondent Judges administrative culpability is

mitigated by his intention to resolve the criminal cases with the least
delay by ensuring the presence of in its early resolution.
Once more, we must emphasize that judges are the visible representation
of the law and, more importantly, of justice.11 They are therefore
required to observe and abide by the rules and procedures especially
those which relate to the scope of their authority so as to guarantee the
orderly and efficient administration of justice. WHEREFORE, for his
disregard of Sec. 10 of the Rule on Summary Procedure and Canon 3,
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, JUDGE JACINTO A.
MANALO, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Coron-Busuanga, Palawan, is
FINED P3,000.00 which he is directed to pay within thirty (30) days from
service hereof, and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
38)
Miraflor vs. Atty. Hagad, Adm. Case No. 2468, May 12, 1995
CASE NATURE: Obstruction of Justice

We fully agree with the recommendation that the case should be
dismissed. We find no evidence of malice or improper motive in the
actuations of respondents who merely discharged their respective
functions to the best of their professional abilities within the confines of
law and jurisprudence. Evidently, complainants cast the bigger blame
upon respondent Hagad whom they accuse of instigating the whole
scheme of defeating Nilos rights to the monetary award. Such accusation
has no basis. A lawyers devotion to his clients cause not only requires
but also entitles him to employ every honorable means to secure for the
client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law
to enable the latters cause to succeed. ACCORDINGLY, the Court
Resolves to DISMISS the complaint for lack of merit.
39)
Cruz vs. Judge Pascual, ADM. MAT. No. MTJ-93-782, May
12, 1995
CASE NATURE: Abuse of Authority, Incompetence, Partiality, Lack of
Professionalism and Ignorance of the Law

WHEREFORE, as recommended, respondent Judge Filomeno S.
Pascual, MTC, Angat, Bulacan, is FINED P3,000.00 for his delay in the
rendition of the judgment in Crim. Case No. 2139 which he is directed to
pay within thirty (30) days from service hereof, and ADMONISHED to be
more conscientious and prompt in the performance of his duties. He is
further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future
will be dealt with more severely.Let copies of this decision be attached to
the personal record of respondent Judge.
JUNE
40)
Atty. Boquiren vs. Judge Del Rosario-Cruz, Adm. Case No.
MTJ-94-894, June 02, 1995
CASE NATURE: Contempt
It appears prima facie that the foregoing words are aimed at seriously
undermining the integrity of this Court. Complainant seems to have
forgotten his duty, as a lawyer and as an officer of the court, to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers (Canon
11, Code of Professional Responsibility). ACCORDINGLY, finding the
motions for reconsideration without merit the same are hereby
DISMISSED. Complainant Atty. Felixberto N. Boquiren, however, is
hereby ordered to explain within five (5) days from receipt of this
Resolution why he should not be cited for contempt and/or subject to
disciplinary action.
41)
Cui vs. Judge Madayag, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1150, June 05,
1995
CASE NATURE: Ignorance of the Law, Grave Misconduct and Oppression
The case of respondent Judge should be no different. For judges are
called to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural laws. They are not common men and women, whose
errors men and women forgive and time forgets. Judges sit as the
embodiment of the peoples sense of justice, their last recourse where all
other institutions have failed. Most importantly, respondent Judge is

