LIBARIOS v. JUDGE DABALOS (1991)
"
LIBARIOS representing client CORVERA JR.
1988 MAR 10
Former Mayor CORVERA SR. was shot by PABLO MACAPAS inside courtroom of
DABALOS
- after hearing on frustrated murder case against MACAPAS
- Mayor TrRANQUILINO CALO (counsel of MACAPAS) was also implicated with his
driver ALLOCOD
Formal charge of MURDER was filed with the City Fiscal's Office
- Investigating Fiscal BALANSAG issued resolution in favor
--- while motion for recon was pending, BALANSAG was gunned down
- Acting City Fiscal BROCOY resolved motion for recon, affirming resolution finding
prima facie case for murder against respondents
1988 SEP 29
BROCOY filed information carrying NO BAIL recommendation before RTC
1988 DEC 08
EXECUTIVE JUDGE DABALOS, without conducting any prior hearing, directed the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused, fixing at the same time the bail at
P50k each
(not charged as co-principals, evidence circumstancial)
CA
- set aside DABALOS' decision
- ordered issuance of new warants of arrest
- ordered RTC to conduct hearing on strength of evidence to determine fixing of bail
SC
- quote CA: determination of w/n evidence of guilt is strong in a capital offense rests
upon the sound judgment and discretion of the court
--- can only be exercised and reached after due or summary hearing
--- fiscal must be notified and given opportunity to present his evidence
--- if court gratns bail without affording opportunity to prosec, due process is
seriously violated
- DABALOS' disregard of an established rule of law
(depriving prosec opportunity to present evidence)
--- amounted to gross ignorance of law which is subject to disciplinary action
- DABALOS' close assoc with CALO, Jr. (former employee thereof)
--- prudence demanded that he refrain from fixing the bail
--- should have waited for the raffle of the case; allow judge to resolve issuance of bail
- "A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but shoudl do
so in a manner as to be free from any suspicion a to his fairness, impartiality and
integrity.
DISPOSITIVE
FINE of P20k + warning to exercise more care and diligence
LUCILA TAN V. JUDGE MAXWEL ROSETE
September 8, 2004 | Puno
 Complaint for violation of Rule 140, RoC and RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act)
FACTS:
 Tan was the private complainant in criminal cases against Alfonso PeSy pending
in the branch presided by Judge Rosete.
 Before the cases were decided, Judge Rosete allegedly sent a member of his staff
to talk to complainant, asking for P150,000 in exchange for non-dismissal of the
cases. The staff member gave Tan unsigned copies of Judge Rosete’s decisions of
the dismissal of the cases.
 Tan did not pay the said amount believing that she can win the case based on
evidence, not on bribery. However, the cases were eventually dismissed by Judge
Rosete.
 Judge Rosete countered that it was Tan who attempted to bribe him. Tan even
boasted that she’s San Juan Mayor Estrada is her neighbor and that Estrada can
promote Rosete to a higher position. Rosete also claimed that Estrada talked to
him about the cases and even when he was in New Zealand, Estrada would even
call him about the case.
o According to Rosete, he declined Estrada’s offer because Tan did not have
sufficient evidence for her case. Moreover, he already entrusted the
decisions on the cases with Judge Quilatan before he left for New Zealand on
study leave. Since he was already in NZ, he could not have instructed his staff
to ask for bribe money from Tan.
RULING: Respondent Judge MaxwelRosete is SUSPENDED from office without salary
and other benefits for 4 months.
RATIO:
 The SC gave more credence to Tan’s version of the story because she was able to
present the unsigned copies of the decision dismissing the cases as given to her
by the Judge Rosete’s staff. If it were not true that Tan met with Rosete’s staff, it
would have been impossible for Tan to obtain a copy of the judge’s draft decision,
it being highly confidential.
 The SC also observed that respondent was inconsistent in his testimonies
regarding the dates when he went to NZ and when he came back to the
Philippines. He did not present all the information as to when he left and came
back. Apparently, he was in the Philippines at the time Tan met with his staff
member.
 The SC emphasized that judges must be the embodiment of competence, integrity
and independence. This is necessary to promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary because the people’s confidence in the judicial
system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the
diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of
integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess.
 When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to
apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and
impairs public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself.
RAMIREZ V JUDGE ANTONIA CORPUZ-MACANDOG
September 26, 1986 | Per Curiam
FACTS:
These are 6 separate complaints of various forms of misconduct against Judge
Macandogof RTC Caloocan City.
1. Deputy Sheriff Ramirez was ordered by Judge Liwag of RTC Caloocan to demolish
the improvements of defendants in certain civil cases. These same defendants
were intervenors in a case handled by Judge Macandog wherein she issued a
preliminary injunction. Thereafter, she gave a handwritten note to the
superintendent of the Northern Police District, ordering the arrest of Ramirez.
Hence, Ramirez filed a petition for habeas corpus before the SC which ordered his
release. Macandog explained that she ordered the arrest to preserve justice in the
case she was handling so that it would not be rendered moot and academic. She
also claimed that it was Judge Liwag who erred in ordering the demolition
because she should have just remanded the case to the court of origin.
2. In another civil case, defendant Pasion did not file any answer to the complaint
against him by Samson. Hence, Samson moved to declare Pasion in default and
set the case for pre-trial. Despite repeated motions to declare Pasion in default,
Judge Macandog did not act on the motions. Hence, Samson filed complaint with
the SC against Judge Macandog. In her comment, Judge Macandog explained that
she already resolved Samson’s motion before the latter brought the complaint to
the SC. However, Samson countered that her counsel only received the resolution
of her motion after she complained to the SC; hence, Macandog merely antedated
the said resolution to make it appear that she was not acting maliciously.
3. In a sworn letter-complaint, Torres claimed that Judge Macandog has been
issuing TROs without conducting hearings on applications for preliminary
injunctions. Worse, upon the expiration of said TROs, she would extend those
orders without hearing. She would also issue TROs against the enforcement of
writs of execution issued by other branches of RTC Caloocan. She also cited for
contempt lawyers who would offend her. She also issued TROs in ejectment cases
involving the “Maysilo Estate” for suspicious considerations. Judge Macandog
merely denied the allegations. Eventually, Torres, who was attorney-in-fact in
another demolition case, was ordered arrested by Judge Macandog for contempt
of court.
4. In another case, Judge Macandog was accused of failing to decide a civil case which
has been submitted for decision for more than 18 months.Macandog denied this
saying that it was the defendant Lazaro in the said case who refused to attend the
hearings or the conferences in order to reach an amicable settlement. Macandog
also claimed that the defendant’s friend who was government official used to call
her and threaten her with removal from her office if she did not decide in favor of
the defendant Lazaro.
5. In a criminal case of frustrated murder, Macandogacquitted the accused despite
the insufficiency of evidence to support the claim of self-defense. Worse, the
offended party in the said criminal case and her counsel were not present during
the promulgation of the decision acquitting the accused.
6. Another civil case was originally assigned to Judge Baylen of another branch of
RTC Caloocan. Judge Baylen was reassigned to another RTC when said case was
already submitted for decision. Hence, the defendants in said case moved for a re-
raffle to another judge. Said motion was referred to Judge Macandog, who
initially denied the motion, but eventually recalled the denial and considered the
case submitted for decision to her. Macandog rendered judgment in favor of the
defendants. Thus, the plaintiffs in said case filed an MR and wrote the Court
Administrator asking whether Macandog had the authority to decide the case.
The SC resolved to declare null and void Macandog’s decision for lack of
authority. The SC also required her to explain why she should not be
disciplinarily dealt with.
RULING: Judge Antonia Corpuz-Macandog dismissed from service with forfeiture of
all retirement benefits and pay and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of
the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities.
DISCUSION: (per case as laid down above)
On case #5: This does not warrant administrative liability because to hold a judge
liable for every erroneous ruling, assuming that he has erred, would amount to
harassment.
On case #1 and #3: The handwritten note is highly irregular and improper. Her
overzealousness in implementing the order of arrest creates the impression that she
has taken an interest far and beyond that expected of judicial officers. Hence, her
impartiality is questioned.
On case #2 and #4: Delay in the administration of justice is the most common cause
of complaint and a judge should endeavor to avoid it. It is incumbent upon a judge to
manage his court with a view to the prompt and convenient disposition of its business
and he should not tolerate abuses, indifference or neglect of officers of court.
