CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

CASE DIGESTS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Submitted by:

DIANE C. DAPITANON

Submitted to:

ATTY. DEXTER ZENO ACHILLES S. PASCUA

March 7, 2018
 JILL M. TORMIS vs. JUDGE MEINRADO P. PAREDES

A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366; February 4, 2015

FACTS: Jill was a former student of judge Paredes. In one of his class discussions,
Judge Paredes named Jill’s mother, Judge Rosabella Tormis, as one of the judges
involved in the marriage scams in Cebu City. Judge Paredes also mentioned in his class
that Judge Tormis was abusive of her position as a judge, corrupt, and ignorant of the
law; and also included her brother, Francis Tormis, in his discussions stating that he
was a “court-noted drug addict”.

Jill, however, claimed that Judge Paredes committed an offense worse than that
committed by her mother, in accepting a cash bail bond for the temporary release of an
accused in a criminal case. Thus, she prayed that Judge Paredes be administratively
sanctioned for his actuations.

Judge Paredes denied the accusations. But he admitted saying that Judge Tormis
had a son named Francis who was a drug addict.

Regarding the specific act being complained of, Judge Paredes admitted that he
personally accepted a cash bail bond for the temporary release of an accused. He
claimed though that the approval of the bail bond was in accordance with the law.

Jill claimed that the intention to humiliate her family was evident when Judge
Paredes branded her brother as a “drug addict.”

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Paredes is guilty of conducts unbecoming of a judge.

HELD: Yes, Judge Paredes is guilty of conducts unbecoming of a judge. The New Code
of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to exemplify propriety at
all times. (CANON 4: PROPRIETY). His use of intemperate language during class
discussions was inappropriate. His statements in class, tending to project Judge Tormis
as corrupt and ignorant of the laws and procedure, were obviously and clearly
insensitive and inexcusable.

Moreover, Section 6, Canon 4 of the Code also imposes a correlative restriction

on judges. In the exercise of their freedom of expression, they should always conduct
themselves in a manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office and the
impartiality and independence of the Judiciary. Being a judge, he is expected to act with
greater circumspection and to speak with self-restraint. Verily, Judge Paredes fell short
of this standard.

Judge Paredes also violated Section 4, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct (subjudice rule) which provides that “SEC. 4. xxx Nor shall judges make any
comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
Commenting on the marriage scams, where Judge Tormis was one of the judges
involved, was in contravention of the subjudice rule.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Meinrado P. Paredes, administratively liable

for conduct unbecoming of a judge and ADMONISHES him therefor.
 JOSEFINA M. ONGCUANGCO TRADING CORP. vs. JUDGE RENATO D. PINLAC

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2402; April 15, 2015

FACTS: Complainant Josefina M. Ongcuangco Trading Corporation (JMOTC) averred

that its president Ongcuangco filed a case for violation of B.P. 22 against Yolanda
Lazaro that was raffled to the court of respondent Judge Renato Pinlac. During the
course of the trial, Judge Pinlac approached Ongcuangco requesting the latter to supply
his hog farm with feeds on credit.

Judge Pinlac purchased on credit animal feeds from JMOTC and issued 8 post-
dated checks amounting to P 2,203,400.00. Due to the non-approval of a loan from a
bank, Judge Pinlac was not able to pay for the feeds he ordered from JMOTC. Several
demand letters were sent to Judge Pinlac but such letters went unheeded. JMOTC then
filed a complaint averring that Judge Pinlac should be discharged from the service for
taking advantage of his position, by availing of credit purchases from a litigant who has
cases pending before his sala, and his deliberate failure to pay his debts for almost four
years despite repeated demands.

Judge Pinlac on the other hand claims that he did not personally transact the
purchase on credit of animal feeds from JMOTC or from Ongcuangco. He explained
that his hog farm was managed by Austria. He claimed that he only came to know that
he transacted with JMOTC when the bill for his purchases was delivered to the farm and
a request was made for the issuance of post-dated checks payable to JMOTC.

He further denied having used his office to advance his private interest. He
claimed that when he was appointed to the RTC, the case filed by Ongcuangco against
Lazaro was then still being tried before the MTCC of Cabanatuan City. Judge Pinlac also
alleged that his failure to pay his debt was not willful.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pinlac’s actions constitute a violation of the Code of
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary?

Held: Yes. Judge Pinlac is guilty of impropriety only as to his failure to pay his debt to
JMOTC.

The Court held that the mere inability of a Judge to pay a loan constitutes
impropriety.

There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that respondent judge’s conduct
toward the complainant was oppressive and unbecoming a member of the judiciary. He
used his position and his legal knowledge to welsh on a just debt and to harass his
creditor. His example erodes public faith in the capacity of courts to administer justice.
He violated Rule 2.01, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires
that "a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Renato D. Pinlac is found GUILTY of

IMPROPRIETY and is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00)
and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.
 ATTY. EDDIE U. TAMONDONG vs. JUDGE EMMANUEL P. PASAL

A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, October 18, 2017

FACTS: The heirs of Enrique Abada filed a case for Quieting of Title, among others
against Atty. Tamondong's client, Henmar Development Property Inc.

Subsequently, Henmar, through Atty. Tamondong, filed an Omnibus Motion (Ad

Cautelam) which prayed for, among other reliefs, the dismissal of the complaint which
was denied. Thus Henmar filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was also denied.
Aggrieved, Henmar filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Preliminary Injunction
with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TR0). The case was
presided by Judge Pasal.

Subsequently, Judge Pasal dismissed the Petition for lack of merit. Henmar filed
a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Resolution. However, even after more
than six months, Judge Pasal had yet to resolve the said Motion.