required by Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to be
faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. As we held in
one case, there will be faith in the administration of justice only if there
be a belief on the part of the litigant that the occupants of the bench
cannot justly be accused of deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.
Lastly, we are appalled that a simple notice of hearing of 15 November
1991 prepared on 7 November 1991 slept for seven (7) days in
respondents court before it was mailed to plaintiffs on the eve of the
hearing. Such display of laxity and inefficiency on the part of the court
personnel militates against the management skills of respondent Judge.
It indicates that he has not been meticulous and zealous as he should
have been in organizing and supervising the work of his subordinates as
required by Canon 3, Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This
impression is reinforced by respondents failure to check from the
records whether notice of hearing was served on plaintiffs before
conducting the hearing on the motion to lift preliminary injunction. It
was only upon plaintiffs Manifestation that he came to know the reason
for their absence at the hearing.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Job B. Madayag, RTC, Br. 145,
Makati, is FINED P5,000.00 for his disregard of Sec. 6, Rule 15, of the
Rules of Court, and for violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, with STERN WARNING that the commission of a
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. Respondent
Judge is further REPRIMANDED for the delay in the service of the Notice
of Hearing in Civil Cases Nos. 91-683 and 91-684 and ADMONISHED to
faithfully observe the explicit mandate of Canon 3, Rule 3.09 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, not only by adopting measures in his court for the
prompt and efficient release of court orders but also by establishing an
effective system of monitoring of such releases to the parties, in order to
strictly comply with the requirement of due process. Let copy of this
Resolution be attached to the personal records of respondent Judge.
42)
Santos vs. Judge Ofilada, A.M. RTJ-94-1217, June 16, 1995
CASE NATURE: Incompetence, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Oppression

and Grave Misconduct

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that a fine of
P20,000.00 be imposed on respondent judge and that he be warned
against a repetition of the same administrative misconduct. We approve
the recommendation since it is but in accordance with the penalty
imposed by the Court in previous cases involving the same issues.
ON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, respondent Judge Carlos C.
Ofilada of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan is
hereby ORDERED to pay a FINE of P20,000.00, with a STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will definitely
warrant a more severe sanction. Let a copy of this decision be attached to
the personal record of respondent judge. Additionally, in the best interest
of a fair trial and a just disposition of the criminal actions involved, it is
hereby ORDERED that Criminal Cases Nos. 1433-M-94 and 1434-M-94,
be RE-RAFFLED among the other branches of the Regional Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan. The judge or judges to whom the cases shall thereafter
be assigned shall forthwith cancel the present bail bonds of the accused
Rolando Lopez in the aforesaid cases, promptly issue the corresponding
warrants of arrest therein, and thereafter conduct the proper hearings
with due notice to all parties concerned of such bail petitions as may be
filed by said accused.
43)
Gallo vs. Judge Cordero, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1035, June 21,
1995
CASE NATURE: Non-feasance, Bias, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Graft
and Favoritism
Thus, respondent judge not only has shown gross ignorance of law
and procedure but has also failed to live up to the norm that judges
should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. He thus
violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that a
judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities. In the words of Rule 2.01 of that Canon, A judge should so
behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. ACCORDINGLY, a FINE of P10,000.00 is
imposed on respondent Judge Jose Cordero, the same to be deducted
from whatever retirement benefits he may be entitled to receive from the

government.
44)
Raboca vs. Judge Pantanosas, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-93-884,
June 23, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Inefficiency, Incompetence, Ignorance of the Law,
Grave Misconduct, Bias and Malicious Delay
Initially, the respondent Judge attempted to so excuse the delay by
citing his other duties as an officer of the Municipal Judges League;
later, he cited his failing eyesight. Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct would demand that judges should regulate their extrajudicial
activities in a manner that would not interfere with or affect adversely
their judicial functions.
Regarding the belated explanation that
respondent Judge suffered from an eyesight problem, it would appear to
us to be more of an afterthought than not; while he underwent an eye
operation, it was not, however, until after several months later (in
December 1992), or about ten months after the submission of the case
for decision that he did undergo it. In any event, the excuse sought,
albeit deserving perhaps some sympathy, would not warrant a total
justification for respondents nonfeasance. WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge is FINED the reduced amount of P1,000.00 6 and CAUTIONED
against a repetition of similar acts in the future.
45)
Celino vs. Judge Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1317, June 27,
1995
CASE NATURE: Failure to Render Judgment
A judge faces enormous responsibilities as soon as he steps into
office. However, he is mandated to dispose the courts business promptly
and decide cases within the required period.12 He could not take refuge
behind the alleged inefficiency of his staff. Proper and efficient court
management is as much as a judges responsibility.13
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold respondent Judge Zeus C. Abrogar
administratively liable for his failure to render the decision in Civil Case
No. 88-2042 within the prescribed period of ninety (90) days from the
time the same was submitted for decision. Accordingly, respondent judge
is ordered to pay a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), 14 with
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future
shall be dealt with more severely by this Court. Let a copy of this
decision be attached to respondent judges personal records.
JULY
46)
Alvarado vs. Judge Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-93-835,
July 03, 1995
CASE NATURE: Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Discretion and
Gross Misconduct
We see no reason to declare respondent guilty of gross ignorance of
the law. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of
must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but were
motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption.
The acts complained of against respondent particularly refer to her
judicial functions. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of fraud,
dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are
not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous.
WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
47)
Villalon vs. Atty. Buendia, Adm. Case No. 2747, July 06,
1995
CASE NATURE: Falsehood
Moreover, it is well to note x x x, that statements made in the course
of judicial proceeding are absolutely privilegedthat is, privileged
regardless of the defamatory tenor and of the presence of maliceif the
same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in hand or subject
of the inquiry (People v. Aquino, 18 SCRA 555, 558 [1966]). What is
relevant or pertinent should be liberally considered to favor the writer,
and the words should not be scrutinized with microscopic intensity. We
find nothing in the complaint that would constitute a violation by