On #6: the referral of the case to Judge Macandog was solely for the purpose of acting
upon the motion to re-raffle the case to another judge. Such referral did not in any
manner empower or authorize her to decide the case on the merits, particularly in the
light of the vigorous objection by the plaintiff.
Judges are required to observe due care in the performance of their official duties.
They are likewise charged with the knowledge of internal rules and procedures,
especially those which relate to the scope of their authority. Judge Macandog showed
herself morally unfit to remain in her office.
IN RE COMPLAINT OF MRS. ROTILLA MARCOS AGAINST JUDGE F. MARCOS
(Take note that this case was decided in 2001, and the New Code of Judicial Conduct of
the Philippine Judiciary was only implemented in 2004.)
FACTS:
 In a hand-written letter to Chief Justice(CJ) Narvasa, Mrs. Rotilla Marcos and her
children complained against Judge Marcos, alleging that they do not receive
enough support for their sustenance and education, and that they were made to
believe by Judge Marcos that he only receive a meagre amount, when in fact, he
receives various allowances and bonuses.
 They prayed that all the remuneration due Judge Marcos be directly released to
Mrs. Marcos at the school where she has been serving for 20 years, to prevent his
mistress from getting them.
 Judge Marcos:
o Denied his failure to support his family, and having a mistress.
o Prayed for the dismissal of the case, as
 His wife and children had already signed a letter withdrawing
their complaint.
 He had signed a letter of undertaking to give all the checks due
him from the Supreme Court to his wife.
 Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
 OCA, Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Abesamis:
o Recommendation:
 That the complaint be considered closed and terminated.
o Bases:
 Letter-withdrawal submitted by the complainants.
 Judge Marcos had already signed an undertaking.
 The allegation of a mistress sprouted only from
unconfirmed reports.
 Letter of undertaking by Judge Marcos.
 Court Administrator:
o Did not approve of DCA Abesamis recommendation.
o Did not report the matter to the Court.
 The case remained suspended until it was revived by CJ Davide.
o In a Fun Run sponsored by the Philippine Judges Association, CJ Davide
saw Judge Marcos with the latter’s alleged mistress.
o Davide pulled Marcos to the side and confronted the latter about the
woman, to which Marcos admitted that he had been living with the
woman, Mae Tacaldo, for 3 years, and that he had been separated from
his wife.
 CJ Davide recommended the
o Referral of the case to OCA Consultant Ramirez.
o Suspension of Judge Marcos from office.
 Court:
o Adopted the recommendation of CJ Davide.
o The matter was referred to Justice Quimbo of OCA, as Ramirez went to
US.
 Complainant:
o When Judge Marcos was appointed as a presiding judge, she noticed
that he became cold and refused to have sex with her, with the reason
that he was very busy.
o She was later on informed by an anonymous letter that her husband has
a mistress, and that he has been lying to her regarding his whereabouts.
o In a Statement of Account from Islacom, it was addressed to a different
address, and not to their family home address.
 Moreover, she has no knowledge as to whether or not Judge
Marcos has a cell phone or telephone line with Islacom, as
their family never employed the services of Islacom.
 When she looked for the location of the stated address, she
discovered that it was the address of the residence of Mae
Tacaldo and her parents.
 When she confronted Judge Marcos, the latter said that they
would go to Islacom to declare that the cell phone was lost.
 When she confronted Mae Tacaldo as to why a cell phone was
named after Judge Marcos but the billing address was
Tacaldo’s, the latter replied that she was only friends with
Judge Marcos.
 But the latter failed to provide a reason to the
question posed by Mrs. Marcos as to why Judge
Marcos would pay P9,000 bill if they were only truly
friends.
o She also discovered in Judge Marcos’ briefcase a bill for the payment of
P11,400 for “May’s Acct.”
o She also found a birthday card/social telegram addressed to Judge
Marcos inserted between the pages of a law book on a table in the
latter's office.
 It read, among other things, "MT cares a lot, you know," and
"It's wonderful to share my life with you."
o Another proof of her husband’s infidelity was the Statement of Account
issued by Bankard
 In which one of the credit purchases was made at the Agencia
Nina and Jewelry, but she never saw the item purchased,
neither did her daughter.
 Another one was credited to a dine-in meal in Café Laguna,
where she did not dine with her husband.
 Another item was the groceries bought, which is not for the
complainant’s family as the respondent long left their conjugal
home at the time of the purchase.
 o When she went to the alleged residence of respondent and Mae Tacaldo,
she did not saw Judge Marcos, but Mae Tacaldo, who drove away using
the Marcos’ family car.
 She also saw respondent’s slippers and his newly laundered
clothes outside, and a water dispenser similar to the one they
are using in their family home.
 The building administrator confirmed that Judge Marcos and
Mae Tacaldo were the tenants of the place, but the two used
aliases in the registration of the room they were renting.
 She obtained a Certification of Tenant, but the general
manager of the compound refused to sign it because she does
not want to be involved in the trouble.
o Judge Marcos and Mae Tacaldo’s illicit relationship was even published
in the newspaper.
o Judge Marcos revoked the authority that he granted to them in the
undertaking, and therefore, they no longer receive support from him.
 Complainant suspects that he did this because she discovered
that he has a mistress.
o Complainant left their family home because Judge Marcos threatened to
kill her.
o She presented other witnesses to testify.
 Respondent:
o He was never remiss in giving support to his family.
o The reason he stopped giving support is because complainant left their
family home.
o He revoked his undertaking because he discovered that complainant
had a paramour who is his cousin.
o He averred that the jewelry he bought was given to his daughter as a
birthday gift, and that the groceries were bought for his granddaughter.
o He never received a birthday card because his Clerk of Court screened
all his communications.
 Moreover, Mae Tacaldo’s name was not expressly stated in the
card, it was only her initials, which could have stood for the
initials of his Clerk of Court whose name was Monalila Tecson.
o He denied living with Mae Tacaldo in a compound and asserted that he
does not wear slippers at home and if he does, he kept it inside the
house, and that the empty plastic water container found outside the unit
was a common container used in the area.
o He denied to be the one referred to in the newspaper.
o He allowed his name to be included in the registration of the Tacaldo
family’s Toyota Revo because they are very close family friends.
o He was not aware that it was made to appear in the insurance policy
papers that he and Mae Tacaldo has the same address in the compound.
o The plan to use the vehicle for public transportation was aborted
because it was flashed in the television when he got suspended.
o He claimed that it was his wife who had a paramour and not him, as
proven by the 13 adultery cases filed by him in the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC), and 21 counts of adultery before the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor.
 (However, all these were only filed after he was suspended,
including the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.)
o He was declared sexually impotent by his doctor because of his
diabetes, when he was first appointed to the Judiciary.
o During the fun run, he was not with Mae Tacaldo.
 When he was asked by CJ Davide as to whether she has a job
and if he has a child with her, he replied that he do not know if
Mae has a job and that he does not have a child with her.
 CJ Davide then said, “That is bad for the judiciary,” to which he
was no longer able to respond as the CJ went away.
o He claimed that he was a only a close friend of Mae’s father, but he has
not yet visited their house.
o The Islacom Statement of Account was mistakenly sent to him, as he did
not have an account with Islacom and that he does not own a cell phone.
 When he went to Islacom, he only executed an Affidavit of Loss
as per advice of Islacom, and did not inquire as to who the real
account holder was.
o He admitted that the confrontation between Mae and his wife occurred,
but he does not know whether Mae owns a cellphone as he never saw
her with one, neither did her father.
ISSUE & RATIO:WoN Judge Marcos should be dismissed from service because of his
illicit relationship with Mae Tacaldo. – YES.
 It was amply proven that Judge Marcos’ relationship with Mae Tacaldo started
even before he was separated from his wife.
o There is an improbability that Islacom would send a phone bill to Judge
Marcos if he were not the real owner thereof, as service providers like
phone companies rely on the information given by the applicant
desirous of its services;
 If he did not really own the cell phone, he, being a judge,
should have stood his ground that he does not own a cell
phone and that he has not lost one.
 Moreover, having the erroneous account of Islacom being the
subject of confrontation between his wife and Mae, he should
have demanded to know who the real account owner was.
o The birthday card could not have been possibly from the Clerk of Court,
given the “intimate” message.
 Moreover, it was inserted in his book at the top of his table.
o Mrs. Marcos, her daughter, and her family did not benefit from any of
the Bankard transactions Judge Marcos had, which included the
purchase of jewelry and groceries, and a dinner in Café Laguna.
o Being married for 26 years, Mrs. Marcos could have recognized her
husband’s personal items upon seeing them.
