1.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No. 8391 November 23, 2010 [Formerly CB C!"e No. 0#$1#31% MANUE& C. 'U()CO, Complainant, vs. ATT'. FRE &. *UT)ERRE+, Respondent. DECI PER CURIAM: Befo"e us is a Complaint1 dated #anua"$ 1%, &%%' fo" disciplina"$ action a(ainst "espondent Att$. )"ed *. +utie""e, -+utie""e,. filed b$ Manuel C. /uhico -/uhico. fo" violation of Rule 1.%1 of the Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit$. 0he antecedent facts of the case a"e as follo1s2 Complainant /uhico alle(ed that he met +utie""e, at the !ffice of the Cit$ P"osecuto" in Pasi( Cit$ on Ma$ 3, &%%4. /uhico 1as the"e to testif$ at the p"elimina"$ investi(ation of a Complaint fo" Estafa a(ainst one #ose . Chicha""o, 1ho 1as then bein( "ep"esented b$ +utie""e,. 5e claimed that the$ eventuall$ became ac6uainted as the$ f"e6uentl$ sa1 each othe" du"in( the hea"in(s of the case. !n #une &3, &%%4, /uhico ave""ed that +utie""e, phoned him and as7ed fo" a cash loan of P8%,%%%.%%. +utie""e, then claimed that he needed mone$ to pa$ fo" the medical e9penses of his mothe" 1ho 1as se"iousl$ ill. /uhico immediatel$ handed the mone$. In tu"n, +utie""e, p"omised to pa$ the loan ve"$ soon, since he 1as e9pectin( to collect his atto"ne$:s fees f"om a #apanese client. !n #une &;, &%%4, +utie""e, a(ain as7ed /uhico fo" a loan, this time in the amount of P'%,%%%.%%, alle(edl$ to pa$ the medical e9penses of his 1ife 1ho 1as also hospitali,ed. A(ain, /uhico "eadil$ issued to Att$. +utie""e, an E6uitable PCI Ban7 chec7 amountin( to P'%,%%%.%%.& A(ain, +utie""e, p"omised to pa$ his t1o loans totallin( toP<%,%%%.%% =1ithin a sho"t time.= I!N

!n #ul$ 1&, &%%4, /uhico as7ed +utie""e, to pa$ his loans. Att$. +utie""e, failed to pa$. In a te9t messa(e on #ul$ 1&, &%%4 at &23> p.m., Att$. +utie""e, stated2 I "eall$ don:t 7no1 ho1 to sa$ this as I don:t 1ant to thin7 that I ma$ be ta7in( advanta(e of ou" f"iendship. /ou see i:ve lon( e9pected as substantial atto"ne$:s fees since last 1ee7 f"om m$ client !(ami f"om ?apan. It:s mo"e o" less mo"e than 4m and its "elease is dela$ed due to ta9 and the la1 on mone$ launde"in(. )"om m$ estimate it 1ud be collected b$ me on o" b3 au(ust 4. N the meantime I am 6uite in a financial difficult$ as eve"$one is. *ate", /uhico alle(ed that +utie""e, attempted to bo""o1 mone$ f"om him a(ain. 5e said +utie""e, claimed that his dau(hte" needed P>%,%%%.%% to pa$ the fees "e6ui"ed to ta7e the licensu"e e9amination in the @. . Medical Boa"d. +utie""e, assu"ed him that he 1ill pa$ all his debts on o" befo"e Au(ust 1%, &%%4. In his te9t messa(e on #ul$ 1&, &%%4 at 82%4 p.m., Att$. +utie""e, said2 As $ou a"e a1a"e of these past fe1 da$s 1e"e "eall$ ("eat t"ials 3 me. M$ mothe" died, m$ 1ife (ot sic7 and no1 m$ b"o in la1 died. 0hese events led me to st"u((lin( finances. 0o (et me (oin( I t"ied to sel m$ ca" but m$ bu$e" bac7ed out. No1 m$ immediate p"oblem is the amt of >%thousand 1hich m$ dau(hte" needs fo" he" pa$ment sa @ medical boa"d. I dnt 1ant he" to miss this oppo"tunit$. Can u help me a(ainA I 1ill pa$ all m$ debts on o" b3 Au(.1% pls. 0han7s. 5o1eve", this time, /uhico "efused to lend +utie""e, an$ amount of mone$. Instead, he demanded f"om +utie""e, the pa$ment of his debts. +utie""e, then sent anothe" te9t messa(e to /uhico on #ul$ 1&, &%%4 and "e6uested him to (ive him anothe" 1ee7 to pa$ his debts. +utie""e, failed to ma7e the pa$ment. /uhico "epeatedl$ "e6uested the pa$ment of loans f"om +utie""e, f"om Au(ust to Decembe" &%%4. +utie""e,, on the othe" hand, fo" nume"ous times p"omised to pa$, but al1a$s failed to do so. At one point, +utie""e, even as7ed /uhico:s account numbe" and p"omised to deposit his pa$ment the"e, but he neve" deposited the pa$ment. !n Decembe" 4, &%%4, /uhico:s counsel sent a demand lette"8 to +utie""e, to pa$ his debts, but to no avail. 0hus, /uhico filed the instant complaint a(ainst +utie""e, befo"e the Inte("ated Ba" of the PhilippinesBCommission on Ba" Discipline -IBPBCBD.. !n #anua"$ 1&, &%%', the IBPBCBD di"ected +utie""e, to submit his Ans1e" on the complaint a(ainst him.3

In his Ans1e",4 +utie""e, claimed that /uhico 1as the one 1ho offe"ed to lend him mone$ in ("atitude fo" the assistance he e9tended to the latte" 1hen he 1as unde" th"eat b$ his clients. 5e, ho1eve", admitted that he accepted the loan due to compellin( ci"cumstances. +utie""e, added that he has no intention of evadin( his obli(ation to pa$ his debts, but he is cu""entl$ in financial dist"ess, thus, he cannot pa$ his debts $et. 5e claimed he 1ill pa$ his debts 1hen his financial condition imp"oves. !n Ma"ch &3, &%%', both pa"ties 1e"e di"ected to appea" at the mandato"$ confe"ence befo"e the IBPBCBD. +utie""e, failed to attend on t1o occasions. !n #une <, &%%', the IBPBCBD di"ected both pa"ties to submit thei" "espective position pape"s. *i7e1ise, du"in( the cla"ificato"$ hea"in( befo"e the IBPBCBD, onl$ the complainant:s counsel attended. 0he"e 1as no appea"ance on the pa"t of +utie""e,. In his Position Pape", /uhico manifested that the up"eme Cou"t, in Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez,' had al"ead$ disba""ed +utie""e, f"om the p"actice of la1 fo" ("oss misconduct, in vie1 of his failu"e to pa$ his debts and his issuance of 1o"thless chec7s. ubse6uentl$, in a Resolution dated Decembe" 11, &%%;, the, IBPBCBD found +utie""e, (uilt$ of nonBpa$ment of ?ust debts and o"de"ed him to "etu"n the amount of Ninet$ 0housand Pesos -P<%,%%%.%%. to /uhico, 1ith inte"est until full pa$ment. In vie1 of the p"evious disba"ment of +utie""e,, the IBPBCBD "ecommended to the Cou"t that, instead of "ende"in( the instant case moot, +utie""e, should be disba""ed ane1 effective upon the e9pi"ation of the sanction pu"suant to the Ma"ch &', &%%3 up"eme Cou"t Decision. 0he IBPBCBD e9plained that 1hile 1e do not have ?u"isp"udence on the issue of double o" multiple disba"ment, the Ame"ican ?u"isp"udence, ho1eve", "eco(ni,es double o" multiple disba"ments as 1ell as the minimum "e6ui"ement of five -4. $ea"s fo" "eadmission to the Ba". !n Decembe" 11, &%%;, the IBP Boa"d of +ove"no"s, in Resolution No. CDIIIB&%%;B'3<, "esolved to adopt the "epo"t and "ecommendation of the IBPBCBD and app"ove it 1ith modification as to the pa$ment of the amount of Ninet$ 0housand Pesos -P<%,%%%.%%., this time, without interest. Ee sustain the findin(s of the IBP, but 1ith modification as to its "ecommendations.

