Canon 1 Independence

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez Jr. on CA GR SP No. 103692 (Meralco-GSIS Case)
A.M. No. 08-8-11
October 15, 2008
FACTS: Several motions for reconsideration of the Decision dated September 9, 2008 were filed, sanctioning several
justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) for improprieties or irregularities in connection with CA G.R.-SP No. 103692, entitled
Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. (the Meralco-GSIS case). It involved the motions of
Justice Vicente Roxas, Justice JosevSabio, Jr, Presiding Justice Conrado Vasqeuz, Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and
Mr. Francis De Borja.
ISSUE: Whether or not the justices of Court of Appeals violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct
HELD: As for Justice Roxas, he is found guilty of various infractions of judicial ethics after he ignored and refused to act
on several motions pending before him and fabricated the Transcript of Final Decision, to make it appear that
deliberations had been conducted before the drafting of the Meralco decision when, in fact, there had been none. It
constitutes grave misconduct and he should be penalized with dismissal and forfeiture of all benefits except accrues leave
credits if any.
As for Justice Sabio, Jr, who through highly inappropriate conversations with his brother, PCGG Chair Camilo Sabio and
MERALCO Broker, Mr. De Borja threatened the independency and integrity of the Judiciary by discussing the pending
case before them and exposing himself to pressure should have inhibited himself from the case yet pursued it and
showed unusual interests, thus manifesting conducts unbecoming of a member of the Justices. It is aggravated by the
fact that he teaches Legal and Judicial Ethics. Hence, for violating Canon 1, Secs. 1, 4 and 5 (Sec. 1. Judges shall
exercise the judicial function independently x x x free from extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or
interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other
relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance
the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge. Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the
executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.)
Canon 3 Secs. 3 and 5 (Section 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the
occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases. Section 5. Judges shall
disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings
include, but are not limited to, instances where (a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; (b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a
material witness in the matter in controversy;(c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in
the outcome of the matter in controversy;(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the 6th
civil degree or to counsel within the 4th civil degree; or(g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial
interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings.) and Canon 4
Secs. 1 and 9 (Sec.1 Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Section 9.
Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed by, for any other
purpose related to their judicial duties.) the court found him worthy of dismissal.
As for Presiding Justice Vasquez, who failed to provide leadership as head of the Court of Appeals by omitting from
arguing the case and vacillating and temporizing in resolving the chairmanship dispute. He hesitated to assert authority
showing inefficiency in being the torchbearer and forerunner in reforming and restoring faith in the CA. He is sanctioned
with forced retirement but with entitlement to leave credits and retirement benefits without prejudice to re-employment in
the government.

As for Justice Dimaranan-Vidal, who deviated from the IRCA when she signed the Meralco decision without reading and
deliberating the parties memoranda, indicating lack of caution on the part of one who has been deigned to don the judicial
robe. She was reprimanded.
As for Mr. De Borja, who allegedly bribed Justice Sabio for 10 Million pesos in order to obtain a favorable judgment for
Meralco, the Court found him without any legal standing to file a motion as he was neither a complainant nor a respondent
in the present case but it is without prejudice to the power of the DOJ to find probable cause to hold Mr. De Borja liable for
the said charge.

Marces v. Judge Arcangel

A.M. No. RTJ-91-712 July 9, 1996
Respondent: Judge Paul T. Arcangel

Complainant: Ben D. Marces, Sr.