respondent of the lawyers oath. WHEREFORE, the administrative
complaint against respondent is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
48)
Millare vs. Atty. Montero, A.C. No. 3283, July 13, 1995
CASE NATURE: Violation Canon 19, Rule 19.03 of Code of Professional

Responsibility (A Lawyer is not a Gun for Hire)
Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is
required to represent his client within the bounds of the law. The Code
enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow his
client to dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In
short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.
By having willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his
efforts to get a favorable judgment, which efforts were all rebuffed,
respondent violated the duty of a member of the Bar to institute actions
only which are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly
contestable under the laws (Garcia v. Francisco, 220 SCRA 512 [1993]).
As correctly noted by the Committee on Bar Discipline in filing a
number of pleadings, actions and petitions, respondent has made a
mockery of the judicial processes and disregarded canons of professional
ethics in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a
judgment in the case was rendered, thus, abused procedural rules to
defeat ends of substantial justice (Report and Recommendation, IBP
Committee on Bar Discipline, p. 2). WHEREFORE, respondent is
SUSPENDED for one year.
49)
Litigio vs. Judge Dicon, A.M. No. MTJ-93-806, July 13, 1995
CASE NATURE: Willful Non-Payment of Just Debt

Needless to state, this Court does not look with favor at the members
of the judiciary who fail to discharge their obligations. Respondent is
reminded that public servants, particularly those employed in the
judiciary, should conduct themselves, both in public and in private, with

propriety and decorum. WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint in
A.M. No. MTJ-93-806 for being moot and academic and the complaint in
A.M. No. MTJ-93-863 for raising issues which should be the subject of a
civil case filed with the appropriate court.
50)
Reyes vs. Gaa, A.M. No. 1048, July 14, 1995
CASE NATURE: DISBARMENT

