Hernandez, Danica

JD1-A (Legal Ethics)

Assignment No. 9

Criselda C. Gacad, vs. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr

Facts:
Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Judge Clapis for
grave misconduct, corrupt practices, grave abuse of discretion, gross
ignorance of the law and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Respondent was the judge of a criminal case involving the petitioner
against a man who gunned down her brother. Gacad claimed that she paid
the judge an amount of Php50,000.00 to deny a motion for reinvestigation
of the accused through the aid of a Prosecutor Arafol. The petitioner
claimed that they met with the respondent and Arafol at a hotel to which
she was influenced to pay by Arafol.
Petitioner claimed that Clapis Jr., said in his words, “Okay, leave it all
to me, we shall crush them,” pertaining to the request of Arafol to deny
defense’s motion. Subsequently, she then allegedly gave the money to her
family driver who testified on her behalf, to give the said money to Arafol.
Later on, Arafol handed the money to Clapis Jr. After such payment, the
respondent Judge denied the motion submitted by the defense. However,
Clapis Jr., through Arafol, allegedly demanded more money by a BPI bank
account. Arafol, as said by the petitioner, said that Clapis Jr. needed
another Php50,000.00 for the latter’s mother’s illness to which the
petitioner declined.
After this, petitioner claimed that respondent have made it difficult
for her, to which he set hearing for bail and granted bail despite there
were no motion for bail petitioned, not until 2 months after the hearings.
Respondent allegedly set those hearings without giving the prosecution a
chance for presenting evidence against accused by scheduling hearings on
three consecutive dates, knowing that the prosecutor Arafol have inhibited
himself from the case, leaving her having no counsel to represent her.
OCA required respondent to comment, to which the respondent did
and denied the allegations to him by the petitioner, but with no
attachments to prove his contentions reasoning of time constraints. Case
was then referred to the executive justice of the Court of Appeals as per
recommendation of OCA. After the investigation of the Investigating
Justice, she averred that petitioner’s claim of paying Clapis money is most
unlikely and that it is a mere hearsay, allegedly it was Arafol who kept the
money and sullied his friend, the respondent’s name.
Furthermore, the Investigating Justice found out that it is in fact
truthful, the statement of the petitioner that she met with the respondent
during the pendency of the case under the latter’s sala and respondent had
indeed been ignorant of the law by not following court procedures.
Investigating Justice then recommends penalties against respondents
comprising of suspension for six months and fine of P 20,000.00 for gross
ignorance and misconduct.
OCA agreed with the findings however, disregarded the
recommended penalties. OCA recommended six-month suspension and P
40,000.00 fine for gross ignorance and misconduct and violations on Code
of Judicial Conduct.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent have been ignorant of the law,
committed misconduct and violated Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:
Yes. Jurisprudence clearly instructs that “in cases where (the) grant
of bail is discretionary, due process requires that the Prosecution must be
given the opportunity to present within a reasonable period all the
evidence it may desire to produce before the court should resolve the
Motion for Bail.” Assuming he knew these, he then brazenly disregard court
procedures and conducted hearings for bail even though there is no motion
for bail submitted yet. Also, it is evident that prosecution wasn’t given
enough time because of the petitioner is not informed as well as by the
time of these hearings was calendared, the prosecutor inhibited himself
from the case, thus leaving complainant without counsel. It was only in the
third hearing that she had found a counsel. This complete disregard of the
process is a firm evidence that the Judge misused the power vested in him,
by conducting hearings and granting bail basing only on his discretion not
adhered to due process of law.
It was evident though that even he cleared on the accusation of
corruption, such meeting with a party that has a pending case in your sala
is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 2, Section 1 states
that judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but
that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer as well as
Section 2 states that the behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the
people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done. His presence at the same table as
the complainant on a case pending in his sala may have affected common
eyes that may have saw them to have lower perception of justice. Canon 3,
Section 2 enunciates that “Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct,
both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the
public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and
the judiciary,” as well as Section 4 states that “Judges shall not knowingly,
while a proceeding is before, or could come before them, make any
comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such
proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process…” He violated
this by promising to help the complainants by boldly uttering “Okay, leave
it all to me, we shall crush them.” Canon 4, Section 1 provides, “Judges
shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.” The judge being evidently defiant of the code’s above shown
impropriety unbecoming of the exacting standards expected of a judge
implementing justice.
 When the judge himself violates of any law which he is sworn to
apply, he shows public that the law could be disregarded in the right
circumstances impairs public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount that a judge’s personal
behavior both in the performance of his duties and in his daily life, be free
from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.
Court found the respondent guilty and have been dismissed from the
service for Gross Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law, with
forfeiture of all benefits due him, except accrued leave credits, and
disqualification from appointment to any public office including
government-owned or -controlled corporations.
ROMEO T. ZACARIAS, complainant, vs. Judge MARTONINO R.
MARCOS, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tarlac City; and
SHIRLEY M. VISAYA, Clerk of Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Gerona,
Tarlac, respondents.

