0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
78 Ansichten2 Seiten
Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged a court aide with various offenses including discourtesy, neglect of duties, and solicitation of money. While the court aide was found to have been inefficient, the judge was also found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming by ordering a drug test to find more evidence after already filing charges. Separately, documents showed Judge Paas' husband, a private lawyer, was using the judge's office address in his law practice in violation of rules against using judicial offices for non-judicial purposes. Both the judge and lawyer were penalized, with the lawyer suspended for 3 months and the judge fined PHP12,000.
Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged a court aide with various offenses including discourtesy, neglect of duties, and solicitation of money. While the court aide was found to have been inefficient, the judge was also found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming by ordering a drug test to find more evidence after already filing charges. Separately, documents showed Judge Paas' husband, a private lawyer, was using the judge's office address in his law practice in violation of rules against using judicial offices for non-judicial purposes. Both the judge and lawyer were penalized, with the lawyer suspended for 3 months and the judge fined PHP12,000.
Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged a court aide with various offenses including discourtesy, neglect of duties, and solicitation of money. While the court aide was found to have been inefficient, the judge was also found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming by ordering a drug test to find more evidence after already filing charges. Separately, documents showed Judge Paas' husband, a private lawyer, was using the judge's office address in his law practice in violation of rules against using judicial offices for non-judicial purposes. Both the judge and lawyer were penalized, with the lawyer suspended for 3 months and the judge fined PHP12,000.
JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, petitioner, vs. EDGAR E. ALMARVEZ, respondent.
A.M. No. P-03-1690. April 4, 2003 Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales FACTS: Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged Almarvez, a Court Aide/Utility Worker, with discourtesy to his fellow employees, neglect in performing duties (by not maintaining the cleanliness around the court premises and often being absent from work), and solicitation of money (from prisoners before serving them their Release Orders, and from litigants by offering to divulge confidential information in advance of its unauthorized release). The Court found that the aforementioned charges were not supported by evidence since those who filed affidavits as evidence against Almarvez were not present at the hearings. The only offense which Almarvez was found to commit was inefficiency in the discharge of his duties. Thus he was suspended for 3 months. Almarvez filed a counterclaim alleging that Judge Paas ordered him to undergo a drug test after the latter had already filed an administrative complaint against him. Regarding this, the court held that this elicits the suspicion that the Judge is just fishing for more evidence to support the administrative case she had already filed against Almarvez. This was held to constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary, for which Judge Paas should be duly reprimanded. In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was found that Judge Paas husband, Atty. Paas, who is a private practitioner, was using his wifes office address in his law practice; particularly in a criminal case he was handling which was docketed at an RTC also in Pasay. In support of this charge, documents were submitted such as 1) a Notice of Appeal signed by Atty. Paas, and 2) notices from Pasay City RTC, and from the Supreme Court. This was admitted by Judge Paas, but she claims that this was done only to ensure and facilitate the delivery of those notices. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Estrellita Paas and Atty. Renerio Paas should be penalized for allowing the latter to use the office of the former as his return address in his private practice. HELD: Yes. Using the Judge office address is improper. In Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 01-99, it was stated that court officials and employees must never use their officesfor any other purpose that for court or judicial functions. Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety in all activities and shall not allow the use of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others. Supreme Court Circular No. 3-92 prohibits the use of halls of justice for residential or commercial purposes. It is unprofessional and dishonorable to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyers prestige. It violates canons 3, 10, 13, and 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Paas is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law, while Judge Paas shall pay a fine of Php12,000.