It is settled that affirmative testimony is given greater weight than
negative testimony (Delos Reyes v. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653 [1989]). When
the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that
he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome
the evidence against him (Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics 93 [1949].
He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and
integrity which at all times is expected of him (Bayasen v. Court of
Appeals, 103 SCRA 197 [1981]; Vda. de Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 81
SCRA 393 [1978]). Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government
official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or
to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of
the bar on such grounds (Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634
[1989]). WHEREFORE, respondent is DISBARRED and his name is
orderedSTRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this
resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and spread on the personal records of respondent.
51)
Moroo vs. Judge Lomeda, A.M. No. MTJ-90-400, July 14,
1995
CASE NATURE: Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service
This Court has several times before stressed that a judge is viewed as
the visible representation of law and justice from whom the people draw
their will and inclination to obey the law; the judge must, accordingly, be
the first to abide by the law and present an example for others to follow.
For all the foregoing, the Court concludes that respondent Judge
Lomeda was (1) grossly negligent in violating or disregarding the
constitutional rights of complainant Moroo and (2) guilty of having given
false testimony before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City in
Criminal Cases Nos. 7592, 7593 and 7594. The Court holds that such
gross negligence and false testimony constitutes serious dishonesty and
conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Aurelio J.V. Lomeda is hereby
DISMISSED from the Judiciary with prejudice to reinstatement or reemployment in any capacity in any branch or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations,
with forfeiture of all earned or accrued retirement and leave privileges
and benefits to which he might be entitled. This Decision is immediately
executory, and respondent is hereby ORDERED to vacate immediately
his office and henceforth cease and desist from performing any function
or act in connection with such office. This Decision shall be served by
personal service. Let a copy of this Decision be spread in the personal
record of respondent Judge, as well as in the records of the Office of the
Bar Confidant.
52)
Cabilao vs. Judge Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-93-818, July 14,
1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Ignorance of the Law, Gross Misconduct and
Abuse of Discretion
WHEREFORE, finding that respondent judge acted with gross
ignorance of the law and with grave abuse of discretion in the
performance of his functions, a fine of P5,000.00 is hereby imposed upon
him with a STERN WARNING that commission of the same or similar
acts shall be dealt with severely by this court.
53)
Moreno vs. Judge Bernabe, A.M. No. MTJ-94-963, July 14,
1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law
`
The Respondent, by his own admission that he solemnized the
marriage between complainant and Marcelo Moreno without the required
marriage license, has dismally failed to live up to his commitment to be

the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence and to his
promise to be faithful to the law. Respondent cannot hide behind his
claim of good faith and Chris-tian motives which, at most, would serve
only to mitigate his liability but not exonerate him completely. Good
intentions could never justify violation of the law.
We reiterate our ruling in Imbing v. Tiongson:
The fact that complainant has lost interest in prosecuting the
administrative case against herein respondent judge will not necessarily
warrant a dismissal thereof. Once charges have been filed, the Supreme
Court may not be divested of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain
the truth of the matter alleged in the complaint. The Court has an
interest in the conduct of members of the Judiciary and in improving the
delivery of justice to the people, and its efforts in that direction may not
be derailed by the complainants desistance from further prosecuting the
case he or she initiated. To condition administrative actions upon the will
of every complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a
detestable act, is to strip this Court of its supervisory power to discipline
erring members of the Judiciary. Definitely, personal interests are not
material or controlling. What is involved here is a matter of public
interest considering that respondent is no ordinary citizen but an officer
of the court whose personal behavior not only upon the bench and in the
performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be
beyond reproach. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Respondent
is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00 and is STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
54)
Cordova vs. Judge Tornilla, A.M. No. MTJ-94-997, July 17,
1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law
It is the duty of the lawyer to inform the court of his clients death,
incapacity or incompetency during the pendency of the action and to give
the name and address of the executor, administrator, guardian or other
legal representatives of the decedent. The court, if the action survives,
shall then order upon proper notice the legal representatives of the
decedent to appear and be substituted for him within the time granted in
said order (Bonifacio v. Dizon, 177 SCRA 294 [1989]; Ferreira v. Vda. de
Gonzalez, 104 Phil. 143 [1958]). WHEREFORE, the petition is
DISMISSED.
AUGUST
55)
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Matas, Adm.
Matter No. RTJ-92-836, August 02, 1995
CASE NATURE: Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
The demands of public interest and public policy would not be
expeditiously served if administrative cases should be made to await the
termination of criminal cases or civil cases based upon the same facts or
incidents from which the administrative cases arose. In view of the public
trust character of a public office which exacts accountability and utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency at all times, administrative
cases must be resolved as expeditiously as possible. It is primarily for
this reason that in administrative cases only substantial evidence is
required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or
preponderance of evidence as in civil cases (Section 5, in relation to
Sections 1 and 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court). We thus rule that the
pendency of a criminal case based on the same facts or incidents which
gave rise to an administrative case does not suspend the administrative
proceedings. However, in consideration of the difference in the quantum
of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed,
in the former and in the latter, the findings and conclusions in one
should not necessarily be binding in the other. WHEREFORE, the instant
complaint is DISMISSED, and respondents JUDGE JESUS V. MATAS
and EDUARDO C. TORRES, JR. are hereby ABSOLVED of all the charges
against them in the Amended Complaint.
56)
De los Santos-Reyes vs. Judge Montesa, Jr., Adm. Matter
No. RTJ-93-983, August 07, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law and Dishonesty
The respondent judge has indisputably failed to comply with the
strict and exacting demands of the public-trust character of his office.
WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of law or incompetence and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, respondent Judge CAMILO
O. MONTESA, JR., Presiding Judge of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial
Court of Bulacan, is hereby ordered DISMISSED from the service with
forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or service of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations. His dismissal shall take effect immediately upon
his receipt of a copy of this decision which must be personally served by
the Office of the Court Administrator.
57)
Chin vs. Judge Gustilo, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1243, August 11,
1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Misconduct, Grave Abuse
Malfeasance in Office and Maladministration of Justice
of
Discretion,