Facts:
A complaint was filed by a Romeo Zacarias and a same anonymous
complaint against the respondents for illegal solicitation from litigants and
immoral conduct.
The complaint of Zacarias was referred by OCA to Executive Judge
Adriano for investigation. Likewise, the anonymous complaint was referred
to the same person. The two administrative complaints were consolidated
upon respondent’s motion. The respondent judge however upon
appointment to RTC required the investigation to CA, then referred to
Associate Judge Salonga.
The complainant herein is the accused in a case then pending to the
respondent judge’s sala and claimed that the respondents extorted money
amounting P 1000.00 from him after he was summoned by them to the
judge’s chambers. He said the money sought is a bribe for the reversal of
the decision against him. After the issuance of the warrant of arrest against
the complainant, the clerk allegedly asked him to post a cash bond in the
amount of P 1000.00 for his provisional liberty despite the fact that he was
arrested to serve his sentence. Confused, he then posted a fine and an
order of release signed by the respondent judge was issued in his favor.
The clerk allegedly asked for another payment, to which he declined. Then
according to him, after being able to secure the cash bond initially
requested, he still have served his time in jail. He also claimed that the
respondents are in an illicit relationship to which is immoral in a judiciary
office.
 In respondent judge’s comments, he contended that the complaint
was filed with intention to harass him and that it lacks merit. Respondent
denied that he ever demanded money from him. He said that the payment
was voluntarily paid by the complainant for his provisionary liberty after
applying for probation and that he mistakenly took the cash bond and
damages as bribe to him. Respondent Judge claimed to be ‘too busy’ to
indulge himself in an illicit relationship as he denies the allegations. To
prove his innocence, he presented Warrant of Arrest against complainant,
the Release Order, the Legal Fees Form showing the posting of the cash
bond and the undertaking, the Order ordering the release of the cash bond
to complainant; and the Receipt for the latter's P1,000 payment for
damages.
In respondent clerk’s comments, she too, denied the allegations of
extorting money from herein complainant. However, she affirmed having
requiring the petitioner to file a cash bond for his provisional liberty. As
evidence, she presented a certified true copy of the Official Receipt that
she had issued to complainant for the cash bond posted by the
complainant.
According to the investigation however, there were no records
supporting that the complainant applied for probation hence the posting of
cash bond is unnecessary and it was not stated in the undertaking that the
cash bond is for petitioner’s non-existent action for probation, and that
despite posting and release order, petitioner still fully served his sentence.
There is also inconsistencies in testimonies of the respondents, one
saying that the petitioner voluntarily posted bond and the other admitting
to requiring him without the consent of the other. The clerk however, said
that the cash bond goes to Judiciary Development Fund, instead of
Fiduciary Fund, someone who have been on service for 27 years shouldn’t
be mistaken of.
Finding no evidence of the illicit relationship between the two, the
investigating justice dismissed the allegations on immorality. However, she
recommended that respondents be penalized with severe reprimand and
suspension from office for a period of one month for grave misconduct.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents committed grave misconduct.
Ruling:
Yes, Canon 1 and Canon 2 of Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that
a magistrate “should uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary” and "should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all activities"
The respondents are administratively liable for their misconduct. The
Judge’s claims that the respondent have been released after posting a cash
have been false due to non-existence of the said Commitment Order he
released to the possession of the Warden. The Certification held by the
petitioner of serving fully his sentence adds to the falsity of the
respondent’s defense. For one to apply for a release and return voluntarily
to custody without valid reason seems illogical. Cash bond was not even
required because there is no evidence that petitioner applied for probation,
giving credibility to petitioner’s claims that he is beleaguered as to why he
was required to post such.
The respondent clerk however, in issuing a cash bond on her own
accord constitutes to grave misconduct. Without the judge’s knowledge,
she acted on herself as person of judicial power, which is not included in
her description of duties and shouldn’t be included ever.
However, despite misconducts committed by them proven, there is
no evidence supporting petitioner’s claim for extortion. Respondent judge
failed to execute in good faith the maintenance of court’s integrity and
appeared to have manifested impropriety and incompetence in
performance of his duties conjugated in relation to this case and in doing
such falls below the line of standard character a visible representation of
the court shall abide. In doing so, he constituted to the erosion of public
confidence towards justice. As for the clerk, she committed to a grave
offense of giving herself judicial power, a privilege given only to
magistrates and in doing so stirred the calm regularity of the court thus
creating impurity and affected public confidence towards the same. Thus, a
clear manifestation of misconduct.
Judge Martonino R. Marcos is hereby found guilty of violating the Code of
Judicial Conduct and is suspended without pay for four months. Clerk of
Court Shirley M. Visaya, on the other hand, is found guilty of simple
misconduct as well as inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties, for which she is suspended without pay for six months and
one day. Both are sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
RURAL BANK OF BAROTAC NUEVO, INC., complainant,
vs.
SERGIO CARTAGENA, Municipal Judge of Dumangas,
Iloilo, respondents.