Ee have held that delibe"ate failu"e to pa$ ?ust debts constitute ("oss misconduct, fo" 1hich a la1$e" ma$ be sanctioned 1ith suspension f"om the p"actice of la1. *a1$e"s a"e inst"uments fo" the administ"ation of ?ustice and van(ua"ds of ou" le(al s$stem. 0he$ a"e e9pected to maintain not onl$ le(al p"oficienc$, but also a hi(h standa"d of mo"alit$, honest$, inte("it$ and fai" dealin( so that the peopleFs faith and confidence in the ?udicial s$stem is ensu"ed. 0he$ must, at all times, faithfull$ pe"fo"m thei" duties to societ$, to the ba", the cou"ts and to thei" clients, 1hich include p"ompt pa$ment of financial obli(ations. 0he$ must conduct themselves in a manne" that "eflects the values and no"ms of the le(al p"ofession as embodied in the Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit$.> In the instant case, the"e is no 6uestion as to +utie""e,:s (uilt. 5is admission of the loan he cont"acted and his failu"e to pa$ the same leaves no "oom fo" inte"p"etation. Neithe" can he ?ustif$ his act of nonBpa$ment of debt b$ his di"e financial condition. +utie""e, should not have cont"acted loans 1hich a"e be$ond his financial capacit$ to pa$.1avvphi1 *i7e1ise, 1e cannot ove"loo7 +utie""e,:s p"opensit$ of emplo$in( deceit and mis"ep"esentations fo" the pu"pose of obtainin( debts 1ithout the intention of pa$in( them. Reco"ds sho1 +utie""e,:s patte"n of habituall$ ma7in( p"omises of pa$in( his debts, $et "epeatedl$ failin( to delive". 0he se"ies of te9t messa(es he sent to /uhico p"omisin( to pa$ his loans, 1hile simultaneousl$ (ivin( e9cuses 1ithout actuall$ ma7in( (ood of his p"omises, is clea"l$ "ep"ehensible. @ndoubtedl$, his acts demonst"ate lac7 of mo"al cha"acte" to satisf$ the "esponsibilities and duties imposed on la1$e"s as p"ofessionals and as office"s of the cou"t. Ee also note that in Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez,; the Cou"t had al"ead$ disba""ed +utie""e, f"om the p"actice of la1 fo" ("oss misconduct due to nonBpa$ment of ?ust debts and issuance of bouncin( chec7s. In vie1 of the fo"e(oin(, 1hile 1e a("ee 1ith the findin(s of the IBP, 1e cannot, ho1eve", adopt its "ecommendation to disba" +utie""e, fo" the second time, conside"in( that +utie""e, had al"ead$ been p"eviousl$ disba""ed. Indeed, as the IBP pointed out, 1e do not have double o" multiple disba"ment in ou" la1s o" ?u"isp"udence. Neithe" do 1e have a la1 mandatin( a minimum 4B $ea" "e6ui"ement fo" "eadmission, as cited b$ the IBP. 0hus, 1hile +utie""e,:s inf"action calls fo" the penalt$ of disba"ment, 1e cannot disba" him ane1. ,(EREFORE, Resolution No. CDIIIB&%%;B'3< dated Decembe" 11, &%%;, of the IBP, 1hich found )RED *. +@0IERREG (uilt$ of *ROSS M)SCON UCT, is AFF)RME . 5e is !RDERED to

PA/ the amount of Ninet$ 0housand Pesos -P<%,%%%.%%. to the complainant immediatel$ f"om "eceipt of this decision 1ith inte"est. *et a cop$ of this Decision be fu"nished and p"ope"l$ "eco"ded in the !ffice of the Ba" Confidant, to be appended to the pe"sonal "eco"d of +utie""e,H the Inte("ated Ba" of the PhilippinesH and the !ffice of the Cou"t Administ"ato", fo" ci"culation to all cou"ts in the count"$ fo" thei" info"mation and (uidance. 0his Decision shall be immediatel$ e9ecuto"$. ! !RDERED.

&. 05IRD DIDI I!N #@D+E RENA0! A. )@EN0E , RE+I!NA* 0RIA* C!@R0, R0C. BRANC5 1>, DADA! CI0/, Complainant, A.M. No. PB1%B&><1 -fo"me"l$ A.M. No. 1%B8B<1B P"esent2 CARPI! M!RA*E , #., Chai"pe"son, BRI!N, BER AMIN, DI**ARAMA, #R., and EREN!, ##.

B ve"sus B

A00/. R!+E*I! ). )ABR!, P"omul(ated2 BRANC5 C*ERI !) C!@R0, AME C!@R0, Respondent. Ap"il ', &%11 9BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBB9

D E CI BRI!N, #.2

I!N

)o"

the

Cou"tFs

"esolution

is

the

lette"B

complaintJ1K dated #ul$ 1>, &%%< of #ud(e Renato A. )uentes -#ud(e )uentes., Re(ional 0"ial Cou"t, 11th #udicial Re(ion, B"anch 1>, Davao Cit$, add"essed to the !ffice of the Cou"t Administ"ato" -!CA.. #ud(e )uentes cha"(ed B"anch Cle"7 of Cou"t Att$. Ro(elio ). )ab"o -Att$. )ab"o. and Civil Reco"ds InB ala,a" - ala,a". 1ith ("oss ne(li(ence of

Cha"(e !felia

dut$. 0his 1as the second lette" of #ud(e )uentes to the !CA on Att$. )ab"o and ala,a".

Bac7("ound )acts

!n Ma$ 1<, &%%<, #ud(e )uentes 1"ote the !CA to "epo"t the ne(li(ence committed b$ Att$. )ab"o and ala,a" in not

elevatin( to the Cou"t of Appeals, Ca(a$an de !"o Cit$ -CA. fo" mo"e than si9 -'. $ea"s the "eco"ds of Civil Case No. &<,48>B&%%8, entitled 0eodo"o Polina", et al. v. 5on. Antonio D. *aolao.

In his second lette" to the !CA, #ud(e )uentes a(ain "epo"ted the ne(li(ence of Att$. )ab"o and ala,a" fo" failin( to

elevate to the CA the "eco"ds of Civil Case No. &<,%1<B&%%&, entitled Meda"do E. Esca"da v. Celso E. Esca"da and the Re(iste" of Deeds of Davao Cit$. #ud(e )uentes claimed that he app"oved Meda"do Esca"daFs Notice of Appeal in his Ap"il 1%, &%%> !"de" and di"ected the B"anch Cle"7 of Cou"t to elevate the enti"e "eco"ds to the CA. Appa"entl$, the "eco"ds 1e"e not elevated because Meda"do Esca"daFs counsel, Att$. antos E. 0o""eLa, #"., 1"ote #ud(e )uentes on #ul$ 13, &%%<J&K to in6ui"e if thei" appeal and "eco"ds have been fo"1a"ded to the CA. Att$. 0o""eLa enclosed a CA lette"J8K statin( that MJtKhe"e is no sho1in( that the case 1as elevated on appeal to this Cou"t as pe" ve"ification f"om the "eco"ds and list of cases f"om &%%> until the p"esent time.N

In his second lette" to the !CA, #ud(e )uentes "elated that2 Ehat is ala"min( in this second discove"$, ho1eve", is the "eco"d consistin( of the Notice of Appeal and the !"de", elevatin( the case to the 5ono"able Cou"t of Appeals, alon( 1ith the othe" documents, such as Decision of the Cou"t, Motion fo" Reconside"ation and !"de" of denial, 1e"e not attached in the main "eco"d, consistin( of pleadin(s

and t"ansc"ipt of steno("aphic notes but afte" e9e"tin( p"essu"e on the Civil Reco"ds InBCha"(e, to loo7 fo" the "emainin( po"tion of the "eco"ds, she tu"nedBove" the "emainin( "eco"ds, afte" one 1ee7, but 1as obse"ved b$ the unde"si(ned, pu"posel$ sepa"ated, so that the compliance of the !"de" to elevate the enti"e "eco"ds to the Appellate Cou"t, can be ?ustified b$ he" and the B"anch Cle"7 of Cou"t.

0he !CA "e6ui"ed Att$. )ab"o to comment on #ud(e )uentesF lette". Att$. )ab"o filed his comment on Au(ust ;, &%%<J3K. 5e ave""ed that the "eco"ds of Civil Case No. &<,48>B &%%8 have been elevated to the CA and that ala,a" admitted that it 1as he" o1n fault and that she found that the "eco"d, Mal"ead$ bounded fo" t"ansmittal to the Cou"t of Appeals, 1as indeed mi9ed up 1ith the files of old cases t"ansfe""ed to the othe" sto"e "oomN at a time 1hen the staff of the R0C B"anch 1> 1as decon(estin( the office sto"e "oom to (ive 1a$ to ne1l$ filed cases. 5e also mentioned that his office 1as a ve"$ bus$ one, that he had his o1n duties, and that he could not Mat all timesN spend his time supe"visin( subo"dinate emplo$ees to ensu"e thei" pe"fo"mance of thei" no"mal duties 1ithout p"e?udice to his o1n duties and "esponsibilities.

!n Ma"ch &, &%1%, the !CA submitted a "epo"t and "ecommendationJ4K that2 -1. the case be "eBdoc7eted as a "e(ula" administ"ative matte"H and -&. Att$. )ab"o be fined P4,%%%.%%

fo" the dela$ in t"ansmittin( the "eco"ds of t1o cases to the CA, 1ith a 1a"nin( that a "epetition of the same o" simila" act in the futu"e shall be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$.