Nonetheless we have stressed the importance of the duty of members
of the judiciary to keep abreast of the laws, rulings and jurisprudence
affecting their jurisdiction. (Vasquez v. Malvar, 85 SCRA 10 (1978); Ajeno
v. Inserto, 71 SCRA 166 (1976); Aducayen v. Flores, 51 SCRA 78 (1973))
It is not too much to expect that judges show acquaintance with statutes,
procedural rules and authoritative doctrines. Respondent judges failure
to comply with this duty resulting in the failure to give notice to the
prosecution of pending application for bail merits a reprimand.
WHEREFORE, respondent judge is REPRIMANDED for failure to give
notice to the public prosecutor of an application for bail with warning
that a repetition of this offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
58)
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Fuentes, A.M.
No. RTJ-94-1270, August 23, 1995
CASE NATURE: Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
We disagree, however, with the recommendation of the Deputy
Court Administrator to fine Judge Renato Fuentes twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00). Judge Fuentes has not been charged by any
interested party, in relation to the issuance of the writs of execution
against the government, particularly, the DPWH. The imposition of fine
against Judge Fuentes will deny him procedural due process.
The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to conduct an
investigation on Judge Renato Fuentes and to charge him if the result of
the investigation so warrants. The Office of the Solicitor General is
likewise ordered to take appropriate action to recover the value of the
serviceable or repairable equipment which were unlawfully hauled by
Alex Bacquial.
SEPTEMBER
59)
Santiago vs. Atty.Fojas, Adm.Case No. 4103, September 07,
1995
CASE NATURE: Disbarment
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the
right to decline employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his clients rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save
by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is
entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his
full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
We do not therefore hesitate to rule that the respondent is not free
from any blame for the sad fate of the complainants. He is liable for
inexcusable negligence. WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is
hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more
careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
60)
Amatan vs. Judge Aujero, A.M. No. RTJ-93-956, September
27, 1995
Finally, every judge must be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence. A judge should not only be aware of the bare
outlines of the law but also its nuances and ramifications, otherwise, he
would not be able to come up with decisions which are intrinsically fair.
In failing to exercise even ordinary common sense, a judge could be held
administratively liable for a verdict that could in no way be legally or
factually sustained or justified.
ACCORDINGLY, we are constrained to find respondent judge
GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law for which he is hereby
REPRIMANDED and FINED ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PES0S. Let
this decision appear in respondents record of service.
OCTOBER
61)
Rosacia vs. Atty. Bulalacao, Adm. Case No. 3745, October
02, 1995
CASE NATURE: Suspension
The Court reiterates that an attorney owes loyalty to his client not
only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the
relation of attorney and client has terminated as it is not good practice to
permit him afterwards to defend in another case other person against his
former client under the pretext that the case is distinct from, and
independent of the former case. It behooves respondent not only to keep
inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance
in the administration of justice. The relation of attorney and client is one
of confidence and trust in the highest degree. A lawyer owes fidelity to
the cause of his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. An attorney not only becomes familiar with
all the facts connected with his clients cause, but also learns from his
client the weak and strong points of the case. No opportunity must be
given attorneys to take advantage of the secrets of clients obtained while
the confidential relation of attorney and client exists. Otherwise, the legal
profession will suffer by the loss of the confidence of the people.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for three months. Let this resolution be attached to respondents
record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof furnished to
all courts and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
62)
Cordova vs. Judge Labayen, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October
10, 1995
CASE NATURE: Violation of Canon I, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
As an officer of the court, a lawyer has the sworn duty to assist in, not
to impede or pervert, the administration of justice. The present
administrative charge seeks to cast doubt on the integrity of respondent
judges, the judicial personnel and the court which they represent, in
flagrant abdication of the bounden responsibility of a lawyer to observe
and maintain the respect due to courts of justice. Atty. Sabio thus
deserves to be punished for instigating the filing of an administrative
complaint by his clients, in the guise of upholding their rights but
actually to frustrate the enforcement of lawful court orders and
consequently obstruct the desirable norms and course of justice.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Salvador T. Sabio is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, effective upon his
receipt of a copy of this decision. He is warned that a more severe