 The Court is not persuaded by respondent’s denials.
o When the Toyota Revo was bought, Judge Marcos and Mae were
registered as co-owners, and when the car was later on sold, both of
them also signed in the Deed of Sale.
o If the Tacaldos and Judge Marcos were indeed close friends, the latter
should have known where the Tacaldos’ residence is.
 o There is nothing in the records which necessitates the registration of
the Toyota Revo under his name, together with Mae, for the latter to
obtain a slot in the cooperative business of transporting passengers, as
only a phone call would suffice.
 What happened in the fun run cannot be glossed over, where Judge Marcos not
only admitted his relations with Mae, but also brought her in that event to show
to people that she was his wife when in fact she was really not.
 Galang v. Santos:
o The personal behavior of a judge should be free from the appearance of
impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only in the bench and in the
performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be
beyond reproach.
 Leynes v. Veloso:
o If good moral character is required of a lawyer, with more reason is the
requirement exacted of a member of the judiciary who at all times is
expected to observe irreproachable behavior and is bound not to
outrage public decency.
 Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos has demonstrated himself to be wanting of moral
integrity.
o He has violated the code of Judicial Conduct which requires every judge to
be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence and to
avoid the appearance of impropriety in all activities as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
 The charge of immorality proven against respondent judge demonstrates his
unfitness to remain in office and continue to discharge the functions and duties of a
judge.
RULING:Judge Marcos dismissed.
DELA CRUZ v. BERSAMIRA
FACTS:
 In a Verified Complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),
respondent was charged with the violation of RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, and
the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 The case stemmed from 3 criminal cases assigned to respondent.
 The complaint alleges that respondent as the presiding judge in whose sala the 3
criminal cases are pending, gravely abused his discretion and exhibited evident
partiality by:
o Socializing in posh restaurants with then Cong. Agana, mother of the
accused, together with their counsel, Atty. Cruz.
o Issuing unreasonable orders for postponement which unjustly delay the
administration of justice.
o Allowing the 2 accused, Agana and his live-in partner Resula, to submit
a drug test thereby postponing the trial of the cases indefinitely.
 CA Associate Justice Magtolis:
o Found that respondent’s official conduct had not been entirely free from
the appearance of impropriety, neither has the respondent remained
above suspicion in his official actuations in connection with the criminal
cases.
1) The arraignment of both accused were postponed 3 times, all
upon motion of the defense counsel, the reason being the
absence of either the counsel or the accused.
2) After the arraignment, the accused appeared only once in the 3
successive trials on the merits.
 Their counsel Cruz never appeared at all, but only
filed motions for postponement which were
invariably granted over the objections of the
prosecution.
3) Despite the successive absences of the accused, the
respondent never issued a warrant of arrest, nor even asked
them to explain their absences.
 According to the respondent, he considered their
absences as waiver of appearance.
 Yet, in the two instances that the prosecution was
ready, he (respondent) did not proceed with the
hearing which should have been done if there was a
waiver of appearance.
4) When the respondent acted on the Voluntary Submission to
Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation of both accused,
he did not give the prosecution an opportunity to file comment
or opposition thereto.
5) The respondent’s order, allowing the confinement, treatment
and rehabilitation of the accused was not officially sent to the
Dangerous Drugs Board.
 His directive in the 2nd paragraph of the order, to wit:
“The pertinent report must be submitted to the Court
soonest” is rather vague in that it did not state who
should make the report nor the limit of the period
given for its submission.
6) The respondent never checked with the Dangerous Drugs
Board whether or not the two accused had indeed submitted
themselves for confinement, treatment and rehabilitation with
said office.
 This gives the impression that the respondent’s
order was made merely to enable him to suspend the
proceedings, including the case for violation of PD
1866, which is not subject to such suspension under
RA 6425.
7) When the respondent issued the order of September 18, 1998,
where he appears to have motu proprio set the case anew for
hearing on November 12, 1998, there was already a case filed
 against him in the Office of the Ombudsmanon January 30,
1998.
 Likewise, this administrative complaint was already
filed on February 2, 1998 with the Office of the Court
Administrator, and the latter had already directed
the respondent on September 9, 1998, to file his
comment to such complaint.
 Obviously, he was stirred to action by the filing of
such complaints and not because of his diligent
performance of his duties and responsibilities.
8) The respondent denied that he knew of the fact that accused
Roberto Agana is the son of then Congresswoman Venice
Agana of Bohol.
 According to him, he learned about it when Atty.
Narciso Cruz entered his appearance and then he
said it was pro bono basis and the accused is the son
of a congresswoman.
 When asked by this investigator whether that
information was made in open court or in chambers,
he answered that he came to my chambers.
9) Subsequently, after realizing through the statements of this
investigator that a judge should not allow lawyers and parties
litigants with pending cases to see him in chambers, the
respondent tried to redeem himself after resting his case on
May 9, 2000, by explaining that when Atty. Cruz saw him in
chambers, the latter had not yet entered his appearance as
defense counsel.
 He did not, however, ask for the correction of the
transcript of stenographic notes of April 7, 2000.
10) The order of inhibitionwas issued by the respondent long after
this administrative case had been filed against him.
 Hence, it could not be taken as a voluntary inhibition
to show lack of interest on the criminal cases.
o Recommendation:
 P10,000 fine
 Stern warning
ISSUE & RATIO: WoN respondent should be sanctioned for his conduct. – YES.
 Respondent judge’s foot-dragging in acting on the incidents in the said cases,
which stopped only when administrative complaints were filed against him with
the Ombudsman and the OCA, is a strong indicia of his lack of diligence in the
performance of his official duties and responsibilities.
 In Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should avoid impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. A judge is not only required to
be impartial; he must also appear to be impartial. Public confidence in the
judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. Fraternizing
with litigants tarnishes this appearance. It was, thus, held that it is improper for a
judge to meet privately with the accused without the presence of the
complainant. Be that as it may, credence cannot be accorded to the indictment that
respondent judge had been socializing with the congresswoman-mother of one of
the accused as well as accused’s counsel considering that complainant neither
testified nor produced any witness to corroborate this charge.
 This is not the first time respondent has been sanctioned by the Court.
o In Cecilio Wycoco v. Judge Jesus G. Bersamira, respondent was initially
admonished for absenteeism by the Court.
o Subsequently, in Jose Oscar M. Salazar v. Judge Jesus G. Bersamira, respondent
was again sanctioned and fined P5,000.00 with the warning that a repetition
of the same act would be dealt with more severely for violating
Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1983.
 Specifically, respondent intervened in a case which he could not
properly take cognizance of causing the complainant great prejudice
resulting from the delay of the execution of a decision in his favor in
Civil Case No. 39608 of the MeTC of Makati.
RULING: P10,000 fine + reprimand.
In re: Vazquez (Per Curiam)
Facts:
This is a case where the SC resolves an issue of supposed impropriety by justices of
the CA regarding the case of Rosete v. SEC.
Justice Reyes was the chair of the 9th division if the CA. He went on leave from May
to June of 2008. As such, Justice Mendoza replaced Reyes as acting division chair of
the 9th division. Rosete, meanwhile filed a certiorari and prohibition petition in the
CA. This case was raffled off to Justice Roxas. After the raffling, Presiding Justice
Justice Vasquez received a letter from Atty. Elamparo of the GSIS who alleged that
Justice Roxas was “notorious”, and that he wanted to re-raffle the case.
Justice Mendoza, the division chair of the 9th division, eventually inhibited himself,
being the counsel for MERALCO. Because of this inhibition the 9th division
chairmanship was vacant. This was eventually filled by Justice Sabio, who alongside
Justice Dimaanan-Vidal and Justice Roxas composed of the 9th division of the CA.
When Justice Reyes, the original 9th division head, came back, he wrote Presiding
Justice Vazquez who was in charge of the Committee on Rules, that he (Reyes)
believed that he should take back the Rosete v. CA case from Justice Sabio. At this
point, there was a conflict as to WON Justice Reyes or Sabio should preside over the
case.
Mr. De Borja, an outsider, eventually tried to break the stalemate by confronting
Justice Sabio and trying to convince him to give way to Justice Reyes for P10M.