Facts: In 1984, spouses Wilfredo and Flordeliza Caas domestic helper sought complainants help for alleged
maltreatment she had received from her employers. The dispute was resolved but the families relation became
strained as evidenced by their fights after this incident.
On September 28, 1990, Mrs. Caas had the complainant arrested through the warrants issued by Judge
Sarabia in criminal cases for violation of BP Blg. 22. After a night in jail, complainant saw Judge Sarabia and
explained that the criminal cases in connection with the alias warrants against him have been settled already.
Judge Sarabia told that he had only been requested by respondent to issue the warrants.
On December 29, 1990, there was a violent confrontation between members of the two families. Some of the
parties were injured as a result of hacking. Investigations were conducted by the police during which,
according to complainant, he saw respondent talking to the policemen.
On the night of January 2, 1991, armed men arrested complainants family on orders of a certain Col. Estares.
Complainant avers that the illegal issuance and service of the warrant can only be done by respondent judge,
considering his high position in the government and close relations with the Caas family.
On May 11, 1991, the investigating prosecutor filed charges of attempted murder against complainant, his wife
and his son, Farley. Complainant alleges that respondent is taking advantage of his position, influenced the
conduct of the preliminary investigation. Warrants of arrest were issued by the RTC against complainant, his
wife Ruth and son Farley respectively. Subsequently, Farley was arrested and was allegedly followed by
respondent to make sure of the arrest. He also allegedly questioned the validity of the bond posted.
Complainant avers that he knew the judges car was often parked in front of the house of Mrs. Caas,
especially when Mr. Caas was away working overtime. In his Comment, respondent judge alleges that the
charges against him are false, malicious and utterly baseless.
Issue: W/N respondent judge violated Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held: It is clear that respondent judge intervened in the feud between the complainants family and the Caas
family and such interference was not limited to the barangay mediation proceedings but extended as well to
the various stages of the conflict. Respondent judge allowed himself to be dragged into what was a purely
private matter between feuding families. Also, respondents request to the judge of a lower court to issue
warrants of arrest against the complainant and improperly in accompanying Wilfredo Caas to Col. Nelson
Estares who ordered the arrest of complainant and members of the latters family are no less censurable. The
Code of Judicial Conduct provides: That the prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special
position to influence the judge and that a Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of
litigation or dispute pending before another Court These acts of respondent judge must be viewed not as
single, isolated actuations but in their totality and in the context of the enmity between the two feuding families
and violations of Sec 3 and Sec 4 of Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds respondent judge guilty of improper conduct. Respondent is hereby
reprimanded with warning that commission of similar acts of impropriety on his part in the future will be dealt
with more severely.

Hurtado vs Judalena
Facts:
Isabel G. Judalena had sold a portion, containing an area of 75 square meters of her parcel
of land to Palmarin Q. Hurtado, with the condition that the latter shall cause a subdivision survey
of the portion sold in order to segregate said portion from the bigger portion, after which the said
Palmarin Hurtado shall construct a concrete fence between the two lots. Hurtado, however,
violated their agreement. Pursuant to this, Judalena prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to
restrain Hurtado.

Respondent Judge Arsenio Gonong, his close relationship with Judalena notwithstanding,
and despite the prohibition imposed by Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, issued
an order, ex-parte. directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

Respondent judge issued an order voluntarily disqualifying himself from hearing

the case in view of his close relationship with the plaintiff therein and directed the
transmittal of the records of the case to the incumbent Executive Judge for proper
assignment to the other judges of the court.
Hurtado filed a motion for the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction in
order to preserve the status quo until the designation of another judge to try the case,
with a prayer that the respondent judge hear the motion to give him an opportunity to
rectify the mistake error he had committed in taking cognizance of the case and in
granting, ex-parte, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.
Respondent judge, however, denied the motion.
Hence, the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Gonong acted unlike of a judge
Held:
Yes. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates without
ambiguity the cases in which any judge or judicial officer is disqualified from acting as
such. The said section, in no uncertain terms, expressly prohibits a judge or judicial
officer from sitting in a case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguity or affinity. This is mandatory.
In the case at bar, it is not denied that the respondent judge is the brother of the
respondent Isabel G. Judalena and their close relationship notwithstanding, and despite
the prohibition mentioned above, the respondent judge took cognizance of the case and
issued the controversial order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,

after which he inhibited himself from sitting on the case for the same reasons. Such
action, to our mind, is reprehensible as it erodes the all important confidence in the
impartiality of the judiciary.