sanction shall be imposed should he commit another administrative
offense. Let copies hereof be attached to his record and served on the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on all courts of the
land.
63)
Gonzales vs. Atty. Sabacajan, Adm. Case No. 4380, October
13, 1995
CASE NATURE: Violations of Canon 15, Rule 15.07 & Canon 19, Rule
19.01of the Code of Professional Responsibility
The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the
good faith and diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs
of their clients. If complainants did have the alleged monetary obligations
to his client, that does not warrant his summarily confiscating their
certificates of title since there is no showing in the records that the same
were given as collaterals to secure the payment of a debt. Neither is there
any intimation that there is a court order authorizing him to take and
retain custody of said certificates of title. Apparently, respondent has
disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon his client
the need for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead,
he unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles
supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged financial obligations to his
client and presumably to impress the latter of his power to do so.
Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not
present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact
transgressed the same.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law until he can duly show to this Court that the disputed
certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly
acknowledged by complainants, or can present a judicial order or
appropriate legal authority justifying the possession by him or his client
of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same

or similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more
severely. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on the personal records
of respondent and have copies thereof furnished to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and duly circularized to all courts in the country.
64)
Abadilla vs. Judge Tabiliran, Jr., A.M.No. MTJ-92-716O,
October 25, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Immorality, Deceitful Conduct, and Corruption
Unbecoming of a Judge
By committing the immorality in question, respondent violated the
trust reposed on his high office and utterly failed to live up to the noble
ideals and strict standards of morality required of the law profession.
(Imbing v. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690). WHEREFORE, the Court finds
respondent Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. guilty of gross immorality,
deceitful conduct and corruption and, consequently, orders his dismissal
from the service. Such dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of
eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and
disqualification from re-employment in the government-service, all
without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.
NOVEMBER
65)
Perez vs. Judge Suller, A.M. No. MTJ-94-936, November 06,
1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Abuse of Discretion, Misconduct, Ignorance of the
Law and Acts Unbecoming of a Judge
The Court finds that respondent judge should have refrained from
handling the preliminary investigation since he was closely related to the
complainant, Cristobal Suller, Jr., his nephew and a relative by
consanguinity within the sixth degree. While conducting preliminary
investigation may not be construed strictly as sitting in a case, the
underlying reason behind disqualification under Rule 3.12 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and Section 1 of Rule 137 is the same. Clearly,
respondent judges participation in the preliminary investigation
involving his nephew is a violation of the aforequoted rules laid down to

guide members of the judiciary. The rationale for the rule on
disqualification of a judge stems from the principle that no judge should
preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial
and independent. A judge should not handle a case in which he might be
perceived to be susceptible to bias and partiality. The rule is intended to
preserve the peoples faith and confidence in the courts of justice.
We have declared often enough that the behavior of judges and court
personnel, must at all times, not only be characterized by propriety and
decorum, but must also be above suspicion. Due process cannot be
satisfied in the absence of that degree of objectivity on the part of a judge
sufficient to reassure litigants of his being fair and just. Canon 2 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, moreover, mandates that a judge should avoid,
not merely impropriety in all his acts but even the appearance of
impropriety.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent judge is FINED in the
amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for not having inhibited
himself in the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. SM-7962
entitled People of the Philippines v. Carlo Perez, et al. with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
66)
Ford vs. Daitol, Adm. Case No. 3736, November 16, 1995
CASE NATURE: Suspension