After receipt of this bribe, Sabio immediately told Presiding Justice Vazquez re: the
bribe. Despite this, the case followed Justice Roxas to the 8th division where he
was newly assigned. Justice Reyes wrote the ponente of the Rosete case. Because
of this, Sabio implored Presiding Justice Reyes to investigate.
Issue: Who are administratively liable
Ruling:
Justice Roxas→ DISMISSAL
Roxas’ offenses were threefold. First, he failed to rule on several motions that were
filed before him for decision. These were the a) motions to inhibit Justice Roxas and
the b) motion to lift the TRO that was filed by the GSIS. Because of this, Justice Roxas
violated Rule 5, Section 3 of the Internal Rules of CA (IRCA).
Roxas’ defense that his issuance of the TRO was an implied denial of the motion to
inhibit does not stand because the IRCA requires that the justice should expressedly
act on the issues before him.
Second, Reyes used a transcript of the case which was purely a transcript off of
his memory. He never bothered to have a court stenographer nor a tape recorder be
used while taking down the minutes of the case. This was considered as a violation of
Rule 140 of the IRCA. (dishonesty)
Third, Roxas was also found to have discarded and shreeded the decision that
Justice Dimaanan-Vidal has signed. This showed a tendency that imputed undue
interest to Justice Roxas. This claim is also emboldended by the finding that Justice
Roxas had written his ponente already even before submission of party memos.
Justice Sabio → SUSPENDED FOR 2 MONTHS
Chairman Sabio, the brother of Justice Sabio, was found to have called Justice Sabio,
lobbying for a decision in favor of the GSIS. For this, Sabio violated Canon 13 of CPR
for giving an image of impropriety to the bench.
Moreover, although Sabio eventually ratted of Mr. De Borja’s bribe, the former still
met up with the latter. The investigation found that Sabio still continued
communication with De Borja despite refusal to bribe.
Presiding Justice Vazquez → REPRIMAND
He was responsible for still giving Roxas the ability to decide the case despite
knowledge of the bribe from De Borja.
Justice Reyes → REPRIMAND
He promulgated a decision despite knowledge of a pending action filed before
Vazquez inquiring who between Reyes and Sabio should decide the case.
Justice Dimaanan-Vidal → ADMONISH
She violated the ICRA when she allowed herself to sign the memo prepared by
Justice Roxas without reading first the parties’ memos.
In re: Letter of Biraogo (Per Curiam, 2009)
Facts:
Justice Reyes, who was already retired at the time of this decision, was assigned to
write the ponente of the case of Limkaichong v. COMELEC, Biraogo v. Nograles, and
Limkaichong v. Nograles. He supposedly was able to make a ponente that has yet to
be published (called the Gilbert document). However, they had to put the
promulgation of the ponente on hold because 7 of the 13 justices only agreed on the
final result (which granted in favor of Biraogo), not the ratio of the ponente.
However, despite the non-publishing of the ponente, Biraogo, one of the parties
involved in the case, was able to take hold of the Gilbert document and
promulgated the same to the media in a press conference held in Barrio Fiesta Ermita.
Biraogo said that the withholding of the Gilbert document was imputable to ill-
motives of members of the SC.
Because of the leak of this internal and confidential document, this case tackled the
issue of administrative responsibility of the person who supposedly leaked this
document to Biraogo. The court ordered a few testimonies to be heard in the matter,
the relevant ones being that of Armado Del Rosario (Justice Reyes’ Court
Stenographer), Rodrigo Manabat (Justice Reyes’ personal aide), Rosando
Evangelista (Court Personnel Head of Justice Reyes), and Justice Reyes himself.
Testimony of Armado Del Rosario (Reyes’ Court Stenographer) → He was the
custodian of the Gilbert document, as Justice Reyes asked him to make Justice Nachura
sign the document. After he made Justice Nachura sign the document, Del Rosario
heard about the news of the ponente being withheld. In line with this, he placed the
Gilbert document in a brown envelope, and sealed the same, and placed it in a
drawer in his office. When he checked the state of the Gilbert document after
Biraogo released the same to the public, he found the Gilbert document still sealed
in his drawer. Although, Del Rosario also admits that he left the drawer unlocked
and that there was a possibility that someone sneaked into the room to get the
document and reseal the envelope, either after work hours or when Del Rosario
would leave for smoking breaks.
Testimony of Rodrigo Manabat (Reyes’ personal aide) → Del Rosario asked
Manabat to be the one to give the Gilbert document to Judge Nachura for the latter to
sign it. He claims that he gave it to Nachura’s receptionist and waited outside. After
the receptionist gabe the Gilbert document back to Manabat, the latter immidiately
gave back the document to Del Rosario.
Testimony of Rosando Evangelista (Reyes’ Court Personnel Head) → He admitted
that a few personnel had access to the xerox machine, but that he could not impute
to a specific person the reproduction of the Gilbert document. Moreover, he also said
that they did not lock drawers and that he did not know where exactly the
Gilbert document was because he assumed that Del Rosario had custody of the same.
Testimony of Judge Reyes → He claims that Biraogo never imputed the
photocopying of the Gilbert document to him and that Biraogo claims that his
informant was an SC employee. Moreover, when asked why he didn’t do anything
the moment he learned Biraogo had the papers, he claimed that he was on a sabbatical
leave, as he was taking his MCLE. Moreover, he also claims that court personnel
should be held liable because he wouldn’t allow himself to do so.
Thing is though, when Reyes was pressed, the court found out that there possibly
could have been two copies of the Gilbert decision. The court found out about this
when the copy that Reyes submitted was different from the copy that Biraogo had.
When Reyes was questioned as to the possibility of whether or not there could’ve
been two copies (giving rise to the possibility that one copy could’ve slipped out of
the office of Reyes), Reyes remained evasive and avoided answering the question.
Eventually, investigation of the committee found that since Reyes was not ultimately
able to tell Del Rosario that the Gilbert document was on hold, Del Rosario went
to the Office of the Chief Justice and gave the Gilbert document after he made Nachura
sign it. The court figures that the photocopying happened when the Gilbert
document was with the OCJ. Either way, the reproduction of the Gilbert document
was attributable to the Office of Justice Reyes.
Issue: WON Reyes should be held administratively liable
WON Del Rosario and Evangelista should be held administratively liable
Ruling:
#1 - YES
Just because Reyes has already resigned does not mean that the case is moot and
academic. Justice Reyes can be still held liable, which can take the form of
disqualification from office and cancellation of benefits.
Canon 2 of the New Judicial Code of Conduct actually devotes its content to making
sure that court documents are not disclosed. Section 1 provides that “court personnel
shall not disclose to any unauthorized person any confidential information acquired
by them while employed in the judiciary, whether such information came from
authorized or unauthorized sources.”
As applied to the case of Justice Reyes, the breach of duty amounts to breach of
public trust as the committee believes that the leak was motivated by self-interest on
the basis of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).
For leaking a confidential internal document of the En Banc, the committee likewise
finds Justice Reyes administratively liable for gross misconduct for violating his
lawyers oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he may be
disbarred or suspended per Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. It is likewise
provided in Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the said canon that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and that a lawyer shall not counsel
or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
#2 - YES
Del Rosario’s act of not keeping the drawer locked as well as Evangelista’s act of not
making sure documents are secure warrant the finding that they are guilty of
simple negligence.
REYES - P500k FINE + SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULDN’T BE HELD LIABLE
DEL ROSARIO AND EVANGELISTA - P10k and P5k, RESPECTIVELY
Gregory Ong
RE: Allegations made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing held
on September 26, 2013 against Associate Justice Gregory Ong of the Sandiganbayan
Per Curiam | September 23, 2014
FACTS
 When the Pork Barrel Scam broke news in 2013, incriminating evidence surfaced
implicating Sandiganbayan AJ Gregory Ong.
 Marina Sula pointed him to have visited the office of Napoles frequently.
 A photo published by Rappler showed Sen. Estrada, Napoles, and Ong
together in a party.
 Ong explained to CJ Sereno that the photo was taken in one of
Sen. Estrada’s birthday parties and it would have been rude
for him not to pose with other guests.
 Ong denied that he has attended any event hosted by Napoles during or after she
had the Kevlar Cases in the Sandiganbayan where she was acquitted.
 CJ Sereno requested the SC En Banc to investigate Ong’s case.
 Ong commented that the testimony of Sula was merely hearsay
 Regarding Sula’s testimony that he visited Napoles’ office, Ong clarified
that he went there only to talk with Napoles regarding the miraculous
healing power of the robe of the Black Nazarene of Quiapo which he
learned during Sen. Estrada’s party.
