9. Re: Anonymous Complaints against Hon. Dinah Evangeline B.

Bandong, former
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Lucena City, Quezon Province. A.M. No.
RTJ-17-2507 (formerly OCA IP I No. 14-4329-RT), October 9, 2017

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Bandong to have exhibited conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service and violated Sections 1 and 2, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which
mandate a judge's strict devotion to judicial duties?

RATIO DECIDENDI :
Yes.
1. The Court agrees with the OCA that Judge Bandong violated Sections 1 and 2, Canon 6 of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
2. The court has stressed time and again that "decision-making is the primordial xx x duty of a member
of the [bench].''No other [task] can be more important than decision-making xx x."In the case of trial
courts, the conduct of hearings is unquestionably an important component of their decision-making
process and, conversely, all other official tasks must give way thereto. Hence, for a judge to allow an
activity, and an unofficial one at that, to take precedence over the conduct of hearings is totally
unacceptable. It is a patent derogation of Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 6 and a blatant disregard of the
professional yardstick that "all judicial [officials and] employees must devote their official time to
government service.
3. Judge Bandong's habit of watching television during office hours violates Section 7 of the same Canon
6 which requires Judges "not to engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial
duties." Watching telenovelas surely dissipates away Judge Bandong's precious time in the office,
which, needless to say, has an adverse effect on the prompt administration of justice. Such activity is
by all means counter-productive to the due performance of judicial duties.
4. Court finds Judge Bandong guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. "Conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of [the] service x x x pertains to any conduct that is detrimental or
derogatory or naturally or probably bringing about a wrong result; it refers to acts or omissions that
violate the norm of public accountability and diminish -or tend to diminish -the people's faith in the
Judiciary."As correctly stated by OCA, Judge Bandong's "audacity to delay -and even interrupt -court
trials and hearings just to satisfy her obsession for soap operas [is w ]ithout a doubt [a] reprehensible
conduct [which] lowers the people's respect for the judiciary.
5. Judge Bandong had already violated A.M. No. 01-10-05-SC-PHILJA. Judge Bandong entrusted the
settlement of the case to Parfan, a Court Stenographer, who obviously was not a qualified, trained, or
an accredited mediator. Mediation of cases can only be done by individuals who possess the basic
qualifications for the position, have undergone relevant trainings, seminars-workshops, and internship
programs and were duly accredited by the court as mediators.
6. The misconduct committed by Judge Bandong was grave since the circumstances obtaining
established her flagrant disregard of the rules on referral of cases for mediation. Judge Bandong
committed a patent deviation from the rules when she wrongfully referred a non-mediatable case to
her staff, a court stenographer, who was not an accredited mediator. This was despite the expectation
that as a member of the bench, she not only knows the rules and regulations promulgated by this Court
but also faithfully complies with it. Indeed, Judge Bandong is guilty of grave misconduct.
7. Judge Bandong violated Supreme Court circulars, rules and directives when she delegated to Atienza
the duties of F ebrer as Clerk III. As explained by the OCA, the duties of a Clerk III are not directly
related to and significantly vary from those of a Process Server.
8. A judge's "high and exalted position in the Judiciary requires [her] to observe exacting standards of x
x x decency and competence. As the visible representation of the law and given [her] task of
dispensing justice, a judge should conduct [herself] at all times in a manner that would merit the respect
and confidence of the people.
9. Retired Judge Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong, formerly of Branch 59, Regional Trial Court, Lucena City,
Quezon is GUILTY of Gross Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and
Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives and Circulars for which she is imposed a FINE of
P40,000.00 to be deducted from whatever retirement pay and other benefits which may be due her.
8. A.M. No. mtj-18-1911

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant

vs
WALTER INOCENCIO V. ARREZA, Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Pitogo, Quezon, Respondent

Here, Judge Arreza himself admitted his inefficiency. While he attributed this to domestic and health
issues, suffice it to say that said reasons, even if found acceptable, cannot excuse him but, at most,
can only mitigate his liability. Unfortunately for him, the Court shares the OCA's observation that the
problems alluded to by Judge Arreza happened years before the judicial audit was conducted in 2016.
If he was really inclined to dispose of the backlog caused by his domestic and health problems, he
should have immediately done so. Note that his separation from his wife happened way back in 2010
and his stroke in 2012. To the mind of the Court, Judge Arreza had more than enough time to catch
up before the conduct of the judicial audit in 2016 especially considering that his sala has a
manageable case load due to the low average of case inflow which was only one case a month.
Moreover, the Court notes that, with respect to the cases already submitted for decision but not
decided within the prescribed period, Judge Arreza failed to ask for extension to decide the same. It
has been previously held that "[i]n case of poor health, the Judge concerned needs only to ask this
Court for an extension of time to decide cases, as soon as it becomes clear to him that there would
be delay in the disposition of his cases."16 To stress, Judge Arreza never bothered to ask the Court for
an extension after he suffered a stroke. In fact, even before his stroke, there were already cases which
were overdue for decision for which no motions for extension were made. Anent the cases with
protracted proceedings, the Court shares the observation of the OCA that there was no reason for
them to undergo a long-drawn-out trial considering that there were only 12 cases supposedly in active
trial.