Hence, Atty. Tamondong initiated the instant administrative complaint charging

Judge Pasal with gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pasal is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and/or gross
incompetence.

HELD: Yes. Judge Pasal is guilty on the charge of gross inefficiency and/or gross
neglect of duty.

The Court finds Judge Pasal administratively liable for undue delay in resolving
the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated December 23, 2013 filed by
Atty. Tamondong, on behalf of Henmar. Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary18 mandates that "[j]udges shall perform
all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness."

Judge Pasal issued the Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration only
on June 17, 2014, 113 days or almost four months after the submission of said Motion
for resolution. Notably, Judge Pasal did not offer any explanation at all for the delay. It
is, therefore, undeniable that there was undue delay on Judge Pasal's part in resolving
the Motion for Reconsideration.

However there is no merit in Atty. Tamondong's charge of gross ignorance of the

law and/or gross incompetence against Judge Pasal.

Judge Pasal issued the Resolution dated December 23, 2013 in the exercise of
his adjudicative functions, and any errors he might have committed therein cannot be
corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through
judicial remedies. The issues of jurisdiction being argued by Atty. Tamondong are
judicial matters, which again can only be decided upon through judicial remedies.

WHEREFORE, Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal s found GUILTY for his undue delay
in the resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration for which he is FINED in the
amount of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00).
 ANTONIO S. ASCAÑO, JR., et al vs. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405, January 12, 2015

FACTS: Petitioners accused respondent Judge of having acted with bias and partiality
in favor of Mayor Villarosa for having disallowed 500 witnesses from the courtroom and
for having ordered the lifting of a TRO in favor of the mayor.

Petitioners claimed that during the hearings, respondent “argued, berated,

accused, scolded, confused and admonished petitioners without basis or justification.”
They further claimed that respondent judge asked complainants “confusing and
misleading questions all geared and intended to elicit answers damaging to the cause of
petitioners and favorable to the cause of their adversary.”

Complainants alleged that it is common knowledge to the entire community of

San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, that respondent is beholden to Mayor Villarosa and is
identified with the causes, friends, and allies of the latter. Thus, complainants filed the
instant complaint charging respondent with serious violations of the canons of the
Codes of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics and for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
3019.

ISSUES: Whether or not respondent judge violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct

HELD: YES. When respondent judged raised his voice and uttered abrasive and
unnecessary remarks to petitioners’ witness, respondent failed to conduct himself in
accordance with the mandate of Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which reads: SECTION 6. Judges shall maintain
order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and
courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge
deals in an official capacity. xxx.

Thus, a judge must at all times be temperate in his language. He must choose
his words, written or spoken, with utmost care and sufficient control. The wise and just
man is esteemed for his discernment. Pleasing speech increases his persuasiveness.

This Court likewise finds that respondent violated Section 1 of Canon 2 and
Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary.

Instead of reprimanding Mayor Villarosa for not asking for the court’s permission
to leave while the trial was ongoing, respondent appeared to serve as the former’s
advocate. He did so by declaring in open court that the abrupt exit of the Mayor should
be excused, as the latter had an important appointment to attend. Respondent does not
deny this in his Comment.

The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that
judges must not only maintain their independence, integrity and impartiality.

Considering that this is respondent judge's second infraction already, the Court
finds that the penalties of a fine in the amount of Pl 0,000 and admonition with
warning, as recommended by the investigating justice, are proper under the
circumstances.
 TRINIDAD GAMBOA-ROCES vs. JUDGE RANHEL A. PEREZ

A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887; January 9, 2017

FACTS: Trinidad Gamboa-Roces filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ranhel

A. Perez charging the latter with gross ignorance of the law for his failure to render
judgment on the consolidated ejectment cases within the reglementary period as
prescribed by law.

Complainant claimed that she was one of the plaintiffs of an unlawful detainer
and forcible entry cases. After the mediation proceedings and the Judicial Dispute
Resolution proceedings failed, it was referred back to the MCTC for trial. As a new
judge was soon to be assigned in the MCTC, the preliminary conference was reset.

Complainant stated that when Judge Perez was appointed and assumed office,
her counsel filed two (2) separate motions for his inhibition in the two cases on the
ground that she was previously involved in a legal confrontation with Judge Perez
himself when he was representing his parents. Her motions, however, were denied.

After the preliminary conference for the two cases was held, the parties were
then required to file their respective position papers. Thereafter, Judge Perez issued the
Order submitting the cases for resolution. With this, complainant claimed that despite
the lapse of more than ten (10) months, Judge Perez failed to decide the cases in
violation of the 30-day reglementary period within which to decide an ejectment case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Respondent Judge is guilty of undue delay of rendering a
decision within the reglementary period as prescribed by law.

HELD: Yes, the Respondent Judge is guilty of undue delay of rendering a decision
within the reglementary period as prescribed by law. In complaints for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer as in this case, the Rules on Summary Procedure specifically
requires that the complaint be resolved within thirty (30) days. Failure to decide even a
single case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency. Moreover,
Sections 2 and 5 of Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct enjoin the
judges to devote their professional activity to judicial duties and to perform them,
including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
promptness.

The explanation given by Judge Perez of his being inexperienced as a newly

appointed judge was too flimsy. The excuses only show his lack of diligence in
discharging administrative responsibilities and professional competence in court
management wherein a judge is expected to keep his own listing of cases and to note
therein the status of each case so that they may be acted upon accordingly and without
delay and must adopt a system of record management and organize his docket in order
to monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective dispatch of business.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge Ranhel A. Perez GUILTY of undue

delay in rendering a decision, the Court hereby orders him to pay a FINE in the amount
of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000.00), with STERN WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.