After careful consideration of the records of the case, the Court finds
that the suspension of respondent from the practice of law is proper. The
Court agrees with the IBP that respondent had been remiss in the
performance of his duties as counsel for complainant. A lawyer engaged
to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the
latters interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellees brief
on behalf of his client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as
counsel as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which exhorts every member of the Bar not to unduly
delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice. It has been stressed
that the determination of whether an attorney should be disbarred or
merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of sound judicial

discretion.
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent Atty.
Escolastico Daitol from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
months, with a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar offense
will be more severely dealt with. Respondent is also DIRECTED to return
to complainant the amount of P600.00 which he had received as
attorneys fees.
67)
Gimeno vs. Judge Arcueno, Sr., A.M. No. MTJ-94-981,
November 29, 1995
CASE NATURE: Grave Abuse of Discretion and Ignorance of the Law
The Respondent Judge explained that he set the case for hearing
in order precisely to accord the public prosecutor with an opportunity to
contest the application for bail. Since the public prosecutor merely filed
his comment, thus leaving the matter to the sound discretion of the
judge, respondent Judge felt that he could forthwith act on the incident.
Although the explanation is not enough to completely exculpate
respondent Judge, the circumstances, coupled with his sincere belief in
the propriety of his order, warrant a mitigation of the usual sanction this
Court metes in cases of this nature. We reduce, accordingly, OCAs
recommended penalty to a P5,000.00 Fine.
WHEREFORE, Judge Arcueno, Sr., is directed to pay a FINE in the
amount of P5,000.00. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar act in the future will be severely dealt with by this Court.
DECEMBER
68)
Heirs of the Late Nasser D. Yasin vs. Judge Felix, A.M. No.
RTJ-94-1167, December 04, 1995
CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law, Partiality and Knowingly
Rendering Unjust Judgment

The charge of gross ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering
an unjust judgment has no factual basis. If ever respondent judge
committed any error at all, it was an error of judgment and not every
error of judgment can be attributable to a judges ignorance or the law.
Neither can it be said that he knowingly rendered an unjust judgment
given the antecedents of the instant case. Moreover, it must be
remembered that there is a firmly established principle in our
jurisprudence that a judge may not be administratively charged for mere
errors of judgment in the absence of a showing of any bad faith, malice
or corrupt purpose on his part. For if every error of a judge should be
punished, then perhaps no judge, however good, competent, honest and
dedicated he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary without a
blemished record and a tarnished image. It is the obligation of the judge
to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and maintain
professional competence in court management, and for negligence in the
management of his office, he deserves to be appropriately penalized.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant complaint is
hereby DISMISSED for LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL PROOF. I, therefore,
VOTE for the EXONERATION of Judge Augusto N. Felix.
Respondent Augusto N. Felix found negligent in the management of
his office hence meted a P2,000.00 fine with stern warning against the
commission of similar offense.
69)
Manlangit vs. Judge Urgel, A.M. No. MTJ-951028, December 04, 1995
The erroneous issuance of the warrant of arrest against complainant
necessarily caused him and his family undue anxiety, humiliation and
embarrassment. Indeed, complainant had to hire a counsel and incur
expenses for his bond to fight for his liberty which he could have lost due
to a patently erroneous warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge.
Life, liberty and property hang on the balance everytime a judge wields
judicial power. We cannot overemphasize the importance of a judges
cautious, diligent and intelligent performance of judicial functions.