Facts:
Respondent applied for agricultural loan amounting to P 300.00 with
the complainant, to which the latter is granted and produced a promisory
note in favor of the bank and a chattel mortgage of 90 piculs of sugar
quedan for his production 1.5 hectares of sugar plantation. Respondent
allegedly failed to settle loan despite the incessant demands of the
petitioner. The complainant after the unavailability of the respondent to
pay his obligations to them, filed an administrative case for dishonesty and
irresponsibility for failure of posting P 619.87 as interest of his obligations
to the bank.
In respondent’s comments, he alleged that before this case was filed
he offered to pay his obligation in two months’ time, but unfortunately the
counsel of the bank demanded a one full pay. However, subsequent to
filing this case, he showed in evidence a receipt of payment of P 200.00 as
partial payment to his loans and after a year informed the court that he
had already settled payment arrangement with the bank. Subsequently, he
presented to the court receipts of full payment of his obligations to the
bank. He manifested that the delay was not intentional but due to a
misunderstanding with the previous manager of the bank.
The complaint was dismissed for being moot and academic.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct
by being involved in such a case.
Ruling:
Yes, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial conduct states that a judge
should avoid impropriety in all activities. This however, is not explicitly
relayed for a judge’s professional standing but should be applied to him as
a whole including his personal life. A judge, acting as flesh and bones of
the court, shall embody its ideal and lectures on preserving candor,
integrity and upright social and moral actions and image. Though, the
complaint arose from a misunderstanding and not an intention of the
judge, simply saying he is not doing anything wrong, it is not sufficient for
him to be classified a man of integrity. A judge should not only do things in
his capacity governed by what is correct but should also be seen by the
public doing such. A smudge on a character of a judge would encourage
public scrutiny to his personal image, and being the embodiment of the
court, will bring the smudge to the court therein, thus promoting lack of
confidence of the public to the court and to justice.
A judge’s failure to express competence to his personal affairs also
violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires such
judge of being the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence. Thus, giving opportunity to a malicious public eye to use
this as an evidence of possible accusations of him being incompetence in
the practice of judicial prowess vested to him by the judiciary.
This administrative complaint, having become moot and academic, is
hereby dismissed with the admonition that a repetition of the same act will
be dealt with accordingly.
FLORENDA V. TOBIAS, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Presiding Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental, Respondent.

Facts:
Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent on
grounds of corruption. According to her, her sister Lorna Vollmer went to
inquire to the court for an ejectment case. Vollmer allegedly met the Court
Stenographer, Salvacion Fegidero who informed her about ‘package deals’
being offered by the Judge. The ‘package deal’ said to be offered can be
availed for P 30,000.00 with a down of P 10,000.00 and partial payments
as the proceedings goes on. It allegedly includes, personal choice of the
respondent, a lawyer to counsel them and a favorable decision planned by
him and the counsel. According to Tobias, she gave her sister Vollmer the
initial amount of P 10,000.00 and it was paid to an Atty. Robert G. Juanillo.
Complainant said, that the respondent upon instatement of Juanillo as their
counsel immediately requested for another P 10,000.00 to which she did
not acceded to. She asked her sister to request Atty. Juanillo to voluntary
withdraw as counsel and withdraw the case filed. The said withdrawals was
granted by herein respondent.
In the investigation, the complainant aver that it was her sister who
met with the alleged involved persons offering ‘package deals.’ Figedero
have denied offering Vollmer such package deals as well as Atty. Juanillo to
be involved in this. However, respondent despite denying to be offering
package deals have affirmed that he met with Vollmer in his chamber
before Vollmer filed the ejectment case. The latter according to respondent
sought advice from him, to which he gave advice and referred Atty.
Juanillo as counsel because he is the nearest on their town and shall put
Vollmer into a less costly appearance fees. Respondent also admitted to
have prepared the Motion to Withdraw for Juanillo, with the request of
Vollmer as to her words ‘urgent’ and him seeing it as a harmless help, did it
without charging payment to Vollmer. The complainant said that it was her
sister who paid the money to Atty. Juanillo and she never saw Atty. Juanillo
before. Atty. Juanillo confirmed that Vollmer paid her P 10,000.00 but not
as down payment for ‘package deal’ but as attorney’s fees including filing
fees and his legal service fees. He further denied asking Vollmer for
another P 10,000.00. Complainant further stated that her sister informed
all these to her through phone calls only and that her sister is absent in
this investigation because she is in Germany, bound to return by the end of
the year.
OCA recommends, that the charges for corruption be dropped
because of failure of the complainant to prove the existence of these
‘package deals.’ However, she then recommended the case be re-docketed
as a regular administrative case and that the respondent was found guilty
of gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct and be fined in the amount of P20,000.00.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent was to be held administratively liable for
constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct

Ruling:
Yes. Section 1 of Canon 2 states that judges shall ensure that not
only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the
view of a reasonable observer. It is imperative that what good they are
doing are to be seen by the public and on the other hand, they shouldn’t
do things that would place them in scrutinize-worthy position. Section 2 of
Canon 3, provides that judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in
and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the
legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary. Thus, a judge shouldn’t ever be seen giving advice or counsel to
a prospective litigant to his sala, for this will birth and arise questions to
the integrity of what judgement may he deem in the future of the case,
especially if it will be in favor of the litigant. Canon 4, Section 1 enunciates
that judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
of their activities. The judge, by giving advice to a prospective litigant to
his sala, recommending her an attorney and processing a withdrawal
motion to be litigated in his court, thus relegates propriety expected to a
magistrate.
The acts of respondent constitute grave misconduct, in a sense
attributed to the definition of the word in jurisprudence, that a misconduct
is an error not pertaining to human mistakes done in good faith, but to
mistakes done with intent, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.
As per Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, court deemed
respondent deserving of a punishment for being guilty of gross misconduct,
a fine of P 25,000.00 directed to deduct the fine from judge’s retirement
benefits.
RE: SUSPENSION OF CLERK OF COURT ROGELIO R. JOBOCO, RTC,
BRANCH 16 NAVAL, BILIRAN

Facts:
A series of complaints and counter complaints between Judge
Bonifacio S. Maceda, then Acting Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Br. 16, Naval, Biliran and Atty. Rogelio R. Joboco, then Branch Clerk
of Court of the same Regional Trial Court was filed by each against the
other.
Judge Maceda charges Atty. Joboco of Infidelity in the Custody of Case
Records, for having misplaced the court records. In Jocobo’s defense, the
Judge and the stenographer has access too, to these and he cannot be
accounted solely liable. He contended that such suspension was against Art
8. Section 6 of the constitution which states “the Supreme Court shall have
administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.” He
was also charged for Dishonesty when accordingly, he failed to inform the
accused on a chance meeting of a hearing for which the accused failed
attended to resulting for him to be issued a warrant of arrest. In Jocobo’s
comments, he said that he already sent notices and it was evident that
both parties have properly received such information. He was subsequently
charged with Sabotaging Judicial Reforms when he erred in orderly
approval of property bonds which resulted in Judge Maceda’s approval of
irregular bail applications. In his defense, his knowledge is that the accused
have already completed the requirements he gave him before bringing him
to the Judge’s Sala. Grave Misconduct, Usurpation of Judicial Authority,
Tampering of Subpoena was also filed by the Judge against him for adding
inscriptions to a subpoena canceling other schedules of hearing as ordered
by former judge of the RTC despite Judge Maceda was already the
Presiding Judge upon said action of Jocobo. Insubordination was filed
against him for his noncompliance to Judge’s directive to return documents
and exhibits to the designated officer-in-charge of the office of the clerk of
court. Falsification of Accomplishment of Certificate of Service due to his
non-declaring of his half-day absence to which he contended that was a
mistake and is corrected by a second Certificate of Service, and lastly, he
was also charged for Agitating Workers to go on Mass Leave and Notorious
Undesirability, to which he denied, too.
On the other hand, as counter complaints, he charged the judge of
Oppression and Continuing Oppression based on suspensions ordered by
the judge against Jocobo. Judge Contended that he may erroneously
ordered second suspension but it was to his good faith. He also filed for
against the judge Gross Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Position, Gross
Abuse of Discretion Using his Position, in connection with suspension
orders he alleged were ordered despite lack of factual and legal basis and
Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge associated to Judge’s closeness with the
Governor. He contended that the judge allegedly is using the vehicle and
leased house of the latter, to which do not give a good image of the
independence of the RTC and the judiciary in general. However, Judge
Maceda contented that it is within bounds of law that he be given benefits
by the government in performance of his duties as a judge. He also
demanded to court request for the release of his salary covering his
attendance for the period covering August 1993 to January 1994. Judge
Maceda's refusal to sign his certificates of service is on the ground that the
entries therein could not be confirmed by the judge. In his contention,
Judge Maceda could not certify attendance for lack of sufficient knowledge
since from August 1-7, 1993 he was not yet detailed at RTC Naval on that
time yet.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent and petitioner be held liable to
charges against them.
Ruling:
The clerk has been found guilty in most of the charges against him.
Reasoning that he’s not the only one who views the records and may have
misplaced it cannot exonerate him from being liable. It was his sole duty to
care for court records as per described in his job description and relying to
others on securing their whereabouts is a clear poor performance of his
duties. He was also found guilty of Sabotaging Judicial reforms, for he
followed the directives of a long-gone Judge in adding inscriptions to a
subpoena and not sought for the sentiments of the current presiding judge
of the court. The said tampering caused confusion to the litigants. By doing
so in his sole discretion, he vested judiciary prowess to himself. He was
also found guilty on his falsification of Certificates of Service not reflecting
his half-day absence. Though he corrected the certificate through a second
one, it was not until the judge ordered him so and clearly the cause of
complaint was the falsification in the first one. He is also found guilty in the
encouragement of the court employees to boycott service for the ends of
the local IBP, and some AWOL. All the other charges against him was
dismissed due to lack of merit.
On the other hand, all of the respondent’s counter complaint to
Judge Maceda was dismissed due to lack of merit. He did not commit
oppression and a violation to Article 8, section 6 of the constitution. Such
disciplinary acts of the judge against the respondent are within the bounds
of his power as provided by the Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 3.10 which
states,” A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures
against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct which the
judge may become aware of.” To be considered oppressive, an act should
amount to cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use
of authority.
However, it has to be noted that Judge’s unwarranted refusal to sign
the certificates of service of his Clerk of Court constitutes abuse of
authority resulting to the latter to not receive his salary. The missing
sought for records of attendance of the respondent is not the his fault,
because the first few months of the missing attendance was when he was
still not the judge of the court, and the latter part of attendance was
missing due to the respondent was assigned by him to an office too far
from Capitol Building to which employees log attendances.  It would be an
undue burden to any court employee, to be required to report to two
places thrice every day, given the distance they have to travel.
 The inclination to impose the penalty of suspension for the
respondent is impracticable due to his subsequent appointment as 3rd
Assistant City Prosecutor. Still, respondent’s transgressions clearly reflect
his defiant demeanor and contumacious character which cannot be
countenanced in the judiciary. For all the violations of the respondent, he is
fined in the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos.
The charges against Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda are dismissed for
lack of merit. However, he is reprimanded for grave abuse of his authority
by unjustly refusing to sign the certificates of service of his Clerk of Court
which resulted in the withholding of the latter's salary. 
EUGENIO K. CHAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON,
Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 23, respondent.

Facts:
Complainant and some anonymous ‘concerned citizen,’ filed similar
administrative cases against respondent, Former Judge Jose S. Majaducon.
The grounds claimed by the complaint are that the judge does not wear his
black robe during hearings, that he starts his hearings late, he entertains
lawyers and litigants in his sala in the absence of the opposing party,
continued to hear cases despite evident impartiality, that he is a subject of
the adverse writings in newspapers ad that he does not prepare nor read
the cases before hearings but reads them during only.
The respondent in his comments on the complaint reasoned health
problems for his non-compliance on wearing the black robe as advised by
his doctor and promised to wear it again once his health recovered. On the
allegations of entertaining counsels and litigants inside his chambers
without the presence of the opposing party, he said that he did so in good
faith however, he claims that he never discusses with his visitors the merits
of their cases and that he has never been “influenced” by them. However
he refuted being intentionally late on his hearings and if so he did, it is
because of some equally pressing issues. On him studying the cases during
his hearings he states that this is necessary, as he cannot memorize all the
details of cases, especially the voluminous ones that he had inherited from
the previous judge. Respondent claims that complainant, who had sought
his inhibition from a case may have wanted to get back at him for his
refusal to inhibit himself.
Subsequently, complainant withdrew the complaint after realizing
that the respondent is only rightly doing his job. Some months later, judge
informed the Court that he is again wearing his robe due to normalized
health conditions. He reiterated the non-compliance is attributed to his
health conditions. The judge on the pendency of the case retired from his
position.
 By the result of OCA’s investigation, respondent is found to have
violated Circular No. 25 for not wearing his robe, but the fact that he had
been suffering from hypertension shall be taken in his favor. He is also
found to have violated Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for his act
of allowing in-chamber sessions without the presence of the other party
and his counsel. However, all the other allegations against him is dismissed
due to lack of merit. The OCA recommends that respondent judge be fined
P5,000.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Circular No. 25 and Code of
Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:
Yes. Circular No. 25 states that “…in order to heighten public
consciousness on the solemnity of judicial proceedings, it is hereby directed
… all Presiding Judges of all Trial Courts shall wear black robes during
sessions of their respective Courts.” Even though the judge’s reason behind
the non-compliance is valid and is in his favor it doesn’t mean he is
exculpated from violating the circular. He should’ve at requested
permission from the court to excuse himself from the circular. He cannot
simply excuse himself from such requirement. His resuming of use of the
robe after normalized health conditions and the withdrawal of the
complaint does not exculpate him from openly violating the circular at the
time the complaint was filed.
He also violated certain parts of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule
1.01 provides that “a judge should be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence.” As per Canon 2, it was said that “a judge
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.” Also, in Rule 2.01 it is provided that “a judge should behave at
all times so as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary.” By entertaining litigants without the witness of the other
party, births to malice and conclusion that there is a conspiracy happening
inside the chambers. A judge must never avoid at all times these windows
that a public person with a malicious eye might view as an act of
impartiality. Even though the respondent confidently refuted discussion of
merits of the case to the visitors with pending cases in his sala, it is not
enough to establish public confidence in justice. A courts action must not
be only done as what is righteous, but also has to be seen as righteous.
Such feeble mistakes, can be put a light to a window of scrutiny for those
who has low faith to justice and use such to influence others and erode the
mantle of equality, integrity and justice that the courts so uphold in its best
efforts. A judge must at all times bear in mind that it is essential that
judges, like Caesar’s wife, should be above suspicion.
Neither complainant’s desistance nor respondent judge’s retirement
precludes the Court from holding respondent judge liable. The court finds
respondent guilty of violating Circular No. 25, Rules 1.01 and 2.01 and
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent is ordered to pay a
fine of P10,000, the same to be deducted from whatever retirement
benefits he is entitled.
FLORIDE DAWA, NORALIZ L. JORGENSEN, FEMENINA LAZARO-
BARRETO, complainants, vs. Judge ARMANDO C. DE ASA,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City, respondent.

Facts:
On August 8, 1997, Floride Y. Dawa, a court stenographer went to
the ladies’ toilet. On her way, she saw the respondent talking with some
guy at the back of his chambers. Giving polite gestures, she nodded to the
judge as they met eyes. When she emerged from the same, she saw the
respondent still standing at the place she’d seen him, but this time alone.
Upon approach, respondent wrapped his arms around complainant’s
shoulders and led her to his chamber. Once inside, the judge allegedly
forcefully embraced her and kissed her in the mouth twice. Dawa was
taken by surprise she hurriedly went out from his office, shaking and
dazed.
Dawa after confiding to a coworker, Ms. Carpio, then confided to
Judge Delfina Hernandez-Santiago of the adjacent brach in private and
after listening to her, advised Dawa to go home and relate the experience
to her parents before doing anything further. The next day, Dawa went to
see Atty. Mona Lisa Buencamino, Clerk of Court and related her story. Atty.
Buencamino told Dawa that she isn’t the only one victim of the
respondent’s lusty acts but one Noraliz Jorgensen. Upon meeting Noraliz, it
was agreed that if Dawa would file suit so did she.
Femenina Lazaro-Baretto, a court stenographer claimed to be a
victim of the respondent, too. Dawa came to the Supreme Court with Atty.
Buencamino, Noraliz Jorgensen and Femenina Lazaro-Barreto where they
filed the letter complaint against respondent for sexual harassment under
Republic Act No. 7877, acts of lasciviousness, grave or serious misconduct,
and for violation of the high standard of morals demanded by judicial
ethics.
The prosecution presented the complainants and a surfacing victim
Ms. Mapue as witnesses who testified their harrowing experiences with the
respondent. The coworker, Ms. Carpio, Atty. Buencamino, Judge Santiago
also testified on behalf of the complainants. Complainants have been
personally cross examined by the respondent.
The Defense have presented four witnesses, including the
respondent himself denying the said allegations. They contended that the
judge is never been administratively charged and is a man of integrity and
congeniality. They said that the chambers aren’t soundproof and if
something happened, it would be clearly heard outside. The respondent,
taking a stand as a witness, he said that all these charges “were obviously
instigated and altogether orchestrated.” He accused the Clerk of Court,
Atty. Mona Lisa Buencamino, as the “prime mover of this cabal” and that
aside from her there were “other people behind the conspiracy” who had
yet to be uncovered. Respondent said that it was a vengeful move for Atty.
Buencamino for him being the reason her office was moved and that being
the Executive judge, Atty. Buencamino made the ruse because she is not
used to being controlled, especially by him.
After evaluating all the pieces of evidence presented by the parties,
investigation arrives into a conclusion that respondent is guilty of the
charges against him and recommended that respondent be dismissed from
the service for gross misconduct and immorality, with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of
the government, including government owned or controlled corporations.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed gross misconduct and
immorality

Ruling:
Yes. There is sufficient evidence to create a moral certainty that
respondent committed the acts he is charged with. The testimonies of the
three complainants were not in any manner emasculated by the lengthy
and thorough cross-examination personally conducted by the respondent.
The respondent hasn’t proved valid motive for the complainant to go this
deep just to fake and make him administratively liable. To say that it was
Atty. Buencamino’s master plan because she resents the respondent was
superficial to genuinely cause such malevolence. Respondent’s denials
cannot overcome the probative value of the positive assertions of
complainants and their witnesses. In study of the respondent’s witness, all
they can assure is that they never seen the respondent do anything
obscene, which is not sufficient to belie the charges against him.
The respondent, based on the testimonies of his witnesses may have
been good at promoting public confidence to the court as they claim that
the respondent is a man of integrity and moral uprightness. But this is not
the only requirement the Code of Judicial Conduct expects a judge to
abide. It is clear in Canon 2, “a judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities,” and in Rule 2.02 that “a judge
should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” A judge is required to be
genuinely morally upright and not just seem to be morally upright. It is
therefore paramount that a judge’s personal behavior, both in the
performance of his duties and in his daily life, be free from the appearance
of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.
Aside for the actions of respondent judge falling short of the exacting
standards for members of the bench but they also stand no chance of
satisfying the standards of decency even of society at large.
The court finds respondent Judge Armando C. de Asa guilty and is
dismissed from the service for gross misconduct and immorality, with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits and with prejudice to
reemployment in any branch of the government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations.
ANONYMOUS, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE RIO C. ACHAS, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2,
Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental, Respondent.

Facts:
An anonymous complaint was filed against respondent for his
morality. According to the complaint letter, the respondent was openly
cohabiting with a woman who was not his wife, that he lives beyond his
means, he is involved with illegal elements, he comes to court very dirty,
decides cases unfairly in exchange of payment and involved in
cockfighting.
This is similar to the charges seven years ago, where Judge Achas was
charged with immorality for cohabiting with a woman not his wife, and with
gross misconduct and dishonesty for personally accepting a cash bond in
relation to a case and not depositing it with the clerk of court, and for
maintaining a flock of fighting cocks and actively participating in cockfights.
The Court then found him guilty of gross misconduct for personally
receiving the cash bond and fined him in the amount of ₱15,000.00 with a
stern warning. The charge of immorality was dismissed for lack of
evidence.
As per OCA’s investigation, recommendation and report, there were
no basis on the allegations pertaining judge’s illegal connection, living
beyond his means and hygiene and that he accepts payments to decide
unfairly in cases. Judge Achas denied all the allegations against him and
claimed that they were hatched to harass him, pointing to disgruntled
professionals, and people that lost to him in the 2010 elections.
The case was re-docketed as regular administrative case and referred
the same to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Ozamis for further
investigation. During the investigation, Judge Achas again denied all the
charges but admitted that he was married and only separated de
facto  from his legal wife for 26 years, and that he reared game cocks for
leisure and extra income, having inherited such from his forefathers.
Executive Judge found that it is not commendable, proper or moral per
Canons of Judicial Ethics to be perceived as going out with a woman not
his wife, and for him to be involved in rearing game cocks.
OCA recommended that Judge Achas be reprimanded as to the
charge of immorality and that he be ordered to refrain from going to
cockpits or avoid such places altogether, with a warning that the same or
similar complaint in the future shall be dealt with more severely. The other
charges were recommended to be dismissed for lack of merit.

Issue:
Whether or not the judge is guilty of impropriety in violation to the
New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:
Yes. The investigation revealed that the respondent judge found "for
himself a suitable young lass whom he occasionally goes out with in public
and such a fact is not a secret around town." As to his involvement in
cockfighting, however, there is no clear evidence. While gamecocks are
bred and kept primarily for gambling, there is no proof that he goes to
cockpits and gambles.
Canon 2 Section 1 and 2 states that “judges shall ensure that not only is
their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view
of a reasonable observer and that the behavior and conduct of judges must
reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not
merely be done but must also be seen to be done.”
Though admittingly stating that he and his wife where separated, it is
a conduct unbecoming of a judge to have been going out in public with a
woman not his wife. A judge is perceived to be the flesh and bones of the
court, and its human manifestation. Such opportunity to award him
disdain, gives people chance to disdain the court, stripping it of its integrity
as reflected by it magistrate thus promoting people’s faith in the integrity
of the judiciary fell out of satisfaction.
Canon 4, Sections 1 and 2 provides that ”judges shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities, and
because they are a subject of constant public scrutiny they must accept
personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall
conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office.”
As per cockfighting, though it is not illegal to bet on the cockfighting,
and though not proven that he goes to pits to personally bet, might make
people’s respect to him impaired and so is to the judiciary.
It is evident that despite seven years and a stern warning of the
court from his previous administrative cases, the same cause for the
previous complaint resurfaced, proving the respondent’s failure to secure
his propriety as perceived by a reasonable observer that detriments the
appearance of judiciary as a whole.
In violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, respondent Judge
Rio Concepcion Achas is reprimanded and fined the amount of P 5,000.00
and is admonished not to socially mingle with cockfighting enthusiasts and
bettors, and is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely.
IN RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE
789REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, URDANETA CITY,
PANGASINAN, AND REPORT ON THE INCIDENT AT BRANCH 49,
SAME COURT.

Facts:
The OCA conducted a judicial audit of the caseload of Branch 45 of
the Regional Trial Court Branch 45 in Urdaneta City in view of the
compulsory retirement of Presiding Judge Joven F. Costales by November
21, 2007.
As a result of the September 18 – 19 audit, if was found that there
has been an inaccuracy on the docket inventory of the court. It was also
found that there are irregularities on the Bundy punches that is
immediately reported to the then Judge Costales for investigation.
Atty. Pascua was sent a memorandum from OCA on November 19,
2007, advising him to report the found inaccuracies on the docket
inventory to his acting judge for appropriate action and to report back to
OCA regarding any changes of improvement in the docket inventory. In his
comment on January 4, 2008, Atty. Pascua said that he already instructed
the clerk in charge to fix the inaccuracies.
The OCA on January 8, 2008, informed that Judge Costales has to
complete clearance for him to avail his retirement benefits and that he
being subject to these depends on the result on the office’s investigation
on his non compliance to court’s memorandum directing him to take
investigation and make recommendation in relation to irregularities in
punching Bundy clocks.
In his comment, he contended that he recieved the memorandum
only on November 20, 2007, the day of his compulsory retirement. He
further instructed the Clerk Atty. Pascua to inform the court about his
retirement and that investigation would be the responsibility of the
Executive Judge an that he also directed the clerk to write regarding the
inaccuracy in docket inventory. He said that it only came to his knowledge
that Atty. Pascua failed to inform the court as per his request. He
contended that as he is no longer part of the judiciary, his contentions are
reasonable.
OCA recommends that Atty. Pascua and Judge Costales be fined, P
5000.00 for failure to comply with OCA’s directives on reporting within 10
days of receipt for a report on caseflow mismanagement and failure to act
on the report of irregularities of punching of bundy clocks. Atty. Pascua is
directed to device an efficient management of caseflow of the court and
the Executive Judge is directed to ensure that there is no irregularities in
punching of the bundy clock.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents judge and clerk are guilty of
caseflow mismanagement and inaction in relation to irregularities in
punching of bundy clock.

Ruling:
Yes. Section 3, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary directs a judge to take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become aware. This imperative duty
becomes the more urgent when the act or omission the court personnel
has supposedly committed is in the nature of a grave offense, like the
bundy-cards incident involved herein. Respondent judge, in disobeying or
ignoring the directive to investigate the bundy-cards incident, is guilty of
insubordination, an omission that constituted simple misconduct. Jugde
Costales’ reason of recieving only the Memo on the day of his retirement is
out of merit. On the same day that auditor found out about bundy clock
issue, he was immediately informed and due to his inaction, he was sent
the memo on his last day just to remind him.
Respondent judge seemingly forgot that his responsibility of
efficiently and systematically managing his caseload was the inseparable
twin to his responsibility of justly and speedily deciding the cases assigned
to his court. Atty. Pascua was equally accountable with Judge Costales for
the inefficient handling of the court records. His being the Branch Clerk of
Court made him the custodian of such records with the sworn obligation of
safely keeping all of them. Retired Judge Costales and and branch clerk
Atty. Pascua guilty of the less serious charge of violation of Supreme Court
rules, directives, and circulars, and are respectively ordered to pay fines of
P20,000.00 and P8,000.00. Retired judge is guilty of the less serious
charge of simple misconduct, and is fined in the amount of P12,000.00.
The fines imposed on respondent judge shall be deducted from any
retirement benefits due to him.
The Court directs Atty. Pascua to devise an efficient system of record
management and to apprise the Presiding Judge of Branch 45 of the
Regional Trial Court in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan within ten days from
notice on the status of the controversial cases and furnishing copies of the
latest orders or court processes therein. The incumbent Executive Judge of
the Regional Trial Court in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan is directed to
immediately investigate and determine the court personnel involved in the
bundy clock irregularity committed on September 19, 2007 and to report in
writing on the investigation to the Office of the Court Administrator within
ten days from completion and to ensure that no similar irregularities are
committed in the station.
SPOUSES FLORENCIO & ESTHER CAUSIN, complainants, vs. JUDGE
LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24,
CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, respondent.