Given the foregoing, it is not difficult to see that the delay in Judge Arreza's disposition of cases was
the product of his apathy. This becomes even more apparent in light of the fact that Judge Arreza was
able to dispose of all the 23 cases overdue for decision within three (3) months and act on the other
cases after his attention was called by the OCA. Indeed, and as correctly observed by the OCA, Judge
Arreza has the capability but simply chose not to act on the subject cases. 17

Again, it bears to stress that "[a] judge's foremost consideration is the administration of
justice."18 Judges must "decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that
justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful,
punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes
the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into
disrepute."19

As "delay in the disposition of cases is tantamount to gross inefficiency on the part of a judge", 20 the
OCA correctly found Judge Arreza guilty of gross inefficiency for his undue delay in rendering
decisions and failure to act on cases with dispatch. Under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court,
the same is punishable by (1) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less
than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (2) a fine of more than ₱10,000.00 but not exceeding
₱20,000.00. Considering that this is Judge Arreza's first offense, the imposition of fine in the amount
of ₱15,000.00 is in order.

WHEREFORE, Judge Walter Inocencio V. Arreza is hereby found GUILTY of Gross Inefficiency for
his undue delay in rendering decisions and failure to act on cases with dispatch. He is ordered to pay
a FINE of ₱15,000.00 and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act or omission
will be dealt with more severely.
 7. A.M. No. RTJ-05-1920 April 26, 2006
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1141-RTJ) CONCERNED TRIAL LAWYERS OF MANILA, Complainant,
vs JUDGE LORENZO B. VENERACION, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 47, Respondent.
Contrary to complainant’s various allegations of harassment, we find that respondent judge observed
Section 1 of Canon 5: SECTION 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and
differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race, color, sex, religion...

The letters from a number of litigants, attached to the records of this case, belie the claim that respondent
judge inappropriately expressed his beliefs and convictions to the point of harassing or embarrassing
litigants and counsels in his court. We cannot ignore the sincere words of appreciation in the numerous
letters that have been sent to respondent judge, all alluding to his practice of reading verses from the Bible.

The outpouring of kind words cannot be mere exaggeration. They were sincerely extended by persons
previously lost but who had since found their way in life through respondent judge’s guidance.

Aside from that, there was no compulsion involved whenever respondent judge questioned litigants as to
whether they read the Bible or not. He did not impose his religious convictions on them but merely
suggested the benefits of reading the Bible.

Surely, this practice alone was not sufficient to hold respondent judge guilty of misconduct. His judicial
functions, duties and responsibilities were not impaired by his religious beliefs and convictions.

As to respondent judge’s alleged tardiness, complainant failed to adduce evidence in support thereof. We
cannot therefore impute the delay in the disposition of his cases to his unconfirmed tardiness. Besides,
respondent judge adequately explained the reasons for the delay in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1623.

With respect to the charge of gross inefficiency, we find that respondent judge failed to decide certain cases
within the three-month period mandated by Section 15(1) 22, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Time and again, we have emphasized that a judge should dispose of the court’s business promptly and
decide cases within the prescribed periods.23 Any delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s
faith and confidence in the judiciary.

While serious illness may justify the inability of the respondent judge to perform his official duties and
functions, nevertheless, it is incumbent upon him to request the Honorable Court, thru this Office for
additional time within which to decide/resolve cases which he could not seasonably act upon. Further, a
heavy caseload may excuse the respondent judge’s failure to decide/resolve cases within the reglementary
period, but not his failure to request for extension of time within which to decide/resolve the same. xxx

It is not uncommon for this Court, upon proper application and in meritorious cases, to grant judges of lower
courts additional time to decide cases beyond the three-month period. All that a judge should do, in cases
of great difficulty, is to request an extension of time. To this, the Court has, almost invariably, been
sympathetic.29 Respondent judge fell short of expectations in this regard.

Considering that respondent judge has already retired after suffering a stroke, we impose upon him a fine
of P11,000, to be deducted from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
(1) DISMISSING for lack of merit the charge of misconduct and tardiness against Judge Lorenzo
B. Veneracion in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1920; and
(2) Finding Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion LIABLE for gross inefficiency in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1623
for which he is hereby FINED P11,000 to be deducted from the amount withheld from his retirement
benefits.
SO ORDERED.
6. A.M. No. RTJ-10-2242 August 6, 2010
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3149-RTJ]

ATTY. RAUL L. CORREA, Complainant,

vs.
JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, CALAMBA
CITY, LAGUNA, Respondent.

NACHURA, J.:

Before us is a Verified-Complaint dated February 20, 2009 filed by complainant Atty. Raul L. Correa
charging respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City,
Laguna of Misconduct.

Based on its evaluation, the OCA recommended that (a) the administrative case against respondent Judge
Belen be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (b) respondent Judge Belen be fined in the
amount of ₱10,000.00 for conduct unbecoming of a judge, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

The findings and the recommendations of the OCA are well taken and, thus, should be upheld.

Indeed, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary exhorts members of the judiciary, in
the discharge of their duties, to be models of propriety at all times. Canon 4 mandates –

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. SEC.
6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,

The Code also calls upon judges to ensure equality of treatment to all before the courts. More specifically,
Section 3, Canon 5 on Equality provides – SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate
consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues,
without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.

We join the OCA in noting that the incidents narrated by complainant were never denied by respondent
Judge Belen, who merely offered his justification and asserted counter accusations against complainant.

Verily, we hold that respondent Judge Belen should be more circumspect in his language in the discharge
of his duties. A judge is the visible representation of the law. Thus, he must behave, at all times, in such a
manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can withstand the most searching public scrutiny. The ethical
principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the people’s faith in the
judicial system.2

A judge must consistently be temperate in words and in actions. Respondent Judge Belen’s insulting
statements, tending to project complainant’s ignorance of the laws and procedure, coming from his
inconsiderate belief that the latter mishandled the cause of his client is obviously and clearly insensitive,
distasteful, and inexcusable. Such abuse of power and authority could only invite disrespect from counsels
and from the public. Patience is one virtue that members of the bench should practice at all times, and
courtesy to everyone is always called for.1av

WHEREFORE, we find Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Calamba City, Branch 36, GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, and FINE him ₱10,000.00, with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
5. G.R. No. 175999 July 1, 2015

NELSON LAI y BILBAO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

BERSAMIN, J.:

The accused assails the affirmance of his conviction for homicide through the assailed decision
promulgated on May 27, 2005 by the Court of Appeals (CA).1 The conviction had been handed down
by Judge Fernando R. Elumba of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, in Bacolod City (RTC) in
Criminal Case No. 17446 entitled People of the Philippines v. Nelson Lai y Bilbao. 2

Under the circumstances, Judge Elumba, despite his protestations to the contrary, could not be
expected to render impartial, independent and objective judgment on the criminal case of the
petitioner. His non-disqualification resulted in the denial of the petitioner's right to due process as the
accused. To restore the right to the petitioner, the proceedings held against him before Judge Elumba
and his ensuing conviction have to be nullified and set aside, and Criminal Case No. 17446 should be
remanded to the R TC for a partial new trial to remove any of the prejudicial consequences of the
violation of the right to due process. The case shall be raffled to a Judge who is not otherwise
disqualified like Judge Elumba under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. For, as we said in
Pimentel v. Salanga:30

This is not to say that all avenues of relief are closed to a party properly aggrieved. If a litigant is denied
a fair and impartial trial, induced by the judge's bias or prejudice, we will not hesitate to order a new
trial, if necessary, in the interest of justice. Such was the view taken by this Court in Dais vs. Torres,
57 Phil. 897, 902-904. In that case, we found that the filing of charges by a party against a judge
generated 'resentment' or the judge's part that led to his "bias or prejudice, which is reflected in the
decision." We there discoursed on the 'principle of impartiality, disinterestedness, and fairness on the
part of the judge' which 'is as old as the history of courts.' We followed this with the pronouncement
that, upon the circumstances obtaining, we did not feel assured that the trial judge's finding were not
influenced by bias or prejudice. Accordingly, we set

aside the judgment and directed a new trial. 31

WHEREFORE, the Court ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on May 27, 2005 by
the Court of Appeals and the judgment rendered on August 22, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court;
REMANDS Criminal Case No. 17446 entitled People of the Philippines v. Nelson Lai y Bilbao to the
Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City with instructions to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court to assign it to any Regional Trial Judge not disqualified under Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules
of Court; and INSTRUCTS the new trial judge to resume the trial in Criminal Case No. 17446 starting
from the stage just prior to the assumption of Judge Fernando R. Elumba as the trial judge, and to
hear and decide Criminal Case No. 17446 with reasonable dispatch.