 Ong claims that Napoles had a way to help him access the
statute in order to help him with his prostate cancer.
 Because of this, he wanted to personally go to Napoles’ office
to thank her. According to Ong, Napoles no longer had any
pending case in the Sandiganbayan as of this moment.
 Upon the SC’s finding of possible transgressions of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, they re-docketed the case and assigned it to retired J. Sandoval-
Gutierrez.
 J. Sandoval-Gutierrez examined the statements of Benhur Luy:
 Ong was Napoles’ contact in the Sandiganbayan
 Napoles spent a total of 100M in the Sandiganbayan to bribe.
 Napoles was confident of her acquittal under Ong.
 There was a 25.5M transaction between Napoles and Ong.
 J. Sandoval-Gutierrez also examined Sula’s statements:
 Sula was an employee of Napoles and in charge of licenses
 Ong promised that a TRO would be issued on the PDAF case
 Ong will help her in the Kevlar Cases
 Napoles would fix the PDAF case in the Sandiganbayan
Ong’s Defense
 He never met Napoles prior or during the pendency of the Kevlar Cases.
 He never received any money from Napoles.
 The Kevlar Cases were decided based on merits.
 He never had any transactions with Napoles.
 He visisted Napoles’ office to thank her regarding the Black Nazarene.
 The whistle blowers’ testimonies were conflicting and incredible.
ISSUE: WON Ong should be dismissed from service in the judiciary – YES
RATIO
The SC adopts the above findings of J. Sandoval-Gutierrez.
Conclusion of J. Sandoval-Gutierrez
 The testimonies of Luy and Sula were not lies.
 Ong merely denied them and in no way refuted them via an adverse
separate testimony.
 Ong did not present Napoles to rebut the testimonies and he failed to consider
that his testimony is likewise hearsay.
 He should have presented Msgr. Ramirez and Napoles as witnesses to
support his claim regarding their role which enabled him to wear the
robe of the Black Nazarene.
 His act of visiting Napoles’ office is disgraceful and renders him morally unfit as
member of the Judiciary and unworthy of the privileges the law confers to him.
 Dishonesty violates Canon 2 on Integrity of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Canon 2 provides in part that judges must ensure that their conduct is
above reproach and must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of
the Judiciary.
 His acts further constitute gross misconduct which violates Canon 4 on Propriety
of the same Code.
 Section 1 provides that judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
 Finally, it is recommended that Ong be found guilty of gross misconduct,
dishonesty, and impropriety, all in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
and be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits.
RULING: GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT, DISHONESTY, and IMPROPRIETY
DISMISSED from SERVICE with FORFEITURE OF BENEFITS
PEOPLE vs. VENERACION
J. Kapunan | October 12, 1995
PETITIONER:
1. People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS:
1. Hon. Lorenzo B. Veneracion, Presiding Judge of RTC Manila Branch 47
2. Henry Lagarto
3. Ernesto Cordero
FACTS
 On August 2, 1994, the cadaver of a young girl named Angel Alquiza wrapped in a
sack and yellow table cloth tied with a nylon cord was seen floating in Binondo.
 When unwrapped, Alquiza was only wearing a light colored duster without her
panties with wounds on her face, lacerations on her genitalia, and her head
bashed in.
 Based on various evience, Lagunday and Lagarto were later charged with the
crime of Rape with Homicide in RTC Manila.
  Consequently, Cordero and 4 others were accused of the same crime.
 The two criminal cases were consolidated to Branch 47 of RTC Manila,
presided by respondent judge Veneracion.
 Duly arraigned, all the accused, except Lagunday, who was already dead,
pleaded “Not Guilty”. Lagunday was dropped from the information.
 After trial, the RTC found Lagarto and Cordero guilty of Rape with Homicide and
sentenced them both to Reclusion Perpetua.
 Disagreeing, the Manila City Prosecutor filed an MR to modify the
penalty to death.
 Judge Veneracion denied the MR for lack of jurisdiction.
 Hence this petition to modify the penalty from Reclusion Perpetua to death.
ISSUE: After convicting the accused of the Crime of Rape with Homicide, is the judge
allowed any discretion in imposing either the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or Death
– NO
RATIO
 Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our justice system.
 If judges, under the guise of religious or political beliefs were allowed to
roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are required
by law to exercise their duties, then law becomes meaningless.
 A government of laws, not of men, excludes the exercise of broad discretionary
powers by those acting in authority.
 Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought to
enforce the law without fear or favor, resist any encroachments or even
interference of their own personal beliefs.
 In this case, Judge Veneracion, after trial, found the accused guilty of Rape with
Homicide. Since the law in force was RA 7659, he was bound by its provisions.
 Under RA 7659, he was supposed to sentence them to death.
 Death is the penalty for Rape with Homicide under RA 7659.
 While the SC sympathizes with Judge Veneracion’s religious predicament, it is its
bounden duty to emphasize that a court of law is no place for a protracted debate
on the morality or propriety of the sentence.
 Where the law provides the penalty of death, he should impose so.
 As held in People vs. Limaco, “As long as that penalty remains in the statute books,
and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition, it is the duty of judicial
officers to respect and apply the law regardless of private opinions.”
 Finally, the Rules of Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge
should impose “the proper penalty and civil liability provided for by law.”
RULING
Petition is GRANTED.
Case REMANDED to RTC for the imposition of the death penalty.
Subject to AUTOMATIC REVIEW by this Court of the decision imposing death.
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376
March 5, 2014
MA. LIZA M. JORDA, City Prosecutor's Office, Tacloban City,Complainant, vs.
JUDGE CRISOLOGO S. BITAS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City,
Respondent.
Complaints were filed by petitioner against respondent judge for Grave Abuse of
Authority, Irregularity in the Performance of Official Duties, Bias and Partiality. Bitas
found guilty of these and suspended.
FACTS:
There was a criminal case against Danilo Miralles before the court of Bitas, for
Qualified Trafficking.
Miralles filed for Motion to determine probable cause and hold in abueance the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against him. The prosecution filed a comment, but no
warrant of arrest was issued.
Bitas later on issued an order finding probable cause to hold Miralles for trial with
corresponding bail bond, which was later on approved by Bitas, at a lower rate of 40k
for each charge (3 charges).
Petitioner claims that Bitas disregarded his duties and violated the Rules Of Court
through his actions showing evident bias towards Miralles.
Bitas claimed that it was wrong to arrest Miralles while determining probable cause.
And during the surrender and bail of Miralles, Bitas found there was not sufficient
evidence leading him to reduce the bail bond. He stressed that upon gaining
jurisdiction, there is no more need to issue a warrant of arrest. He insisted that there
is no anomaly in the procedure because a warrant of arrest will be issued only upon
the finding of probable cause. In this case, however, he was able to post his bail bond
before a warrant of arrest can be issued against him. Thus, the warrant of arrest had
become fait accompli.
Petitioner also claims Bitas propounded a series of questions which appeared to
mitigate Miralles' role in the crime charged.
Petitioner later found out that Bitas was associated with Miralles through family
members. Petitioner then filed a motion for inhibition against Bitas which prompted
the later to act hostile against petitioner, saying:
"I don’t want to see your face! Why did you file the motion for inhibition when it
should have been Attorney Sionne Gaspay who should have filed the same[?]"
"You better transfer to another court! You are being influenced by politicians. I am not
a close family friend of the Miralles(es), it is my sister who is now in the United States
who was close to the Miralles(es)."
"So you are questioning the integrity of this court, you better transfer to another
court."
"I don’t want to see your face."8
"I don’t want you to participate anymore,"
Due to the continued hostility of respondent judge towards complainant during the
subsequent hearings of the case, the hearing was transferred to another court.
Bitas was also found to have misrepresented a hearing which did not actually take
place.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Butas to comment on the
complaint. Bitas denied the allegations and claimed petitioner incompetent in the
course of the hearings, claimed the misrepresentation as a mistake by the
stenographer, as well as denying the allegations of association with Mirallrs and that it
was his sister who was friends with him.
ISSUE:
WoN Bitas guilty of grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. - YES
RULING:
As a matter of public policy, not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance
of his official duties renders him liable. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or
corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity do not always constitute
misconduct although the same acts may be erroneous. True, a judge may not be
disciplined for error of judgment, absent proof that such error was made with a
conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice. This does not mean, however,
that a judge need not observe propriety, discreetness and due care in the performance
of his official functions.
The hearing of the application for bail in capital offenses is absolutely indispensable.
Bitas actions of deviating from the requirement and granting bail, ny reason of not
finding probable cause denied the prosecution of due process. This Court had said so
in many cases and had imposed sanctions on judges who granted applications for bail
in capital offenses and in offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the
evidence of guilt is strong.
Bitas' actions, including the utterance of statements against the prosecution, are not
mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment on the part of respondent
judge, but a patent disregard of well-known rules and constitute abuse of authority.
When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith,
making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. Respondent Bitas' use of
abusive and insulting words, tending to project complainant’s ignorance of the laws
and procedure, prompted by his belief that the latter mishandled the cause of his
client is obviously and clearly insensitive, distasteful, and inexcusable.
In pending or prospective litigations before them, judges should be scrupulously
careful to avoid anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal,
social or sundry relations could influence their objectivity. Not only must judges
possess proficiency in law, they must also act and behave in such manner that would
assure litigants and their counsel of the judges’ competence, integrity and
independence.
The use of intemperate language is included in the proscription provided by Section 1,
Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. This Court shall not countenance any
conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of
justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of
the people in the Judiciary.
WHEREFORE, respondent JUDGE CRISOLOGO BITAS, Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City, is hereby SUSPENDED from the service for a
period of THREE (3) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY without pay, and WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe
penalty.

BEN D. MARCES, SR., complainant, vs.
JUDGE PAUL T. ARCANGEL, Presiding Judge, Branch 12, Regional Trial Court Davao
City, respondent.
July 9, 1996 | Mendoza, J.
Facts:
 Respondent wasthe Executive Judge of the RTC Branch 12 of Davao City.He
is charged with serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, harassment,
and immorality.
 In 1984 the spouses Wilfredo and FlordelizaCaas moved into complainant’s
neighborhood. In that year, a helper of the Caases sought complainant’s help
for alleged maltreatment she had received from her employers. Complainant
reported this to the barangay authorities.
 On September 1990, Mrs.FlordelizaCaas had an exchange of words with
Mrs.Marces. Thisinvolved a fight between the turkeys owned by the two
families.
 The following day, Mrs.Caasboarded a jeepney because complainant was
riding on that vehicle. The former asked the driver to stop at the police
station. Shethen had Marces arrested.The warrants had been issued by
MTCC Judge EdipoloSarabia for violations of BP Blg. 22. Judge Sarabia told
the complainant that he really did not know anything about the cases and
that he had only been requested by respondent Judge Paul Arcangel to issue
the warrants.
 Although he had not been asked to, respondent Judge Arcangel attended
mediation conferences between the families. It is alleged thathe disturbed
the proceedings by walking in and out of the hall;introduced himself as the
Executive Judge of the RTC of Davao City in an obvious attempt to influence
the Barangay Officials; andaccompanied Mrs.Caas. The judge allegedly
confronted the complainant, accusing him of sending the judge a death
threat by means of a letter which purported to have been sent by the New
People’s Army.
 On the night of January 2, 1991, armed men in uniform arrested members of
the complainant’s family. In a resolution dated May 11, 1991 the
investigating prosecutor, Albert Axalan, found probable cause and filed
charges of attempted murder against complainant Ben D. Marces, his wife
and his son, Farley. Complainant alleges that respondent Judge Arcangel,
taking advantage of his position, influenced the conduct of the preliminary
investigation.
 Subsequently, complainant’s son, Farley, was arrested. It is alleged that
respondent’s car followed that of the policemen as if to make sure that the
evil plan allegedly authored by Judge Arcangel is well followed and executed.
During the applications for bail bond of complainant, respondent Judge
Arcangel arrived and questioned the validity of the bond posted, saying
“Hindi puwedeito, who gave you the authority to issue?” He then removed the
receipts and arrogantly left with the receipts.
 Respondent’s arguments: (1) that the charges against him are not only false
and malicious but utterly baseless; (2) that the same were filed merely to
gratify complainant’s personal spite and animosity against him; and (3) that
the complaint was filed in anticipation of the cases which the respondent
intends to file against the complainant for slander and threats.Respondent
vehemently denies having illicit relations with Mrs.Caas and that he went to
the house of the Caas family whenever Mr. Wilfredo Caas was away. Finally,
it is alleged that complainant is actually a fugitive from justice.
 In his Report and Recommendation dated Associate Justice Purisima
recommends dismissal of the charges against respondent judge for
insufficiency of evidence, except the charge that respondent judge attended
mediation conferences between the feuding families and tried to intervene.
Justice Purisima recommends that respondent judge be admonished and
sternly warned.
Issue: WON the respondent Judge is guilty of impropriety therefore violating the
Code of Judicial Conduct— YES
Ruling:
 The Court fines the conclusions of the investigator that respondent judge is
guilty of improper conduct to be fully supported by the evidence in the
record. HOWEVER, the report of the investigating Justice fails to consider
other serious allegations in the complaint of which there is also sufficient
evidence in the record, to wit:
1.) Caused the issuance of alias warrants of arrest by requesting
another judge, before whom the case against the complainant was
pending
2.) Arrest would have not been made without the intervention of
respondent judge.
 These charges were actually admitted by respondent judge. The criminal
cases against complainants have been in archive since 1983. Its discovery
and revival was made possible upon the request for verification and its
status and information by Judge Arcangel.
 Respondent justifies his intervention on the ground that complainant Marces
has been able to evade service of the warrants because of connections with
the warrant officers of Davao City. Even if this had been the case, it would
not excuse respondent judge in using his own influence.
  Clearly, respondent intervened in the feud between the two families and
such interference was not limited to the barangay mediation proceedings
but extended to various stages of the conflict. The Court finds the actuations
of the respondent judge improper and censurable.
 Respondent is the visible representation of the law, the intermediary
between conflicting interest, and the embodiment of the people’s sense of
justice. Unless it was a case filed with his court, it was improper for him to
intervene in a dispute or controversy.
 Code of Judicial Conduct:
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. He should not suffer
his conduct to create the impression that any person can unduly influence
him or enjoy his favor.
 WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED with WARNING that
commission of similar acts of impropriety on his part in the future will be
dealt with more severely. All other charges are hereby DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence.
 The court believes that dismissal from service is an excessive penalty. They
took into consideration the following:
- no other charge against respondent Judge
- first administrative case
- record as a judge is exemplary
Antonio Lorenzana vs Judge Ma. Cecilia Austria
Apr 2 2014 | J Brion
Moral of the Story
 The power to grant permits to a meeting are merely to specify the
Facts
 Arose from In Re: To have Steel Corporation placed under corporate
rehabilitation where respondent was presiding judge while petitioner is VP and
Chief Operating Officer of Steel Corp.
 Petitioner charges multiple violations of the Code of Profesional Responsibility
o Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross
misconduct, Grave incompetence, Irregularity in the Performance of
Duty, Grave bias and partiality, Lack of circumspection, conduct
unbecoming of an officer etc.
 Because the respondent appointed lawyer with grave conflict of interest, Atty.
Santiago T. Gabionza as receiver since he was also external legal counsel for SCP’s
creditors.
 Respondent conducted consultative meetings outside her official jurisdiction
where she arbitrarily dictated terms of the rehab plan
 Usurpation of receiver’s exercise of functions.
 Supplemental complaint – posting personal details and posing half naked in a
shawl on a social networking site.
 Comment – vehement denial, if error only an error in judgment
 CA’s Report and Recommendation
o Complaints partly meritorious
o CA set aside rehab plan as SCP could not implement it not because of the
rulings of Judge who is the respondent
o No grave bias and partiality – not enough evidence
o Judge has discretion when not under mandatory inhibition as in this
case
o Nothing irregular with meetings
o Bickering with SCP legal counsel was reflective of arrogance and
superiority.
o Judicial decorum requires judges to be temperate in their language at all
times. Failure on this regard amounts to a conduct unbecoming of a
judge, for which J. Austria should be held liable.
o Friendster account with details was an act of impropriety.
o CA decision finding respondent guilty of grave abuse of discretion in
ordering creation of management committee without evidentiary
hearing is tantamount to gross ignorance of the law.
 Recommends find of 20,000. And admonished
 OCA:
o Noted and carry out the recommended penalties of CA.
Issues
 WON respondent committed grave abuse of authority, irregularity in the
performance of duty, grave bias and partialty and lack of circumspection –
No
 Won respondent had committed grave incompetence and gross ignorance of
the law. – Yes with regard to lack of evidentiary hearing
 WON responden has conduct unbecoming of a judge? Yes
 WON respondent had violated impropriety? Yes
Ruling
 Court agrees with both OCA and CA J. Sison
 Complainant failed to establish bad faith on the part of respondent
 Not every error or mistake renders liability as to gross ignorance.
 To constitute gorss ignorance of the law it is not sufficient that the judicial
act or actuation be contrary to current law or jurisprudence. It must be
shown that he was moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or
corruption or had committed an error so egregious amounting to bad faith.
 Lack of an evidentiary hearing is an error so egregious that it amounts to bad
faith therefore for this act he is liable for gross ignorance of the law.
  A judge must observe due care in the performance of his duties and
functions.
 Judges are required to always be temperate patient and courteous, both in
conduct and in language. The court cannot allow displays of arrogance and
superiority which the coe abhors..
 While judges are not prohibited from becoming members of and taking part
in social networking activities, we remind them that they do not shed their
status as judges.
 In their exercise of freedom of expression, they should always conduct
themselves in a manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office and
the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
o Her postings on Friendster violated propriety.
Dispositive
 Punished with 21K fine and stern warning.
RE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITED BY JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, RTC, BR. 27,
GINGOOG CITY, A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC, March 7, 2006, Per Curiam
RE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITED BY JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, RTC, BR.
27, GINGOOG CITY, A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC, March 7, 2006, Per Curiam
FACTS
Two (2) women filed separate complaints for sexual harassment against Judge Rexel
M. Pacuribot. The first is Sherlita O. Tan, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 27, Gingoog City and the other is Johanna M. Villafranca, Clerk II, Gingoog City
Parole and Probation Office. Both are married. Ms. Tan's ordeal started in August
2004 when she refused an invitation from Judge Pacuribot to have dinner. On October
4, 2004, Judge Pacuribot sent her a text message saying that his blood pressure went
up because she refused to go out with him. On October 20, 2004, Ms. Tan was
attending a wedding at Pryce Plaza Hotel in Cagayan de Oro when Judge Pacuribot
called her on the mobile phone asking when she will be back in Gingoog City. She said
that she will leave immediately after the wedding and she will just take a taxicab to
the Agora Terminal. Judge Pacuribot said that she would fetch Ms. Tan from the hotel.
Ms. Tan declined the offer but Judge Pacuribot angrily insisted on the ground that he
was already waiting outside the hotel. Ms. Tan, who was now scared, went out and
got in the car. However, instead of bringing Ms. Tan to the terminal, Judge Pacuribot
brought her to a motel. When she protested (sic) Judge Pacuribot harshly told her to -
"Shut up! As if you are a virgin!"Judge Pacuribot and Ms. Tan left the motel but instead
of going to the terminal, he brought her to the Discovery Hotel saying that it would be
better for Ms. Tan to sleep there instead of traveling alone. Judge Pacuribot left Ms.
Tan alone in the room because he had to attend a Masonic Conference. She however
could not leave because she did not have enough money to pay the balance of the
hotel bill. At around 7 a.m. of the following morning, Judge Pacuribot arrived. Ms.
Tan's ordeal started all over again. Back in the office, the harassment continued.
Whenever Ms. Tan would go inside Judge Pacuribot's chamber, the latter would grab
her blouse, mash her breast, kiss her, touch the crutch (sic) of her pants, pull the
string of her panty and kiss her neck while saying that she smelt so sweet. Judge
Pacuribot got angry when Ms. Tan refused to answer his text messages and insinuated
that this will have an adverse effect on her performance rating. Ms. Johanna M.
Villafranca, on the other hand, was initially the recipient of amorous text messages
from Judge Pacuribot with invitations for dinner. Ms. Villafranca was wary of these
invitations because both of them are married. She refused all of these invitations but
Judge Pacuribot was persistent forcing her to request for a transfer, which was
however denied. In the last week of February 2005, she got a call from Judge
Pacuribot who was furious. According to him, he was an honorable person and yet
Ms. Villafranca refused his invitations. Consumed by fear, she finally relented and
accepted a dinner invitation on February 22, 2005. While inside his car, Judge
Pacuribot displayed his firearm, which was allegedly for security purposes. It
nevertheless intensified Ms. Villafranca's fear. Instead of going to a restaurant, Judge
Pacuribot drove to a drive-in motel. From that day, Judge Pacuribot constantly
demanded that Ms. Villafranca send him text messages and letters expressing sweet
nonsense to feed his ego and any failure or refusal would be met by a threat to divulge
the incident in the motel.
Then Judge Pacuribot started demanding food from Ms. Villafranca, which the latter
was supposed to bring to his boarding house. If she refused, Judge Pacuribot would
threaten to tell damaging stories to her mother-in-law with whom she had a strained
relation and to show the picture he took on the cell phone. Because of these threats,
Ms. Villafranca was forced to bring some food to Judge Pacuribot.
When Judge Pacuribot sensed that she was not going to file an annulment case, he
drafted a document wherein it was stated that Ms. Villafranca and her husband
supposedly agreed that they may freely co-habit with a third person. Judge Pacuribot,
using threats of physical and social harm, forced Ms. Villafranca and her husband to
sign the document. When Ms. Villafranca still did not file the annulment case, Judge
Pacuribot slapped her and hit her head with a clenched fist. Again he placed a kiss
mark on her neck and when her husband saw it, he beat her up. When Judge
Pacuribot knew of the beating, he forced Ms. Villafranca to file a rape case but she
refused. The complainants filed their complaints personally before the Office of
Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock. Although Ms. Tan and Ms.
Villafranca knew each other professionally, their meeting at the said office was purely
coincidental and they had no idea that the other was likewise the victim of Judge
Pacuribot. Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca tearfully related to Deputy Court
Administrator Christopher Lock their harrowing experience at the hands of Judge
Pacuribot.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence (such as text messages) presented by complainant is
substantial evidence in an administrative proceedings
RULING:
It is well settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Substantial evidence
is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. In the cases at bar, the complainants Ms. Tan and Ms.
Villafranca were able to adequately substantiate their allegations.
XXX
Judge Pacuribot and his witnesses failed to overcome the evidence presented by the
complainants.
GUANZON V RUFON
(2007|Sandoval Gutierrez)
Facts:
Complainants Atty. Rowena Guanzon and Atty. Pearl Montesino of the Gendeer Watch
Coalition and others filed a complaint against Judge Anastacio Rufon of RTC Branch 52
for vioaltion of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rule on Gender-Fair Language,
use of foul or obscene and discriminatory language, discrimination against women
lawyers and litigants and unethical conduct.
Justice Salvador of CA set the case. Only Guanzon and Judge Rufon appeared
because of the distance between Bacolod and Manila. R submitted pre-trial brief.
Giuanzon filed preliminary conference brief and the affidavit of one of the
complainants, Toledano who was a resident of the US, imputing bias and abuse of
authority to R for granting bail regarding a criminal case.
Since the parties didn’t attend the proceedings, J. Salvador resolved the case
on the bases of pleadings and documents filed by the parties.
J. Salvador: complainants have burden of substantial evidence in allegations in their
complaint. There are grounds for admonition when a complainant said in public, in
court to a complainant: “Next time you see your husband open your arms and legs”. J.
Rufon strongly denied the allegations but he admitted to using frank language in court
to settle differences and his resort to strong words after a drink or two after office
hours. A judge holds a position looked up to with honor and privilege, needs moral
righteousness and uprightness. Visible representation of the law and people draw
much of their will to obey legal mandates. Judges need to have courtesy and civility
especially to those appearing bbefore him in order to promote public confidence.
Held:
1. All the findings and recommendations are sustained. J. Salvador uttered
obscene language injurious to the sensitivity of complainants who are all
women. Judicial decorum requires temperate language and essential they
live up to Canon 6 Section 6 (maintain order and decorum in court, patient,
dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, etc.).
2. Position requires him to use courteous speech in and out of the court, they
are to be always temperate, patient and courteous in conduct and in
language.
Resolution: guilty of vulgar and unbecoming conduct punishable by (fine of P1000-
P10000), censure, reprimand or admonition with warning). FINED P5000 and
warning.