Facts:

Sps. complainant herein are defendants in a civil case of quieting a

land title filed by a Raul F. Lim. The case was then raffled to the sala of
herein respondent, Judge Demecillo of RTC Branch 24, Cagayan de Oro
City.
The complainant charges respondent of partiality, violation of the
Code of Judicial Conduct for allowing a Judge of an adjacent Branch to
participate in the case pending in his sala as a counsel to the plaintiff
without authority from this Court and for knowingly rendering unjust
judgement.
The complainant to supports their claims, alleges that the respondent
would let the Judge Lim, brother of the plaintiff acting as his counsel to
chose schedule of hearings and wait for the arrival of Judge Lim whenever
he is late. They also stated that the Judge denied their request to an ocular
inspection of the contested land and eventually, knowingly and unjustly
awarded the land to the plaintiff.
The respondent judge in his comments, counters that, during the
proceedings, its his habit to wait for any party of the litigants that may
come behind the schedule intending not too waste time on rescheduling
and re-notifying litigants from the hearing. He also said that it slipped his
mind due to him being ‘too busy’ that a judge cannot be presumed
authorized by the court to any case he’d wish to appear. He reasoned that
he denied complainant’s request to an ocular inspection because he
preferred records of a licensed surveyor that is more accurate to
determining ownership of the contested land.
On the OCA’s investigation, report and recommendation, the
accusations regarding partiality and knowingly rendering of an unjust
decision on the respondent judge have been disregarded for lack of merit.
However, the find him guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct for
letting a fellow judge participate in a case he’s been handling.
OCA recommends penalty of P 5,000.00 for violation of Code of
Judicial Conduct and a stern warning that a future commission of the same
would be dealt with more severely.

Issue:
Whether or not the judge violated the code of Judicial Conduct by
letting fellow judge to stand as counsel in a case tried in his sala.

Ruling:
Yes. The rule that a lawyer is presumed to be authorized to appear
before a court applies only to lawyers, not judges. Thus, Judge’s Lim’s
reason that he isn’t there to be a counsel but to cross-examine only for the
sake of ‘family matter’ because the plaintiff is his brother is a mere flexing
of judiciary muscle. The Respondent Judge, however, for letting this
happen in his sala is administratively liable. His reason of being ‘too busy’
to remember does not check out. It is a judge’s duty to be mindful at all
times of the rights and wrong in his full capacity.
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prescribes that a judge
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
Rule 2.01 provides that a judge should behave at all times as to promote
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 2.03
provides that a judge 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.
Respondent judge failed to avoid not only actual impropriety, but
even the appearance of impropriety. He forgot that a judge as a main of
the court, should always be mindful that he is constantly sitting at high
point of scrutiny searching as the publics always looks up to him for
integrity and impartiality.
The court however finds respondent Judge Leonardo N. Demecillo is
fined in the amount of one thousand pesos P1,000.00 for violation of
Canon 2, Rule 2.01 and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, with a
stern warning that a repetition of similar infractions shall be dealt with
more severely.
ATTY. ANTONIO D. SELUDO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO J.
FINEZA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 131, Caloocan City,
respondent.

Facts:
The respondent judge previously filed a complaint against the herein
complainant for revocation of the latter’s notarial commission for his non
submission of his notarial records for the year 2003.
During the proceedings, the complainant in multiple times,
interrupted the judge while talking and somehow laughed while the judge
was speaking. These actions of the complainant, though have been
controlled by the executive judge by the request of the herein respondent,
was took for a grudge by the respondent. In somehow losing his temper,
he brazenly uttered derogatory and hateful remarks such as ‘If the
respondent (herein complainant) knows how to read English…’, ‘Let it be
put on record, that he has a moronic attitude…’, ‘Your Honor please, I
don’t know if this guy is really stupid…’, and ‘Putang-ina mo!.’ The
Executive Judge who handled the proceedings have not even spared from
insults and apparent sarcasm and disrespect by the respondent, though the
former successfully kept her composure.
The complainant then filed an administrative case against the
respondent with violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
In his defense, Judge Fineza attributed his hot-tempered and
inflammatory remarks with his heart ailment that brings him in pain and
makes him anxious. He further reasoned that it was not in his intention and
that he tried to be as civil and composed, and that his oral manifestation
was only a result of multiple interruptions of him by the complainant and
the ridicule and laughs Atty. Seludo displayed while he’s talking.
Complainant, however, eventually withdrawn the complaint due to
lack of interest as to respondent judge was already retired from service.
However, the complainant’s dismissal could not exculpate him from
his violations that came into knowledge of the Court. OCA found his
defenses shallow and lacks of merit. He was found to have been indeed
violated Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The OCA
recommends that the instant administrative case be re-docketed as an
administrative matter and that respondent judge be fined in the amount of
P20,000.00 for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the amount to be
deducted from his retirement benefits.

Issue:
Whether or not the Judge have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:
Yes. Rule 2.01. of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides
that a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Also, Rule 3.04 provides
that a judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers,
especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing
before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the
attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the
courts for the litigants.
Respondent’s defense of having heart ailments that makes his
composure out of control during anxious situations lacks merit. If the
statement however is true, he could’ve controlled himself by letting his
counsel to represent him in testimonies during the proceedings. To lose
temper and display such traits of hostility, uttering remarks corrosive and
inflammatory to the integrity of a person with the sole purpose of flexing
bravado against a person who by his own reckoning disrespected him by
laughing, cannot be considered a valid excuse to stray from the exacting
high standards of character that the Judicial Conduct requires for its
members of the bench. A judge as a visual manifestation of the courts,
must always be refined in his words and actions and also be seen refined
by people. This is imperative for the promotion of public confidence
towards the court’s impartiality and integrity.
The acts of the respondent may be considered serious under Rule
140 of the Revised Ruled of the Court, and is punishable under Section 8,
paragraph 1 and Section 11, paragraph A.
Though his actions does qualify for punishment of suspension
without pay and/or dismissal, his retirement satisfied only one particular
penal option. Respondent Judge Antonio J. Fineza is found fuilty of gross
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered to pay a fine of P
20,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.