Reckless judges make justice a tormenting illusion to our people.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent judge MELITO L. URGEL isfined One
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and is admonished to be more circumspect
in the performance of his judicial functions, with a warning that
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely in
the future.
70)
State Prosecutors vs. Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, December
11, 1995
CASE NATURE: Misconduct
It may be conceded that respondent, in acting the way he did,
committed a legal error which usually is remediable by appeal or by any
other modes sanctioned by the Rules of Court and does not raise a
question of improper judicial conduct subject to judicial discipline. But
egregious legal error, legal error motivated by bad faith, or a continuing
pattern of legal error do amount to misconduct subject to discipline,
ranging from admonishment to removal from office. And legal error is
egregious and serious enough to amount to misconduct when judges
deny individuals their basic or fundamental rights, such as when
defendants were not advised of their constitutional right to counsel,
coerced to plead guilty, sentenced to jail when only a fine is provided by
law, sentenced to jail for a period longer than the maximum sentence
allowed by law, or particularly similar to this case when defendants were
denied a full and fair hearinga constitutional right equally afforded to
the prosecution but unceremoniously ignored by respondent. The gravity
of his actuation cannot be shrugged off casually. Respondent has
followed a course of judicial conduct which is in utter disregard of the
law, established rules of practice and basic notions of fair play, and his
impressive scholastic record as student of law all the more punctuates
his blunder rather than temper it.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the motion for
reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Courts September 19, 1994
Decision is MODIFIED. Respondent Judge Manuel T. Muro is considered
suspended from office without pay for the period from September 19,
1994 to the date this Resolution is promulgated. He may, therefore, be
REINSTATED to office immediately. Let a copy of this Resolution be

attached to the respondents personal record.

1995 (70 List of Cases) TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1995 (70 List of Cases) TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LIST OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST

LAWYERS & JUDGES

Incompetence, Misconduct, and Ignorance of the Law

required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in

WHEREFORE, respondent is FINED Five Thousand Pesos (P5,

From the foregoing, it is clear that it is the duty of Atty. Endona to

Gil vs. Judge Son, A. M. No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Misconduct and Oppression

WHEREFORE, a FINE of P5,000.00 is imposed on respondent Judge

spontaneous voluntary admission may be considered in mitigation of his

Kaw vs. Judge Anunciacion, Jr., Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-93-811

March 01, 1995

administrative sanctions against erring judges. A fine of P2,000.00 is

CASE NATURE: Serious Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty.

It is undisputable that the most difficult phase of any proceeding is

Gonzaga vs. Atty.Realubin, A.C. No. 1955, March 14, 1995

CASE NATURE: Disbarment

facetious statement. He allowed his remarks to stand uncorrected

CASE NATURE: Misconduct

administratively lacking the element of bad faith, malice or corrupt

1995, found respondent judge to have committed grave abuse of

have, indeed, been intemperate that could warrant a mitigation of his

justice. However respondent Judges administrative culpability is

CASE NATURE: Obstruction of Justice

Supreme Courts Ruling:

other institutions have failed. Most importantly, respondent Judge is

Santos vs. Judge Ofilada, A.M. RTJ-94-1217, June 16, 1995

CASE NATURE: Incompetence, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Oppression

Supreme Courts Ruling:

from whatever retirement benefits he may be entitled to receive from the

find nothing in the complaint that would constitute a violation by

CASE NATURE: Violation Canon 19, Rule 19.03 of Code of Professional

CASE NATURE: Willful Non-Payment of Just Debt

judiciary, should conduct themselves, both in public and in private, with

Reyes vs. Gaa, A.M. No. 1048, July 14, 1995

CASE NATURE: DISBARMENT

marriage license, has dismally failed to live up to his commitment to be

Supreme Courts Ruling:

receipt of a copy of this decision. He is warned that a more severe

of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same

involving his nephew is a violation of the aforequoted rules laid down to

CASE NATURE: Suspension

merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of sound judicial

Supreme Courts Ruling:

cautious, diligent and intelligent performance of judicial functions.

REINSTATED to office immediately. Let a copy of this Resolution be

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen