3-D Industries Inc. v.

Roxas

Facts:

Spouses Guy organized Northern Isands Co., Inc & Lincoln Continental. Later on, they found out that
their son Gilbert has been dissipating the assets of Lincoln Continental. This made the spouses Guy to
transfer their 50% shares in NICI to their three daughters. LC, through Gilbert, filed for annulment and
inhibition of the transfers made by sps Guy. RTC granted the petition and inhibits the sisters from
exercising their right over the property, which restored the management of NICI and LC to Gilbert. As a
result, the spouses went to CA for a petition for certiorari. CA granted the motion and issued a writ of
preliminary injunction against the decision of the RTC. 3D Industries and Smartnet filed a replevin and
forcible entry respectively against the spouses. The spouses went again to the CA by filing a
supplemental and second supplement for certiorari for the latter cases. The CA granted the petition and
included it in the previously issued writ of preliminary injunction. Aggrieved by the decision, Gilbert filed
a case for violation of RA 3019 against the 2 justices.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent justices be held liable for the decision they rendered

Held: No. Not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him
liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. Since,
there was no evidence of bad faith or malice on the part of the two justices, they shall not be held liable
for rendering a decision against the petitioners.

AMANTE-DESCALLAR vs. RAMAS

This is an administrative complaint against Judge Reinerio Ramas.

Facts: Atty. Cerilles claimed to know Judge Ramas very well since the latter is his godfather and wedding
sponsor. Atty. Cerilles admitted that he had many pending cases before Judge Ramas sala, including
Criminal Case No. 04-7003, entitled People v. Dizon, for Slight Illegal Detention, which involved his
grandnephews. On May 12, 2005, Atty. Cerilles went to the RTC-Branch 18 to find out if his
grandnephews Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation could be heard. However, upon inquiry, he was told
that Judge Ramas was not around because his estranged wife arrived. When Atty. Cerilles returned to
the RTC-Branch 18 the following day, May 13, 2005, he was informed that Judge Ramas was still absent.
Atty. Descallar testified that Judge Ramas failed to indicate his absences on May 12, 13, 24, and 27 to 30,
2005, and June 1 to 21, 2005 in his Certificates of Service for the months of May and June 2005. The
absence of Judge Ramas can be gleaned from the court calendar of hearings and his failure to attend the
raffle of cases done every Thursday of the week. Also, the Omnibus Order dated May 23, 2005 issued by
Judge Ramas manifested his momentary desistance from performing judicial functions from May 24,
2005 onwards.

Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of making untruthful statements.

Held: Yes. Judge Ramas is presumed to be aware of his duties and responsibilities under the Code of
Judicial Conduct. Canon 3 generally mandates that a judge should perform official duties honestly, and
with impartiality and diligence. Rule 3.01 requires that a judge be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence, while Rule 3.09 commands a judge to observe high standards of public service
and fidelity at all times. Judge Ramas irrefragably failed to observe these standards by making untruthful
statements in his Certificates of Service to cover up his absences.

The Court has previously held that a judges submission of false certificates of service seriously
undermines and reflects on the honesty and integrity expected of an officer of the court. This is so
because a certificate of service is not merely a means to one's paycheck but is an instrument by which
the Court can fulfill the constitutional mandate of the people ' s right to a speedy disposition of
cases.Under A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, amending Rule 140 on the Discipline of Justices and Judges, making
untruthful statements in the certificate of service is categorized as a less serious offense and punishable
by suspension without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three
months or a fine of more thanP10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. Considering that this is Judge
Ramas second offense in his almost 12 years in the Judiciary, the Court adopts Justice Lopezs
recommendation of imposing on the erring judge a fine in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos
(P15,000.00).

Adjudication:

Judge Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas is found GUILTY of making untruthful statements in his Certificates
of Service for the months of May and June 2005 and is hereby FINED in the amount of Fifteen Thousand
Pesos (P15,000.00), with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt
with more severely.
JUDGE AQUINO SIMBULAN v. BARTOLOME

Facts: A letter complaint was filed by complainant Judge Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan with the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA), alleging that respondents Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome, together with
Romana Pascual, Milagros Lerey, and Amor dela Cruz, Acting Clerk of Court, retired Clerk of Court and
Docket Clerk, respectively, all of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, committed grave
errors and discrepancies in processing the surety bond for the accused Rosalina Mercado in Criminal
Case of People of the Philippines v. Rosalina Mercado, et al.

Above case was originally raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga,
where complainant Judge presides. On September 18, 2003, said branch of the RTC received an
Indorsement from Warrant/Subpoena Officer PO3 Edwin Villacentino stating that the accused Mercado
voluntarily surrendered before the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan and posted her bail bond through
Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc., which was duly approved by respondent Judge Bartolome on
August 21, 2003. This prompted complainant to issue an Order[2] dated October 29, 2003, directing
respondent Lerey, then Clerk of Court of the MTC, to transmit to the RTC within twenty-four (24) hours
from receipt of said Order, the bond which the former court approved.

When the Clerk of Court failed to comply, complainant Judge issued an Order directing the former to
explain in writing within three (3) days from receipt thereof why she should not be cited in contempt for
delaying the administration of justice.

Then, on February 12, 2004, the RTC received a written explanation[5] from Lerey stating that she had
misplaced and overlooked the subject surety bond, which resulted in the delay of its transmission to the
RTC.

Upon perusal of the documents, complainant Judge discovered that the subject surety bond bore some
erasures, and its attachments were highly anomalous. In view of these findings, the RTC issued a
subpoena to respondents Pascual and Lerey directing them to appear before it to explain the
aforementioned errors.

Findings during investigation:

1.That respondent Judge issued an Order of Release dated August 21, 2003 WITHOUT a Certificate of
Detention and Warrant of Arrest attached to the documents presented to him;
2. Order of Release was dated August 21, 2003, the Undertaking and Certification from the bonding
company were dated November 22, 2003 and October 29, 2003, respectively; (malicious)

3. That it was Lerey who reviewed the documents before the surety bond was referred to respondent
Judge for the latters approval; and

After the hearing, Public Prosecutor Otto Macabulos stated that he found the explanation too shallow
and self-serving, and that he would file an indirect contempt case under Rule 71, Section 3 (d) of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against Lerey and Dela Cruz.

In her manifestation/Compliance dated October 25, 2004, Lerey admitted lapses and negligence in
processing the subject bail bond and was remorseful for what happened. On the other hand, Dela Cruz
stated that there was no wrongdoing on her part in the processing of the subject bail bond and that she
merely followed instructions in mailing the said bail bond to the RTC.

The RTC found Lerey guilty of indirect contempt and sentenced her to pay a fine of P10,000.00, which
she duly paid. However, it absolved Dela Cruz from any liability as it found her explanation meritorious.

In the meantime, in his 1st Indorsement[12] dated February 26, 2004, Deputy Court Administrator
(DCA) Jose P. Perez referred to the Clerk of Court of the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan the Orders issued by
complainant Judge relative to the surety bond for comment. However, there was nothing on record to
show that said Clerk of Court complied with the directive.

After which, DCA Perez also issued a 1st Indorsement[13] to respondent Judge referring to the letter
dated April 27, 2004 of complainant Judge, which discussed the errors and discrepancies regarding the
approval of the bail bond of the accused in Criminal Case No. 13360, with the instruction to the former
to submit his comment thereto.

In compliance, respondent judge denied liability concerning his approval of the bond. It was Lerey who
caused delay in transmitting the bond to RTC which the latter admitted.

OCA: In approving the surety bond of the accused, respondent Judge violated Section 17, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court.[25] In the instant case, the accused Rosalina Mercado was not arrested. IN THE CASE AT
BAR, the accused must have filed the bond w/in the province of Pampanga or City of San Fernando.
Instead, accused Mercado filed her bond in the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, where
respondent Judge presides, who approved the same and ordered her release from custody.
Respondent judge did not require accused to submit the supporting documents pertinent to the
application for a bond . It appears that there was no Certificate of Detention presented to him; hence,
there was no legal justification for him to issue the Order of Release and process the bond since the
accused was not detained within his jurisdiction.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT JUDGE NICASIO BARTOLOME (RETIRED) GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY
FOR AND TO PAY P40,000.00)TO BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS; AND CLERK OF COURT
MILAGROS LEREY (RETIRED) GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY P40,000.00 TO BE DEDUCTED FROM
HER RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

Held: The Court holds that there were indeed grave errors and discrepancies committed by respondents
Judge Bartolome and Lerey in processing the surety bond for the accused in Criminal Case No. 13360.

Sec. 14: bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of said place, or, if no judge thereof is
available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.

Note: Sec. 16: Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge
accepting the bail shall forward the bail, the order of release and other supporting papers to the court
where the case is pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed.

The OCAs Report revealed that the accused Rosalina Mercado was not arrested. The OCAs Report
revealed that the accused Rosalina Mercado was not arrested.

FAILURE TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF SUPPORTING DOC. . There was no Certificate of Detention or

Warrant of Arrest attached to the bond transmitted by the MTC to the complainant Judge. Moreover,
the other supporting documents were belatedly filed.

For Lerey, she admitted her negligence when she misplaced and overlooked the surety bond policy,
resulting in the delay in the transmission of said documents to the RTC. Notably, she also failed to give
an explanation for the erasures which complainant discovered on the surety bond. By such acts, it is
evident that Lerey did not measure up to the standards required.

ROLE OF CLERK OF COURT. Vital in the prompt and sound administration of justice since his or her office
is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes, and concerns. He or she also has the
duty to ensure an orderly and efficient record management system in the court and to supervise the
personnel under her office to function effectively.
But, because of the negligence of the Lerey, respondent judge CANNOT BE EXCUSED FROM LIABILTY.

Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[33] the acts of respondent Judge
and Lerey may be classified as gross neglect of duty, which is punishable by dismissal under Rule IV,
Section 52 A(2) thereof. Neglect of duty denotes the failure of an employee to give ones attention to a
task expected of him. Gross neglect is such neglect which, from the gravity of the case or the frequency
of instances, becomes so serious in its character as to endanger or threaten the public welfare.

NOTE: In Ulat-Marrero v. Torio, Jr. the Court has categorized as a grave offense of gross neglect of duty,
the failure of a court process server to serve summons which resulted in the delayed resolution of a
case. As corollarily applied to the present case, where respondents released the accused on temporary
liberty despite the absence of the required supporting documents for bail, the former are likewise liable
for gross neglect of duty.

SC: Were it not for the fact that both respondents, Judge Bartolome and Lerey, have retired on October
11, 2006 and August 26, 2003, respectively, the Court would have dismissed them from the service.

RULING: JUDGE NICASIO BARTOLOME (RETIRED) GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY FOR AND TO PAY
P40,000.00)TO BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS; AND Clerk of Court Milagros Lerey
(retired) GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY P40,000.00 to be deducted from her retirement benefits.

Atty. Rico vs Judge Rufon

Facts: Rico is a lawyer, served as counsel for Mr. Ko and Ms. Suplido in a civil case over a ownership of a property
which was under the name of Spouses Akol, the opposing party therein. Rico won the case and had the RTC of
BACOLOD annotate a notice of embargo over the TCT of the subject property.

Now the Spouses Akol filed for the cancellation of the notice of embargo with the RTC of PASIG (not BACOLOD
where the annotation of the notice of embargo was ordered). Judge Rufon of RTC-Pasig granted said petition. Atty
Ricos clients were not personally notified of this proceeding/hearing. Judge Rufon merely required posting in
three (3) conspicuous public places for three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing, a notice to the whole world.

Issue: WON the petition for the cancellation of the notice of embargo annotated over the TCT of subject property
is an action to quiet title and/or remove cloud therefrom

Held: The petition for the cancellation of notice of embargo is an action to quiet title and/or remove cloud
therefrom, under Articles 476, 478 and 481 of the Civil Code

The Court said:

 The petition challenged the notice of embargo issued in Civil Case No. 32482 and prayed that the
annotations on the TCTs be cancelled. This would nullify the rights of the adverse parties, specially the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 32482

Why? All the requisites are present in this case: (this is not explained/found in the case, I only applied Atty Suarezs
method of determining whether or not said action is an action to quiet title/remove cloud)

1. There is a proceeding = the hearing on the cancellation of the notice of embargo

2. That said proceeding is APPARENTLY valid or effective = The RTC-Pasig indeed ordered the cancellation of
the notice of embargo. (Atty Suarez: how can you not say that an RTCs order/judgment is not effective?
Of course it is deemed effective, or is apparently effective, it was issued by THE RTC!)
3. But in truth and in fact it is not valid, voidable, ineffective, void, unenforceable, or extinguished or barred
by extinctive prescription = the proceeding is void in this case because Ricos clients were not
PERSONALLY notified of said proceeding, as what is required for actions in personam. Thus they were
deprived of the opportunity to be heard during said hearing.

The Court said:

The petition for cancellation of notice of embargo is a real action as it seeks the recovery of real
property; but it is also an action in personam because it is directed only against the plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. 32482.

Thus, there is a need for personal service upon the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 32482 who would
be adversely affected by the cancellation of the notice of embargo on the TCTs.

Judge Rufon, however, merely required posting in three (3) conspicuous public places for three
weeks prior to the scheduled hearing. This is not the notice required in an action in personam

4. It is prejudicial to the title = If held to be valid, the cancellation of the notice of embargo would nullify the
rights of atty Ricos clients over the subject property.