RE: SUSPENSION OF CLERK OF COURT ROGELIO R. JOBOCO, RTC, BRANCH 16 NAVAL,

BILIRAN
A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC
August 12, 1998
FACTS: This is a series of complaints and counter-complaints between Judge Bonifacio S.
Maceda and Atty. Rogelio R. Joboco where the latter was found guilty of the following charges:
Infidelity in the Custody of Court Records, Usurpation of Judicial Authority, Grave Misconduct and
Tampering Subpoena in Criminal Case No. 1536, Falsification of Certificates of Service,
Misconduct for attempting to utilize the court employees for the ends of the local IBP and
Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL). In this case, Judge Maceda was also charged with several
complaints by Atty. Joboco including the Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge because of his
closeness and dependence on the Governor of Biliran, which he said do not give a good image of
the independence of the RTC and the judiciary in general. The judge was allegedly using the
vehicle of the latter. According to the judge, the vehicles being used are a necessity to alleviate
the inconvenience of rugged land travel and to enable him to cope with his work in two salas,
RTC Branches 11 and 16, which are situated at Calubian and Naval, respectively. Moreover, Judge
Maceda justifies his use of the vehicle via the Revised Administrative Code which provides that it
is the duty of the local government to afford facilities for the court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Maceda is guilty of violating Section 5 of Canon 1 of The New Code
of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary.
HELD: Canon 1, Section 5 of The New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary states
that: Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the
executive and legislative branches of the government, but must also appear to be free therefrom
to a reasonable observer. Mere congeniality between a judge and a governor may not
necessarily be unethical, but it may still create the appearance of impropriety. In this case, Judge
Maceda was on congenial terms with the Governor of Biliran Province from whom he borrowed
vehicles on several occasions to travel to his judicial station. The Supreme Court held that this
congeniality was not necessarily detrimental to judicial independence, provided that there was
no showing that such relations were for corrupt ends. However, had this case been tried under
the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the judges acts would likely have created an appearance of
an improper connection. To the common person, the accommodation may seem a reason for the
judge to ingratiate himself towards his benefactors, which may ultimately be perceived as
affecting the judges ability to rule independently. Therefore, whether or not the congenial
relationship was indeed used for corrupt ends, it would be advisable for judges to avoid

becoming dependent on other parties, especially for basic needs like transportation to the
judges workstation.1

A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563

September 8, 2004
LUCILA TAN vs. Judge MAXWEL S. ROSETE

Facts:
The complaint alleged that Lucila Tan was the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 59440
and Criminal Case No. 66120, both entitled People of the Philippines vs. Alfonso Pe Sy and
pending before Branch 58, Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan, Metro Manila, then presided by
respondent judge. Before the cases were decided, respondent judge allegedly sent a member of
his staff to talk to complainant. They met at Sangkalan Restaurant along Scout Albano, near
Timog Avenue in Quezon City. The staff member told her that respondent was asking for
P150,000.00 in exchange for the non-dismissal of the cases. She was shown copies of respondent
judges Decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120, both still unsigned, dismissing the
complaints against the accused. She was told that respondent judge would reverse the
disposition of the cases as soon as she remits the amount demanded. The staff member allowed
complainant to keep the copy of the draft decision in Criminal Case No. 59440. Complainant,
however, did not accede to respondents demand because she believed that she had a very
strong case, well supported by evidence. The criminal cases were eventually dismissed by
respondent judge. Respondent judge, in his Comment, denied the allegations of complainant. He
instead stated that it was complainant who attempted to bribe him in exchange for a favorable
decision. As the investigation ensued, and during presentation of evidences, it was found out
that the evidence presented by the complainant is more trustworthy than the evidence
presented by the respondent due to conflicting statements of respondents witnesses.

Issue:
Whether or not the acts committed by Respondent Judge violate the standard of judicial
conduct?
1 Philippine Judicial Academy, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
(Annotated) February 2007, p. 7

Held:
We have repeatedly admonished our judges to adhere to the highest tenets of judicial
conduct. They must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. The
exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the peoples confidence in the judicial
system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the
members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they
are expected to possess. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of any law which he
is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount
that a judges personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be free
from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.
Respondents act of sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and show
copies of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office premises
beyond office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by members
of the Bench. They constitute gross misconduct which is punishable under Rule 140 of the
Revised Rules of Court