0he !CA Repo"t stated that althou(h the "eco"ds of the cases have al"ead$ been t"ansmitted to the CA, the !CA cannot

tole"ate the lon( dela$ in t"ansmission no" (ive c"edence to Att$. )ab"oFs "easons fo" the dela$. 0he !CA st"essed that the administ"ative functions of the B"anch Cle"7 of Cou"t a"e vital to the p"ompt and p"ope" administ"ation of ?ustice and that the timel$ t"ansmittal to the appellate cou"t of the "eco"ds of appealed cases ensu"es the speed$ disposition of casesH an$ dela$ in the t"ansmission of the case "eco"ds 1ould hampe" the p"ope" administ"ation of ?ustice. 0he !CA added that it has been held that the failu"e of the cle"7 of cou"t to t"ansmit the "eco"ds of the case constitutes ne(li(ence and 1a""ants disciplina"$ action.

0he Cou"t:s Rulin(

Ee a("ee 1ith the !CA findin( that Att$. )ab"o 1as (uilt$ of ("oss ne(li(ence of dut$ fo" bein( "emiss in his dut$ to t"ansmit to the CA the "eco"ds of Civil Case Nos. &<,48>B&%%8 and &<,%1<B &%%& 1ithin the "e6ui"ed pe"iod. 0he Rules of Cou"t in ection 1% of Rule 31J'K p"ovides that 1ithin thi"t$ -8%. da$s afte" the pe"fection of appeal, the cle"7 of cou"t of the lo1e" cou"t has the dut$ to t"ansmit the "eco"ds to the appellate cou"t. #ud(e )uentes (ave due cou"se to the appeals but the "eco"ds 1e"e not t"ansmitted to the CA 1ithin the 8%Bda$ pe"iod p"ovided in the Rules.

0he "eco"ds of Civil Case No. &<,%1<B&%%& -Meda"do E. Esca"da v. Celso E. Esca"da. 1e"e mailed on Au(ust 14, &%%<J>K o" t1o -&. $ea"s afte" the issuance of the !"de" di"ectin( thei" t"ansmittal to the CA -Ap"il 1%, &%%>.. 0he "eco"ds of Civil Case No. &<,48>B&%%8 -0eodo"o Polina", et al. vs. 5on. Antonio D. *aolao. 1e"e t"ansmitted onl$ afte" mo"e than si9 -'. $ea"s as

claimed b$ #ud(e )uentes. Clea"l$, Att$. )ab"o as the cle"7 of cou"t of the lo1e" cou"t, 1as ("ossl$ "emiss in his dut$. Ee a("ee 1ith the !CA "ecommendation of imposin( a fine 1ith 1a"nin( on Att$. )ab"o. Ee hold, ho1eve", that the fine should be inc"eased to 01ent$ 0housand Pesos -P&%,%%%.%%. conside"in( the numbe" of incidents of dela$ and the conside"able time involved.

E5ERE)!RE, 1e find Att$. Ro(elio ). )ab"o, B"anch Cle"7 of Cou"t, R0C B"anch 1>, Davao Cit$, +@I*0/ of ("oss ne(li(ence of dut$ fo" the dela$ in t"ansmittin( to the Cou"t of Appeals, Ca(a$an de !"o Cit$, the "eco"ds of Civil Case No. &<,%1<B&%%&, entitled Meda"do E. Esca"da v. Celso E. Esca"da, and Civil Case No. &<,48>B&%%8, entitled 0eodo"o Polina", et al. v. 5on. Antonio D. *aolao. Ee he"eb$ impose on him a )INE of 01ent$ 0housand Pesos -P&%,%%%.%%. 1ith a EARNIN+ that a "epetition of the same o" simila" act shall be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$.

0he !ffice of the Cou"t Administ"ato" is di"ected to info"m the Cou"t of the action ta7en a(ainst Civil Reco"ds InBCha"(e !felia ala,a".

! !RDERED.

8. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EC!ND DIDI I!N A.M. No. MT-$09$1.3. Febr/!ry 9, 2011

&' E&&E &. CON0U)&&A, Complainant, vs. -U *E &AURO *. BERNAR O, M/12324!l Tr2!l Co/r5, Bo3!/e, B/l!3!1 Respondent. DECI CARP)O, J.: T6e C!"e 0his is an administ"ative complaint fo" usu"pation of autho"it$, ("ave misconduct, and ("oss i(no"ance of the la1 filed b$ *$delle *. Con6uilla -complainant. a(ainst #ud(e *au"o +. Be"na"do -"espondent ?ud(e., P"esidin( #ud(e of the Municipal 0"ial Cou"t -M0C. of Bocaue, Bulacan. T6e F!35" In a ve"ified complaint dated 8% #ul$ &%%;, complainant Con6uilla cha"(ed "espondent ?ud(e 1ith usu"pation of autho"it$, ("ave misconduct, and ("oss i(no"ance of the la1. Complainant alle(ed that on 3 #ul$ &%%;, a c"iminal complaint fo" di"ect assault 1as filed a(ainst he" befo"e the M0C of Bocaue, Bulacan. 0he complaint 1as si(ned b$ Police Chief Inspecto" Ri,alino Anda$a of the Bocaue Police tation. !n ; #ul$ &%%;, "espondent ?ud(e conducted a p"elimina"$ investi(ation and found p"obable cause to hold the complainant fo" t"ial fo" the c"ime of di"ect assault. Respondent ?ud(e then issued a 1a""ant of a""est dated ; #ul$ &%%;, 1ith the bail fi9ed at P1&,%%%. !n 1% #ul$ &%%;, upon motion of complainant, "espondent ?ud(e issued an o"de" "educin( the bail fo" complainantFs p"ovisional libe"t$ to P',%%%. !n the same date, complainant posted cash bail of P',%%% fo" he" p"ovisional libe"t$. I!N

Complainant then filed an administ"ative complaint, alle(in( that unde" A.M. No. %4B%;BJ&K'B C, fi"st level cou"t ?ud(es no lon(e" have the autho"it$ to conduct p"elimina"$ investi(ations. 0hus, complainant ave"s that "espondent ?ud(e committed an ille(al act constitutin( ("oss i(no"ance of the la1 and p"ocedu"e 1hen he conducted the p"elimina"$ investi(ation and issued the 1a""ant of a""est. Complainant claims that the hast$ issuance of the 1a""ant of a""est 1as 1ithout le(al basis and un?ustl$ p"e?udiced complainant and dep"ived he" of he" libe"t$. Complainant submits that "espondent ?ud(e usu"ped the po1e" of the p"osecuto", 1ho 1as not even (iven the chance to comment on complainantFs Motion to Reduce Bail. )u"the"mo"e, complainant alle(es that 1hen she lea"ned about the 1a""ant of a""est, she called "espondent ?ud(eFs 1ife, 1ho said =she 1ould help in havin( the bail "educed to P',%%%.%% and 1ould have the case fo" di"ect assault a(ainst he"ein complainant dismissed p"ovided he"ein complainant cancel the 1ifeFs debt of P84,%%%.%% and p"ovided that he"ein complainant loan the 1ife an additional amount of P4%,%%%.%%.=1 In his Comment, "espondent ?ud(e states that he issued the 1a""ant of a""est in (ood faith because he 1as convinced that the"e 1as p"obable cause and that it 1as necessa"$ to place the complainant unde" immediate custod$ to p"event a f"ust"ation of ?ustice. Althou(h "espondent ?ud(e 7ne1 that the up"eme Cou"t al"ead$ amended Rules 11& and 113 of the Revised Rules on C"iminal P"ocedu"e b$ "emovin( the conduct of the p"elimina"$ investi(ation f"om ?ud(es of fi"st level cou"ts, he a"(ues that the po1e" to pe"sonall$ dete"mine p"obable cause in the issuance of a 1a""ant of a""est cannot be "evo7ed. Besides, even if such po1e" to dete"mine p"obable cause 1as indeed "evo7ed b$ the amendment, "espondent ?ud(e submits that technical "ules can be "ela9ed if thei" implementation 1ill "esult in in?ustice. Respondent ?ud(e fu"the" states that he did not usu"p the po1e" of the p"osecuto" 1hen he "educed the bail conside"in( that unde" ection &% of Rule 113, the cou"t ma$ inc"ease o" dec"ease the bail upon (ood cause. *astl$, "espondent ?ud(e denies an$ 7no1led(e of the alle(ed conve"sation and t"ansaction bet1een complainant and his 1ife. T6e OCA7" Re4or5 !18 Re3omme18!52o1 In its Repo"t dated 1& )eb"ua"$ &%%<, the !CA found "espondent ?ud(e (uilt$ of ("oss i(no"ance of the la1 fo" his patent and un?ustified violation of the p"ovisions of the Resolution in A.M. No. %4B;B&'B C. 0he !CA stated that the Resolution in A.M. No. %4B;B &'B C, 1hich too7 effect on 8 !ctobe" &%%4, "emoved the conduct of investi(ation f"om the scope of autho"it$ of fi"st level cou"ts

?ud(es. 5ad "espondent ?ud(e been mo"e p"udent in unde"standin( the pe"tinent p"ovisions of the Resolution in A.M. No. %4B;B&'B C, 1hich a"e ve"$ clea" and concise, no administ"ative complaint 1ould have been filed a(ainst him. 0he !CA, ho1eve", found the cha"(e of usu"pation of autho"it$ 1ithout me"it. 0he !CA a("eed 1ith "espondent ?ud(e that the po1e" to dete"mine the amount of bail is vested in the ?ud(e. 0he !CA "ecommended -a. that the administ"ative complaint a(ainst "espondent ?ud(e be "eBdoc7eted as a "e(ula" administ"ative matte"H and -b. that "espondent ?ud(e be fined in the amount of P&%,%%%.%% fo" ("oss i(no"ance of the la1, 1ith a ste"n 1a"nin( that a "epetition of the same o" simila" offense shall be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$. T6e R/l219 o: 56e Co/r5 In this case, "espondent ?ud(e ma7es it appea" that he me"el$ conducted a p"elimina"$ e9amination fo" the pu"pose of dete"minin( 1hethe" p"obable cause e9ists to ?ustif$ the issuance of a 1a""ant of a""est. 5o1eve", the "eco"ds of the case clea"l$ sho1 that "espondent ?ud(e indeed conducted a p"elimina"$ investi(ation on ; #ul$ &%%;. Afte" findin( p"obable cause to hold complainant fo" t"ial fo" the c"ime of di"ect assault, "espondent ?ud(e then issued a 1a""ant fo" he" a""est. 0hat "espondent ?ud(e conducted a p"elimina"$ investi(ation and not ?ust a p"elimina"$ e9amination to dete"mine e9istence of p"obable cause fo" the issuance of a 1a""ant of a""est is evident in his !"de" dated ; #ul$ &%%;, 1hich "eads2 !RDER 0he unde"si(ned, afte" pe"sonal e9amination of the 1itnesses in 1"itin( and unde" oath, :218" 56!5 ! 4rob!ble 3!/"e e;2"5" !18 56ere 2" "/::232e15 9ro/18 5o 6ol8 56e !33/"e8 &' E&&E &. CON0U)&&A :or 5r2!l :or 56e 3r2me o: )RECT ASSAU&T !" 36!r9e8 21 56e 3om4l!215. In o"de" not to f"ust"ate the ends of ?ustice, the"e is a need to place the accused in immediate custod$. *et 1a""ant immediatel$ issue fo" his JsicK a""est he"eb$ fi9in( bail in the amount of P1&,%%%.%% fo" his p"ovisional libe"t$. & ! !RDERED. Bocaue, Bulacan, #ul$ ;, &%%;. -si(ned. 5!N. *A@R! +. BERNARD! #ud(e

)u"the"mo"e, afte" complainant posted bail on 1% #ul$ &%%;, "espondent ?ud(e then issued an !"de" dated 1% #ul$ &%%;, o"de"in( the complainantFs "elease and settin( the case fo" he" a""ai(nment on 8 eptembe" &%%;. 0he conduct of p"elimina"$ investi(ation b$ "espondent ?ud(e 1as in di"ect cont"avention of A.M. No. %4B;B&'B C, 1hich too7 effect on 8 !ctobe" &%%4, amendin( Rules 11& and 113 of the Revised Rules on C"iminal P"ocedu"e b$ "emovin( the conduct of p"elimina"$ investi(ation f"om ?ud(es of the fi"st level cou"ts. 0hus, unde" ection & of Rule 11&, onl$ the follo1in( office"s a"e autho"i,ed to conduct p"elimina"$ investi(ations2 -a. P"ovincial o" Cit$ P"osecuto"s and thei" assistantsH -b. National and Re(ional tate P"osecuto"sH and -c. !the" office"s as ma$ be autho"i,ed b$ la1. )u"the"mo"e, ection 4 of Rule 11& p"ovides2 EC. 4. When warrant of arrest may issue. -a. By the Regional Trial Court. Eithin ten -1%. da$s f"om the filin( of the complaint o" info"mation, the ?ud(e shall pe"sonall$ evaluate the "esolution of the p"osecuto" and its suppo"tin( evidence. 5e ma$ immediatel$ dismiss the case if the evidence on "eco"ds clea"l$ fails to establish p"obable cause. If he finds p"obable cause, he shall issue a 1a""ant of a""est, o" a commitment o"de" 1hen the complaint o" info"mation 1as filed pu"suant to section ' of this Rule. In case of doubt on the e9istence of p"obable cause, the ?ud(e ma$ o"de" the p"osecuto" to p"esent additional evidence 1ithin five -4. da$s f"om notice and the issue must be "esolved b$ the cou"t 1ithin thi"t$ -8%. da$s f"om the filin( of the complaint o" info"mation. -b. By the uni!ipal Trial Court. ,6e1 re</2re8 4/r"/!15 5o 56e "e3o18 4!r!9r!46 o: "e352o1 1 o: 562" R/le, 56e 4rel2m21!ry 21ve"529!52o1 o: 3!"e" :!ll219 /18er 56e or2921!l =/r2"82352o1 o: 56e Me5ro4ol25!1 Tr2!l Co/r5, M/12324!l Tr2!l Co/r5 21 C252e", M/12324!l Tr2!l Co/r5 or M/12324!l C2r3/25 Tr2!l Co/r5 S(A&& be 3o18/35e8 by 56e 4ro"e3/5or. 0he p"ocedu"e fo" the issuance of a 1a""ant of a""est b$ the ?ud(e shall be (ove"ned b$ pa"a("aph -a. of this section. -Emphasis supplied.. Clea"l$, M0C ?ud(es a"e no lon(e" autho"i,ed to conduct p"elimina"$ investi(ation. In this case, the c"ime cha"(ed a(ainst complainant 1as di"ect assault a(ainst a public school teache", 1ho is a pe"son in autho"it$ unde" A"ticle 14&8 of the Revised Penal Code.3 @nde" A"ticle 13; of the Revised Penal Code, 1hen the assault is

committed a(ainst a pe"son in autho"it$ 1hile en(a(ed in the pe"fo"mance of his official duties o" on the occasion of such pe"fo"mance, the imposable penalt$ is prision !orre!!ional in its medium and ma9imum pe"iods. 0he du"ation of the penalt$ of prision !orre!!ional in its medium and ma9imum pe"iods is & $ea"s, 3 months and 1 da$ to ' $ea"s. 0hus, the offense cha"(ed a(ainst complainant "e6ui"es the conduct of p"elimina"$ investi(ation as p"ovided unde" ection 1 of Rule 11& of the Rules of Cou"t, 1hich "eads2 EC0I!N 1. "reliminary investigation #efine#$ when re%uire#. P"elimina"$ investi(ation is an in6ui"$ o" p"oceedin( to dete"mine 1hethe" the"e is sufficient ("ound to en(ende" a 1ellB founded belief that a c"ime has been committed and the "espondent is p"obabl$ (uilt$ the"eof, and should be held fo" t"ial. E9cept as p"ovided in ection ' of this Rule, ! 4rel2m21!ry 21ve"529!52o1 2" re</2re8 5o be 3o18/35e8 be:ore 56e :2l219 o: ! 3om4l!215 or 21:orm!52o1 :or !1 o::e1"e >6ere 56e 4e1!l5y 4re"3r2be8 by l!> 2" !5 le!"5 :o/r ?@A ye!r", 5>o ?2A mo156" !18 ?1A 8!y >256o/5 re9!r8 5o 56e :21e. -Emphasis supplied.. It 1as the"efo"e incumbent upon "espondent ?ud(e to fo"1a"d the "eco"ds of the case to the !ffice of the P"ovincial P"osecuto" fo" p"elimina"$ investi(ation, instead of conductin( the p"elimina"$ investi(ation himself. Rule 8.%1, Canon 8 of the Code of #udicial Conduct mandates that a ?ud(e shall be faithful to the la1 and maintain p"ofessional competence. Indeed, competence and dili(ence a"e p"e"e6uisites to the due pe"fo"mance of ?udicial office.4 ection 8, Canon ' of the Ne1 Code of #udicial Conduct' "e6ui"es ?ud(es to maintain and enhance thei" 7no1led(e and s7ills to p"ope"l$ pe"fo"m thei" ?udicial functions, thus2 EC. 8. #ud(es shall ta7e "easonable steps to maintain and enhance thei" 7no1led(e, s7ills and pe"sonal 6ualities fo" the p"ope" pe"fo"mance of ?udicial duties, ta7in( advanta(e fo" this pu"pose of the t"ainin( and othe" facilities 1hich should be made available, unde" ?udicial cont"ol, to ?ud(es. Ehen a la1 o" a "ule is basic, ?ud(es o1e it to thei" office to simpl$ appl$ the la1. An$thin( less is ("oss i(no"ance of the la1. > #ud(es should e9hibit mo"e than ?ust a cu"so"$ ac6uaintance 1ith the statutes and p"ocedu"al "ules,;and should be dili(ent in 7eepin( ab"east 1ith developments in la1 and ?u"isp"udence.< !n the alle(ed p"omise of "espondent ?ud(eFs 1ife that the bail 1ould be "educed p"ovided he" P84,%%% debt 1ill be cancelled and that complainant ("ant "espondent ?ud(eFs 1ife an additional

loan, 1e find that complainant did not substantiate he" alle(ation. Neve"theless, the Cou"t notes that althou(h "espondent ?ud(e denies 7no1led(e of such t"ansaction bet1een his 1ife and complainant, "espondent ?ud(e did not cate(o"icall$ den$ his 1ifeFs debt to complainant. In his Comment, "espondent ?ud(e states2 =Assumin( arguen#o that the"e "eall$ 1as a loan made b$ his 1ife, he did not 7no1 of such t"ansaction bet1een his 1ife and the complainant and (iven this, he did not allo1 such t"ansaction to ta7e place.=1% Canon 3 of the Ne1 Code of #udicial Conduct st"esses the impo"tance of p"op"iet$ and the appea"ance of p"op"iet$ to the pe"fo"mance of all the activities of a ?ud(e. Respondent ?ud(e should bea" in mind that ?ud(es should avoid imp"op"iet$ and the appea"ance of imp"op"iet$ in all of thei" activities.11 )u"the"mo"e, ?ud(es and membe"s of thei" families a"e p"ohibited f"om as7in( fo" o" acceptin( an$ (ift, be6uest, loan o" favo" in "elation to an$thin( done o" to be done o" omitted to be done b$ him in connection 1ith the pe"fo"mance of ?udicial duties.1& !n "espondent ?ud(eFs issuance of the 1a""ant of a""est and "eduction of the amount of bail, 1e find such acts void fo" 1ant of ?u"isdiction. Ehile Rule 113 of the Rules of Cou"t allo1s a ?ud(e to ("ant bail in bailable offenses and to inc"ease o" dec"ease bail, it assumes that the ?ud(e has ?u"isdiction ove" the case. In this case, "espondent ?ud(e conducted the p"elimina"$ investi(ation 1ithout autho"it$ and issued the 1a""ant of a""est. 0hus, these acts a"e void fo" 1ant of ?u"isdiction. 0he "eduction of bail is also void because in the fi"st place, "espondent ?ud(e had no ?u"isdiction ove" the case itself. 0he Cou"t notes that this is "espondent ?ud(eFs thi"d offense. In &%%8, the Cou"t found "espondent ?ud(e administ"ativel$ liable fo" undue dela$ in "ende"in( decisions and fined him P1<,%%%, 1ith a ste"n 1a"nin( that a "epetition of simila" acts 1ould be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$.181avvphi1 Mo"e impo"tantl$, in the &%%; case of &antos v. Bernar#o,13 the Cou"t found "espondent ?ud(e (uilt$ of ("oss i(no"ance of the la1 and basic "ules of p"ocedu"e and fined him P&%,%%%, 1ith a ste"n 1a"nin( that a "epetition of the same o" simila" acts 1ould be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$.14 0he Cou"t found no me"it in "espondent ?ud(eFs supposition that ("ave coe"cion is an offense not sub?ect to p"elimina"$ investi(ation. 0he Cou"t, ho1eve", emphasi,ed that 1hen the complaint 1as filed on 8 #anua"$ &%%', "espondent ?ud(e no lon(e" had autho"it$ to conduct p"elimina"$ investi(ation b$ vi"tue of A.M. No. %4B;B&'B C. 0hus, the Cou"t held that "espondent ?ud(e should have "efe""ed the complaint to the !ffice of the P"ovincial P"osecuto" instead of issuin( the subpoena di"ectin( complainants to appea" befo"e the Cou"t.

@nde" ection ;-<., Rule 13% of the Rules of Cou"t, ("oss i(no"ance of the la1 o" p"ocedu"e is classified as a se"ious cha"(e, fo" 1hich the imposable penalt$ is an$ of the follo1in(2 1. Dismissal f"om the se"vice, fo"feitu"e of all o" pa"t of the benefits as the Cou"t ma$ dete"mine, and dis6ualification f"om "einstatement o" appointment to an$ public office, includin( (ove"nmentBo1ned o" cont"olled co"po"ation2 "rovi#e#, however, that the fo"feitu"e of benefits shall in no case include acc"ued leave c"editsH &. uspension f"om office 1ithout sala"$ and othe" benefits fo" mo"e than th"ee -8. but not e9ceedin( si9 -'. monthsH o" 8. A fine of mo"e than P&%,%%%.%% but not e9ceedin( P3%,%%%.%%.1' Conside"in( that this is "espondent ?ud(eFs thi"d offense, the second of 1hich 1as also fo" ("oss i(no"ance of the la1, 1e hold that the penalt$ of si9 -'. months suspension f"om office 1ithout sala"$ and othe" benefits is in o"de".1> ,(EREFORE, 1e find "espondent #ud(e *au"o +. Be"na"do *U)&T' of ("oss i(no"ance of the la1 andSUSPEN him f"om office fo" a pe"iod of si9 -'. months 1ithout sala"$ and othe" benefits, 1ith a ste"n 1a"nin( that a "epetition of the same o" simila" acts shall be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$. SO OR ERE .

3. EN BANC #@D+E NAP!*E!N E. IN!0@RAN, Re(ional 0"ial Cou"t, B"anch 188, R0C. Ma7ati Cit$, A.M. No. M0#B%1B18'& -fo"me"l$ A.M. No. %1B&B3<B P"esent2 C!R!N A, C.#., CARPI!, OCARPI! M!RA*E , B ve"sus B CA 0R!, BRI!N, PERA*0A, BER AMIN, DE* CA 0I**!, ABAD, DI**ARAMA, #R., PEREG, MEND!GA, and EREN!, ##. #@D+E MAN@E* P. *IM IAC!, #R., Municipal Ci"cuit 0"ial Cou"t, Dalladolid, P"omul(ated2 an En"i6ueBPulupandan, Ne("os !ccidental, Respondent. )eb"ua"$ &&, &%11 9BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB9 ANC5! E. +@INANA!, Complainant, 1<34BM0#. B ve"sus B #@D+E MAN@E* P. *IM IAC!, #R., Municipal Ci"cuit 0"ial Cou"t, Dalladolid, an En"i6ueBPulupandan, Ne("os !ccidental, Respondent. A.M. No. M0#B11B1>;4 -fo"me"l$ A.M. !CA IPI No. %>B DE*A C!, #R., NAC5@RA, OO*E!NARD!BDE

9BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBB9 DECI I!N

PER C@RIAM2

Befo"e us a"e t1o -&. consolidated cases filed a(ainst #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #". as the P"esidin( #ud(e of the Municipal Ci"cuit 0"ial Cou"t -MC0C. of Dalladolid, an En"i6ueB

Pulupandan, Ne("os !ccidental. 0he fi"st case involves the failu"e of #ud(e *imsiaco to compl$ 1ith the di"ectives of the Cou"t. 0he second case involves the failu"e of #ud(e *imsiaco to decide a case 1ithin the <%Bda$ "e(lementa"$ pe"iod.

A.M. No. M0#B%1B18'&

!n eptembe" &4, 1<<;, a complaint 1as filed a(ainst #ud(e *imsiaco fo" his issuance of a Release !"de" in favo" of an accused in a c"iminal case befo"e him.J1K Afte" conside"in( the evidence, 1e then found #ud(e *imsiaco (uilt$ of i(no"ance of the la1 and p"ocedu"e and of violatin( the Code of #udicial Conduct. In the dec"etal po"tion of ou" Ma$ ', &%%4 Decision, 1e "uled2 E5ERE)!RE, #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #". is found +@I*0/ of i(no"ance of the la1 and p"ocedu"e and violations of the Code of #udicial Conduct. 5e is he"eb$ o"de"ed to pa$ a )INE in the amount of )o"t$ 0housand pesos -P3%,%%%.%%. upon notice, and is 0ERN*/ EARNED that a "epetition of the same o" simila" inf"actions 1ill be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$. Respondent #ud(e is DIREC0ED to e9plain, 1ithin ten -1%. da$s f"om notice, 1h$ he should not be administ"ativel$ cha"(ed fo" app"ovin( the applications fo" bail of the accused

and o"de"in( thei" "elease in the follo1in( C"iminal Cases filed 1ith othe" cou"ts2 C"iminal Cases Nos. 1881,183&,18'&,18'' and 18'; filed 1ith the R0C, B"anch 4<, an Ca"los Cit$H '>8&&, '<%44B'<%4; filed 1ith the M0CC, B"anch 8, Bacolod Cit$H '>1<&B'>1<8 filed 1ith the M0CC, B"anch 3, Bacolod Cit$H >&;'' filed 1ith the M0CC, B"anch 4, Bacolod Cit$H >%&3<, ;&;<> to ;&<%8, ;8143&, ;8&'% to ;8&'; filed 1ith the M0CC, B"anch ', Bacolod Cit$H and <4B1>83% filed 1ith the R0C, B"anch 4%, Bacolod Cit$, as "epo"ted b$ E9ecutive #ud(e Ed(a"do +. +a"villes. ! !RDERED. #ud(e *imsiaco t1ice moved fo" an e9tension of time to file a motion fo" "econside"ation of the above decision and to compl$ 1ith the Cou"tFs di"ective "e6ui"in( him to submit an e9planation. Despite the e9tension of time (iven ho1eve", #ud(e *imsiaco failed to file his motion fo" "econside"ation and the "e6ui"ed e9planation.

In the Resolution dated #anua"$ &3, &%%', 1e issued a sho1 cause "esolution fo" contempt and "e6ui"ed #ud(e *imsiaco to e9plain his failu"e to compl$ 1ith the Decision dated Ma$ ', &%%4. In the Resolution dated Decembe" 1&, &%%', afte" notin( the failu"e of #ud(e *imsiaco to compl$ 1ith the Resolution dated #anua"$ &3, &%%', 1e "esolved to impose a fine in the amount of P1,%%%.%% a(ainst #ud(e *imsiaco and to "eite"ate ou" ea"lie" di"ective fo" him to file an e9planation to the sho1 cause "esolution.

!n )eb"ua"$ 1, &%%>, #ud(e *imsiaco filed a Manifestation and @"(ent Motion fo" E9tension of 0ime to )ile

E9planation 1he"ein he apolo(i,ed to the Cou"t and paid the P1,%%%.%% fine. 5e cited poo" health as the "eason fo" his

failu"e

to

compl$

1ith

the

Resolution

dated #anua"$

&3,

&%%'. !n )eb"ua"$ ', &%%>, 1e "esolved to ("ant the motion fo" e9tension filed b$ #ud(e *imsiaco and (ave him ten -1%. da$s f"om #anua"$ 14, &%%> 1ithin 1hich to file his e9planation.

Despite the ("ant of the e9tension of time, no e9planation fo" the sho1 cause "esolution 1as eve" filed. Pe" Resolution dated Decembe" 14, &%%<, 1e a(ain "e6ui"ed #ud(e *imsiaco to compl$ 1ith the sho1 cause "esolution 1ithin ten -1%. da$s f"om "eceipt unde" pain of imposin( a stiffe" penalt$. De"ification made f"om the postmaste" sho1ed that a cop$ of the Decembe" 14, &%%< Resolution 1as "eceived b$ #ud(e *imsiaco on )eb"ua"$ 1, &%1%.

In addition, a Repo"t -as of Au(ust 81, &%1%. f"om the Documentation Division, !ffice of the Cou"t Administ"ato" -!CA. sho1ed that the di"ectives in ou" Decision dated Ma$ ', &%%4 have not been complied 1ith b$ #ud(e *imsiaco.

A.M. No. M0#B11B1>;4

!n eptembe" &3, &%%>, #ud(e *imsiaco 1as cha"(ed 1ith Dela$ in the Disposition of a Case b$ complainant ancho E. +uinanao, a plaintiff in an e?ectment case pendin( befo"e #ud(e *imsiaco. +uinanao claimed that #ud(e *imsiaco failed to seasonabl$ decide the sub?ect e?ectment case 1hich had been submitted fo" "esolution as ea"l$ as Ap"il &4, &%%4. 0he !CA "efe""ed the matte" to us 1hen #ud(e *imsiaco failed to file his comment to the administ"ative complaint. @nde" the pain of a sho1 cause o"de" fo" contempt fo" failu"e to heed the !CA

di"ectives to file a comment, #ud(e *imsiaco info"med us that he had al"ead$ decided the case on )eb"ua"$ 3, &%%;. ubse6uentl$, 1e "esolvedJ&K to decla"e #ud(e *imsiaco in contempt and to impose a fine of P1,%%%.%% fo" his continued failu"e to file the "e6ui"ed comment to the administ"ative complaint. 0he "eco"ds sho1 that #ud(e *imsiaco paid the P1,%%%.%% fine but did not submit the "e6ui"ed comment.

Pe" Resolution dated Novembe" &8, &%1%, 1e o"de"ed the consolidation of the above cases, to(ethe" 1ith A.M. No. M0#B%<B 1>83, entitled )lo"enda D. 0obias v. #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #"., 1hich case 1as sepa"atel$ decided on #anua"$ 1<, &%11. 0he Cou"tFs Rulin(

Ee shall conside" in this "ulin( not me"el$ #ud(e *imsiacoFs conduct in connection 1ith the discha"(e of ?udicial functions 1ithin his te""ito"ial ?u"isdiction, but also the pe"fo"mance of his le(al duties befo"e this Cou"t as a membe" of the bench. Ee shall then ta7e both matte"s into account in sc"utini,in( his conduct as a ?ud(e and in dete"minin( 1hethe" p"ope" disciplina"$ measu"es should be imposed a(ainst him unde" the

ci"cumstances.

A ?ud(eFs duties to the Cou"t

Case la1 teaches us that a ?ud(e is the visible "ep"esentation of the la1, and mo"e impo"tantl$ of ?usticeH he o" she must, the"efo"e, be the fi"st to follo1 the la1 and 1eave an e9ample fo" the othe"s to follo1.J8K Inte"estin(l$, in #ulianito M. alvado" v. #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #"., etc.,J3K a case 1he"e

#ud(e *imsiaco 1as also the "espondent, 1e al"ead$ had the occasion to imp"ess upon him the clea" impo"t of the di"ectives of the Cou"t, thus2 )o" a ?ud(e to e9hibit indiffe"ence to a "esolution "e6ui"in( him to comment on the accusations in the complaint tho"ou(hl$ and substantiall$ is ("oss misconduct, and ma$ even be conside"ed as out"i(ht dis"espect fo" the Cou"t. 0he office of the ?ud(e "e6ui"es him to obe$ all the la1ful o"de"s of his supe"io"s. Afte" all, a "esolution of the up"eme Cou"t is not a me"e "e6uest and should be complied 1ith p"omptl$ and completel$. uch failu"e to compl$ acco"din(l$ bet"a$s not onl$ a "ecalcit"ant st"ea7 in cha"acte", but has li7e1ise been conside"ed as an utte" lac7 of inte"est to "emain 1ith, if not contempt of the ?udicial s$stem.

Ee also cited in that case ou" "ulin( in #osephine C. Ma"tine, v. #ud(e Cesa" N. GoletaJ4K and emphasi,ed that obedience to ou" la1ful o"de"s and di"ectives should not be me"el$ selective obedience, but must be full2 JAK "esolution of the up"eme Cou"t "e6ui"in( comment on an administ"ative complaint a(ainst officials and emplo$ees of the ?udicia"$ should not be const"ued as a me"e "e6uest f"om the Cou"t. No" should it be complied 1ith pa"tiall$, inade6uatel$ o" selectivel$. Respondents in administ"ative complaints should comment on all accusations o" alle(ations a(ainst them in the administ"ative complaints because it is thei" dut$ to p"ese"ve the inte("it$ of the ?udicia"$. Mo"eove", the Cou"t should not and 1ill not tole"ate futu"e indiffe"ence of "espondents to administ"ative complaints and to "esolutions "e6ui"in( comment on such administ"ative complaints.

As demonst"ated b$ his p"esent acts, 1e find it clea" that #ud(e *imsiaco failed to heed the above p"onouncements. Ee obse"ve that in A.M. No. M0#B%1B18'&, #ud(e *imsiaco did not full$ obe$ ou" di"ectives. #ud(e *imsiaco failed to file the "e6ui"ed comment to ou" sho1 cause "esolution despite seve"al

oppo"tunities (iven to him b$ the Cou"t. 5is disobedience 1as a(("avated b$ his insince"e "ep"esentations in his motions fo" e9tension of time that he 1ould file the "e6ui"ed comments.

0he "eco"ds also sho1 #ud(e *imsiacoFs failu"e to compl$ 1ith ou" decision and o"de"s. In A.M. No. M0#B%1B18'&, #ud(e *imsiaco failed to file his commentQans1e" to the cha"(e of i""e(ula"it$ pe"tainin( to his app"oval of applications fo" bail in seve"al c"iminal cases befo"e him. 5e also failed to pa$ the P3%,%%%.%% fine 1hich 1e imposed b$ 1a$ of administ"ative penalt$ fo" his ("oss i(no"ance of the la1 and p"ocedu"e and violations of the Code of #udicial Conduct. Incidentall$, in A.M. No. M0#B11B1>;4, #ud(e *imsiaco failed to file his comment on the ve"ified complaint despite seve"al o"de"s issued b$ the Cou"t.

Ee cannot ove"emphasi,e that compliance 1ith the "ules, di"ectives and ci"cula"s issued b$ the Cou"t is one of the fo"emost duties that a ?ud(e accepts upon assumption to office. 0his dut$ is ve"bali,ed in Canon 1 of the Ne1 Code of #udicial Conduct2 EC0I!N >. #ud(es shall encou"a(e and uphold safe(ua"ds fo" the discha"(e of ?udicial duties in o"de" to maintain and enhance the institutional and ope"ational independence of the #udicia"$. EC0I!N ;. #ud(es shall e9hibit and p"omote hi(h standa"ds of ?udicial conduct in o"de" to "einfo"ce public confidence in the #udicia"$,

1hich is fundamental to the maintenance of ?udicial independence.

0he obli(ation to uphold the di(nit$ of his office and the institution 1hich he belon(s to is also found in Canon & of the Code of #udicial Conduct unde" Rule &.%1 1hich mandates a ?ud(e to behave at all times as to p"omote public confidence in the inte("it$ and impa"tialit$ of the ?udicia"$.

@nde" the ci"cumstances, the conduct e9hibited b$ #ud(e *imsiaco constitutes no less than clea" acts of defiance a(ainst the Cou"tFs autho"it$. 5is conduct also "eveals his delibe"ate dis"espect and indiffe"ence to the autho"it$ of the Cou"t, sho1n b$ his failu"e to heed ou" 1a"nin(s and di"ectives. #ud(e *imsiacoFs actions fu"the" disclose his inabilit$ to accept ou"

inst"uctions. Mo"eove", his conduct failed to p"ovide a (ood e9ample fo" othe" cou"t pe"sonnel, and the public as 1ell, in placin( si(nificance to the Cou"tFs di"ectives and the impo"tance of compl$in( 1ith them.

Ee cannot allo1 this t$pe of behavio" especiall$ on a ?ud(e. Public confidence in the ?udicia"$ can onl$ be achieved 1hen the cou"t pe"sonnel conduct themselves in a di(nified manne" befittin( the public office the$ a"e holdin(. 0he$ should avoid conduct o" an$ demeano" that ma$ ta"nish o" diminish the autho"it$ of the up"eme Cou"t.

@nde" e9istin( ?u"isp"udence, 1e have held ?ud(es administ"ativel$ liable fo" failin( to compl$ 1ith ou" di"ectives and ci"cula"s.

In inaon,

".,J'K 1e penali,ed a ?ud(e fo" his delibe"ate

failu"e to compl$ 1ith ou" di"ective "e6ui"in( him to file a comment. Ee disciplined anothe" ?ud(e in Noe Can(co Ga"ate v. #ud(e Isau"o M. Balde"ianJ>K fo" his "efusal to compl$ 1ith the Cou"tFs "esolution "e6ui"in( him to file a comment on the administ"ative cha"(e a(ainst him. In Re6uest of #ud(e Edua"do ). Ca"ta(ena, etc.,J;K 1e dismissed the ?ud(e fo" his "epeated violation of a ci"cula" of the up"eme Cou"t. In fact, 1e have al"ead$

"ep"imanded and 1a"ned #ud(e *imsiaco fo" his failu"e to timel$ heed the Cou"tFs di"ectives in alvado".J<K

A ?ud(eFs dut$ to his public office

+iven the factual ci"cumstances in A.M. No. M0#B11B1>;4, the conside"able dela$ #ud(e *imsiaco incu""ed in decidin( the sub?ect e?ectment case has been clea"l$ established b$ the "eco"ds and b$ his o1n admission. #ud(e *imsiaco admitted that he decided the e?ectment case onl$ on )eb"ua"$ 3, &%%;. In tu"n, the "eco"ds sho1 that #ud(e *imsiaco did not den$ +uinanaoFs claim that the e?ectment case 1as submitted fo" "esolution as ea"l$ as Ap"il &4, &%%4. 0hus, it too7 #ud(e *imsiaco mo"e than t1o -&. $ea"s to decide the sub?ect e?ectment case afte" it 1as decla"ed submitted fo" "esolution.

0he dela$ in decidin( a case 1ithin the "e(lementa"$ pe"iod constitutes a violation of ection 4, Canon ' of the Ne1

Code of #udicial ConductJ1%K 1hich mandates ?ud(es to pe"fo"m all ?udicial duties, includin( the delive"$ of "ese"ved decisions, efficientl$, fai"l$ and 1ith p"omptness. In line 1ith ?u"isp"udence,

#ud(e *imsiaco is also liable fo" ("oss inefficienc$ fo" his failu"e to decide a case 1ithin the "e(lementa"$ pe"iod.J11K

0he Penalt$

@nde" Rule 13% of the Rules of Cou"t, as amended b$ A.M. No. %1B;B1%B C dated up"eme Cou"t "ules, eptembe" 11, &%%1, violation of and ci"cula"s, and ("oss

di"ectives

inefficienc$ a"e cate(o"i,ed as less se"ious cha"(es 1ith the follo1in( sanctions2 -a. suspension f"om office 1ithout sala"$ and othe" benefits fo" not less than one o" mo"e than th"ee monthsH o" -b. a fine of mo"e than P1%,%%%.%% but not e9ceedin( P&%,%%%.%%. J1&K

In dete"minin( the p"ope" imposable penalt$, 1e also conside" #ud(e *imsiacoFs 1o"7 histo"$ 1hich "eflects ho1 he pe"fo"med his ?udicial functions as a ?ud(e. Ee obse"ved that the"e a"e seve"al administ"ative cases al"ead$ decided a(ainst #ud(e *imsiaco that sho1 his inabilit$ to p"ope"l$ discha"(e his ?udicial duties.

In alvado",J18K 1e penali,ed #ud(e *imsiaco fo" havin( been found (uilt$ of undue dela$ in "ende"in( a decision, imposin( on him a P&%,%%%.%% fine, 1ith a 1a"nin( that a "epetition of the same o" simila" inf"action in the futu"e shall be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$.

In 5elen

+amboaBMi?a"es found #ud(e

v.

#ud(e

Manuel (uilt$

P.

*imsiaco, #".,J13K 1e

*imsiaco

of ("oss

misconduct and imposed on him a P&%,%%%.%% fine, 1ith a 1a"nin(

that a mo"e seve"e penalt$ 1ould be imposed in case of the same of simila" act in the futu"e.

In Att$. Adoni"am P. Pamplona v. #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #".,J14K 1e "esolved to impose a P&%,%%%.%% fine on #ud(e *imsiaco fo" ("oss i(no"ance of the la1 and p"ocedu"e, 1ith a ste"n 1a"nin( that a "epetition of the same o" simila" offense 1ould be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$. 0he Cou"t also "esolved in the said case to "eBdoc7et, as a "e(ula" administ"ative case, the cha"(e fo" opp"ession and ("ave abuse of autho"it$ "elative to #ud(e *imsiacoFs handlin( of t1o c"iminal cases.

In Re2 Eithholdin( of ala"$ of #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #"., etc.,J1'K 1e imposed a P4,%%%.%% fine, 1ith 1a"nin(, a(ainst #ud(e *imsiaco fo" his dela$ in the submission of the monthl$ "epo"t of cases and fo" t1ice i(no"in( the !CAFs di"ective to e9plain the dela$.

Mo"eove", in the "ecent case of )lo"enda 0obias v. #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #".,J1>K 1he"e #ud(e *imsiaco 1as cha"(ed 1ith co""uption, the Cou"t found him liable fo" ("oss

misconduct and imposed a fine in the amount of P&4,%%%.%%.

*astl$,

1e

also note the e9istence of t1o othe"

administ"ative cases filed a(ainst #ud(e *imsiaco that a"e p"esentl$ pendin( 1ith the Cou"t. 0he fi"st case is Ma"io B. 0apinco v. #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #".,J1;K 1he"e #ud(e *imsiaco is cha"(ed 1ith ("ave misconduct, obst"uction of ?ustice, and abuse of autho"it$ in connection 1ith his invalid issuance of an o"de" fo" the p"ovisional "elease of an accused. 0he second

case entitled @nautho"i,ed 5ea"in(s Conducted b$ #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #"., MC0C, et al.,J1<K is a complaint cha"(in( #ud(e *imsiaco of violatin( the Cou"tFs Administ"ative Ci"cula" No. 8, dated #ul$ 13, 1<>; 1hich p"ohibits the conduct of hea"in(s in anothe" station 1ithout an$ autho"it$ f"om the Cou"t.

Ee find that his conduct as a "epeat offende" e9hibits his un1o"thiness to don the ?udicial "obes and me"its a sanction heavie" than 1hat is p"ovided b$ ou" "ules and ?u"isp"udence. @nde" the ci"cumstances, #ud(e *imsiaco should be dismissed f"om the se"vice. Ee, ho1eve", note that on Ma$ 1>, &%%<, #ud(e *imsiaco has "eti"ed f"om ?udicial se"vice. Ee also note that #ud(e *imsiaco has not $et applied fo" his "eti"ement benefits. 0hus, in lieu of the penalt$ of dismissal fo" his unethical conduct and ("oss inefficienc$ in pe"fo"min( his duties as a membe" of the bench, 1e decla"e all his "eti"ement benefits, e9cept acc"ued leave c"edits, fo"feited. )u"the"mo"e, he is ba""ed f"om "eBemplo$ment in an$ b"anch o" se"vice of the (ove"nment, includin( (ove"nmentBo1ned and cont"olled co"po"ations.

E5ERE)!RE, p"emises conside"ed, 1e find #ud(e Manuel P. *imsiaco, #". administ"ativel$ liable fo" unethical conduct and ("oss inefficienc$ unde" the p"ovisions of the Ne1 Code of #udicial Conduct, specificall$, ections > and ; of Canon 1, and ection 4 of Canon '. )o" these inf"actions, 1e DEC*ARE all his "eti"ement benefits, e9cept acc"ued leave c"edits if an$, )!R)EI0ED. 5e is li7e1ise ba""ed f"om "eBemplo$ment in an$ b"anch o" se"vice of the (ove"nment, includin( (ove"nmentBo1ned and cont"olled co"po"ations. ! !RDERED.

4. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EC!ND DIDI I!N A.M. No. P$09$2.1@ e3ember #, 2010 [Formerly OCA ).P.). No. 08$2.0.$P% FERNAN O P. C(AN, Complainant, vs. -OBEN T. O&E*AR)O, Respondent. DECI PERA&TA, J.: Befo"e this Cou"t is a c"iminal complaint dated #ul$ 8%, &%%> filed b$ )e"nando P. Chan -Chan. a(ainst "espondent #oven !le(a"io -!le(a"io., P"ocess e"ve" of the Re(ional 0"ial Cou"t -R0C. of Ma7ati Cit$, B"anch ', Ili(an Cit$, fo" 'stafa. 0he complaint 1as filed befo"e the !ffice of the !mbudsman, ho1eve", !le(a"io bein( a cou"t emplo$ee, the instant complaint 1as fo"1a"ded to the !ffice of the Cou"t Administ"ato" -!CA. fo" administ"ative disciplina"$ action. 0he antecedent facts of the case, as culled f"om the "eco"ds, a"e as follo1s2 Complainant Chan is the o1ne"Qp"op"ieto" of CR+ 5a"d1a"e and Const"uction uppl$ located at 0iban(a 5i(h1a$, Ili(an Cit$. !n )eb"ua"$ 8, &%%1, !le(a"io 1ent to Chan:s ha"d1a"e to obtain const"uction mate"ials 1hich 1ill be utili,ed fo" the const"uction of his house. 5e int"oduced himself to Chan as a cou"t p"ocess se"ve" at the R0C of Ili(an, B"anch DI, and sho1ed ce"tain documents as p"oof. !le(a"io e9plained then to Chan that he 1as sho"t of funds fo" the const"uction of his house and that he had applied fo" a loan at + I . 5e then as7ed Chan fo" const"uction mate"ials and p"omised that he 1ill pa$ his loan as soon as he "eceived the p"oceeds of his + I loan as 1ell as an inte"est of &%R pe" annum. Ban7in( on the 1o"ds of !le(a"io and his bein( a (ove"nment emplo$ee, Chan a("eed to his "e6uest and delive"ed to him const"uction mate"ials, to 1it2 -1. 1% ba(s of cementH -&. 1% pcs. of I!N

Pl$1oodH and -8. 1% pcs. of co""u(ated +.I. sheet. 0he total cost of the const"uction mate"ials amounted to )ou" 0housand )ive 5und"ed 0en Pesos -P3,41%.%%.. 0h"ee months afte", Chan demanded pa$ment f"om !le(a"io, but the latte" told him that his loan has $et to be "eleased. 5e p"omised thou(h that he 1ill pa$ his obli(ation 1ith inte"est. 5is p"omise to pa$ his obli(ation 1ent on and on. Chan ave""ed that fo" seven $ea"s, !le(a"io has not paid him even a sin(le centavo. !n #une 14, &%%>, Chan sent anothe" demand lette" to !le(a"io to pa$ his obli(ation. A(ain, !le(a"io me"el$ p"omised him that he 1ill pa$ his obli(ation 1ithin 14 da$s, but he neve" did. !n !ctobe" 1', &%%>, the Cou"t di"ected !le(a"io to submit his comment on the instant complaint a(ainst him. In his Comment dated Ma"ch 3, &%%;, !le(a"io denied that he had been evadin( his obli(ation to pa$ his debts to Chan. 5e alle(ed that his 1ife died on )eb"ua"$ ', &%%; afte" a month of fi(htin( a massive st"o7e, thus, he had to attend to the needs of his 1ife. !le(a"io li7e1ise manifested that he attempted to tende" pa"tial pa$ment to Chan, but the latte" "efused it. 5e as7ed the Cou"t to (ive him mo"e time to settle his obli(ation to Chan. ubse6uentl$, in its Memo"andum dated eptembe" &8, &%%<, the !CA "ecommended that the instant complaint be "edoc7eted as a "e(ula" administ"ative complaint. It fu"the" found !le(a"io (uilt$ of 1illful failu"e to pa$ ?ust debt and conduct unbecomin( of a cou"t emplo$ee, thus, also "ecommended the imposition of a fine in the amount ofP4,%%%.%%. Ee a("ee 1ith the findin(s and "ecommendation of the !CA. 0he Cou"t cannot ove"st"ess the need fo" ci"cumspect and p"ope" behavio" on the pa"t of cou"t emplo$ees. Ehile it ma$ be ?ust fo" an individual to incu" indebtedness un"est"ained b$ the fact that he is a public office" o" emplo$ee, caution should be ta7en to p"event the occu""ence of dubious ci"cumstances that mi(ht inevitabl$ impai" the ima(e of the public office. Emplo$ees of the cou"t should al1a$s 7eep in mind that the cou"t is "e(a"ded b$ the public 1ith "espect. Conse6uentl$, the conduct of each cou"t pe"sonnel should be ci"cumsc"ibed 1ith the heav$ bu"den of onus and must at all times be cha"acte"i,ed b$, amon( othe" thin(s, up"i(htness, p"op"iet$ and deco"um.1

0he"e is no 6uestion as to the e9istence of the debt and its ?ustness as !le(a"io himself admitted them. *i7e1ise, !le(a"io:s alle(ation of financial difficulties is not a sufficient e9cuse fo" failin( to pa$ his debt to Chan. 5e claimed that he had no intention of evadin( his obli(ation, but 1e a"e unconvinced. 0he fact that it too7 mo"e than seven $ea"s befo"e he attempted to pa$ his obli(ation clea"l$ ne(ated his claim. Mo"eove", 1e also ta7e note that it 1as !le(a"io:s p"onouncement that he is a cou"t emplo$ee 1hich induced Chan to t"ust him and e9tend a loan to him. 0hus, !le(a"io:s nonBpa$ment of his debt fo" mo"e than > $ea"s not onl$ tainted his name but the cou"t:s ima(e as 1ell. 0his 1e 1ill not tole"ate. )u"the"mo"e, the fact that Chan, on Decembe" 1&, &%%<, manifested that he is no lon(e" inte"ested to pu"sue the instant administ"ative case since he and !le(a"io have al"ead$ a("eed to settle thei" dispute amicabl$ 1ould not "ende" this case moot. 0he 1ithd"a1al of complaints cannot divest the Cou"t of its ?u"isdiction no" st"ip it of its po1e" to dete"mine the ve"acit$ of the cha"(es made and to discipline, such as the "esults of its investi(ation ma$ 1a""ant, an e""in( "espondent. Administ"ative actions cannot depend on the 1ill o" pleasu"e of the complainant 1ho ma$, fo" "easons of his o1n, condone 1hat ma$ be detestable. Neithe" can the Cou"t be bound b$ the unilate"al act of the complainant in a matte" "elatin( to its disciplina"$ po1e". 0he Cou"tFs inte"est in the affai"s of the ?udicia"$ is of pa"amount conce"n. )o" su"e, public inte"est is at sta7e in the conduct and actuations of officials and emplo$ees of the ?udicia"$, inasmuch as the va"ious p"o("ams and effo"ts of this Cou"t in imp"ovin( the delive"$ of ?ustice to the people should not be f"ust"ated and put to nau(ht b$ p"ivate a""an(ements bet1een the pa"ties as in the instant case.& *i7e1ise, the fact that !le(a"io settled his obli(ation 1ith complainant du"in( the pendenc$ of the p"esent complaint does not e9culpate him f"om administ"ative liabilit$. Eillful failu"e to pa$ ?ust debt amounts to conduct unbecomin( a cou"t emplo$ee.8 Ee cannot ove"loo7 the fact that !le(a"io:s unethical conduct has diminished the hono" and inte("it$ of his office and stained the ima(e of the ?udicia"$. Ce"tainl$, to p"ese"ve decenc$ 1ithin the ?udicia"$, cou"t pe"sonnel must compl$ 1ith ?ust cont"actual obli(ations, act fai"l$ and adhe"e to hi(h ethical standa"ds. *i7e all othe" cou"t pe"sonnel, !le(a"io is e9pected to be a pa"a(on of up"i(htness, fai"ness and honest$ not onl$ in all his official conduct but also in his pe"sonal actuations, includin( business and comme"cial t"ansactions, so as to avoid becomin( his cou"tFs albat"oss of infam$.3 0he penalt$ imposed b$ the la1 is not di"ected at !le(a"ioFs p"ivate life, but at his actuation unbecomin( a public official.1avvphi1

,(EREFORE, the Cou"t finds -OBEN T. O&E*AR)O, P"ocess e"ve", Re(ional 0"ial Cou"t of Ili(an Cit$, B"anch ', *U)&T' o: CON UCT UNBECOM)N* OF COURT EMP&O'EE fo" 1hich he is F)NE in the amount ofPC,000.00 1ith STERN ,ARN)N* that a "epetition of the same o" simila" acts shall be dealt 1ith mo"e seve"el$. ! !RDERED.