Castro vs Malazo
Guerrero , J. | August 21, 1980
FACTS:
 Romeo Tibay filed a complaint (Tibay Case) for reliquidation, leasehold, and
fixing of rental with damages with the Court of Agrarian Relations, Tayug,
Pangasinan against herein complainant Felicidad Castro.
 The spouses Felicidad Castro and Binifacio Castro instituted a suit (Castro
Case) before the same court against Romeo Tibay.
 The two parties were required to submit a memoranda but Romeo Tibay
failed to submit his, thus, the cases were deemed submitted for decision.
 One year after, complainant addressed a letter to SC charging herein
respondent, Judge Malazo of delay in deciding the Castro case.
 Respondent, however, countered by saying that the case has already been
decided one year prior but was not immediately released because he wanted
it to be released simultaneously with the decision in the Tibay Case, both
cases being very closely related.
ISSUE:
• WON respondent is guilty of delay? YES
RATIO:
 By respondent’s own admission he deliberately deferred the promulgation
of the decision in the Castro case.
 Respondent did not file the decision with the Clerk of Court, which filing is
the essential act that constitutes rendition of the decision and gives it
validity and binding effect.
 The rule is well established that the filing of the decision, judgment or
order with the Clerk of Court, not the date of the writing of the decision
or judgment nor the signing thereof or even the promulgation thereof,
that constitutes rendition thereof.
 The present clogged condition of the courts’ docket in all levels of our
judicial system cannot be cleared unless each and every judge earnestly and
painstakingly takes it upon himself to comply faithfully with the mandate of
the law. \
 No less important than the speedy termination of hearings and trials of
cases is the promptness and dispatch in the making of decisions and
 judgment, the signing thereof and filing the same with the Clerk of
Court.
RESPONDENT REPRIMANDED.
OCA v FLORO
J. Chico-Nazario | 2006
The First Case
 Atty. Floro applied for judgeship twice. The prerequisite psychological evaluation
revealed that he had “"(e)vidence of ego disintegration" and "developing
psychotic process" and that he had problems with self-esteem, mood swings,
confusion, social/interpersonal deficits, paranoid ideations, suspiciousness, and
perceptual distortions.
 Both 1995 and 1998 reports stated that he was unfit to be a judge.
 The JBC, however, allowed Floro to seek a second opinion from private
practitioners.
 Ultimately, he was appointed as RTC Judge Branch 73, Malabon on November 4,
1998.
 Upon an audit of his sala, an administrative complaint was filed against Judge
Floro. The OCA also recommended that he be suspended during the investigation
and be subjected to psychological / mental examination.
 The SC adopted recommendations
 The OCA found 13 charges against him (each is discussed in the ratio)
 The matter was referred to Justice Ramirez
 Judge Floro filed a petition for inhibition/disqualification against him as
investigator > denied
 In his “partial report”, Justice Ramirez recommended the dismissal of Judge Floro
by reason of “insanity which renders him incapable and unfit to perform duties
and fuctions”
 Note, throughout the investigation and even after the report, Judge Floro had
been indiscriminately filing cases against those he perceived to have connived to
boot him out of office. (which he eventually moved to be dismissed)
SECOND CASE
 Luz Arriego, the complainant in this case is the mother of a complainant in a
criminal case
 She charges Judge Floro for using his moral ascendancy to settle and eventually
dismiss the criminal case for frustrated homicide in the guise of settling the civil
aspect
 Floro persuaded the complainant and accused to sign settlement
without the presence of the trial prosecutor
THIRD CASE
 Judge Floro issued a resolution disposing the motion for involuntary inhibition of
Judge Floro and the reconsideration of the order denying the petition for
naturalization filed by petitioner in that case, Mary Ng Nei.
 OCA found that despite the resolution, he raffled the case anew. When he denied
the motion, he should have continued hearing the case (violation of Admin Circ. 1,
where a special raffle of a case is only allowed upon a verified application)
 In his resolution, he also mentioned that J. Hermosisima Jr is his benefactor in his
nomination for judgeship, which is highly inappropriate.
 In his comment,
W/N the charges warrant the dismissal of Judge Floro – NO. But mental state
warrants his dismissal (skip to the discussion on mental illness as I think that is
the relevant part)
1. Charge of circulating calling cards containing self laudatory statements regarding
qualifications and announcing in open court his qualifications
 In the cards circulation, it was indicated that he is a bar topnotcher (87.55%), with
full second honors from Ateneo
 Before the start of sessions, Judge Floro was introduced as a topnotcher, honor
student, etc.
 These are alleged violations of Canon 2, Rule 2.02 Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule
3.01 CPR
 Judge Floro contends that these were not improper – “title” should be broad enough
to include legal standing, honors, etc.
 As to the announcements in open court, Floro contends that it was his branch clerk
who suggested such.
The Court held that acts constituted simple misconduct in violation of Canon 2, Rule
20.01
 Calling cards cannot be considered as simple and ordinary, breaching the norms
of simplicity and modesty required of judges
 Announcement of qualifications (which happened only for a week) amounted to
unnecessary publicity.
 Need for recognition is an all too human flaw
2. Charge of using chambers as sleeping quarters
 Audit team found a folding bed with cushion and Floro’s driver sleeping
 Court held that there is nothing improper in having another use his bed for short
periods of time (different if it was actually using as residential quarters, the govt
paying for electrical bill)
 At any rate, Judge Floro should have been aware that the staff may feel
uncomfortable allowing his aide easy access to folding bed.
3. Charge of rendering resolution without written orders (violation of rules of
procedure) and charge of proceeding with the hearing on the on the Motion for
Release on Recognizance filed by the accused without the presence of the trial
 prosecutor without presence of trial prosecutor and propounding questions in
the form of examination of the custodian of the accused
Court held that Judge Floro violated PD 968 (Probation Law), regardless if he acted in
good faith – gross ignorance of the law
4. Charge of partiality when he declared that he was pro-accused in criminal
cases
 Judge Floro allegedly said he was pro-accused particularly concerning detention
prisoners and bonded accused who have to continually pay for the premiums on
their bonds during the pendency of their cases, especially that he had been
accused of so many unfounded offenses
 Judge Floro denies making such declarations
Court held that this was a violation of Canon 2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Opened himself up to suspicion regarding impartiality
 Puts serious doubt on his objectivity – eroding public’s trust
5. Charge of taking advantage of moral ascendancy (note, second case) and
charge of issuing an Order which varies from that he issued in open court
regarding the same criminal case case
 Employees stated that the order was revised (stated that Floro reserved ruling
pending comment of prosecutor, when it was in fact settled)
 Judge Floro contends that the hearing was beneficial to litigants
Charge must fail for lack of basis – controversial settlement never came to pass, as it
was not judicially approved
6. Charge of ordering mental and physical examination of the accused (“mahina
ang pick-up”) over objection of trial prosecutor (as such, arraignment was
suspended)
Court held that order finds legal support as Court may order such examination. Judge
Floro cannot be faulted for suspension of arraignment as the rule then allows sushc
suspension motu proprio based own assessment of the judge of the situation.
7. Charge of appearing and signing pleadings in civil cases pending before RTC
(violation of Canon 5, Rule 5.07) and charge of appearing in personal cases w/o
authority from SC
 While these allegations are violations of Section 35, Rule 138 ROC and Canon 5,
Rule 5.07, records do not reveal any concrete proof of such
 What the proscription contemplates is more than an isolated court appearance,
but a succession of acts
 What was proven was that appeared in just a motion for entry of judgment (court
found this as an isolated case and that in such case he was actually lawyering for
himself)
 Guilty still of unbecoming conduct when he signed a pleading wherein he
indicated that he is the presiding judge of RTC, Branch 73, Malabon City and for
appending to the pleading a copy of his oath with a picture of his oath-taking
 Act was to influence on a fellow judge
8. Charge of openly criticizing the Rules of Court and the Philippine justice
system and charge of use of highly improper and intemperate language during
court proceedings
 Tape recordings of criticisms were presented
 Court held that without proof that these were made during a court proceeding,
cannot be used against him as the unauthorized recording of a private
conversation is inadmissible under Rep. Act No. 4200.
 Dizon, Clerk of Court, alleged that he said “kabulukan ng hustisya” “sangkatutak
ang corrupt na Judges (sa Malolos), called a lady lawyer “malandi, luka-luka”
 Court, however, held these testimonies of great weight – ample proof of violation.
9. Charge of violating Circular No. 13-87 dated 1 July 1987
 Discuss matters involving his personal life and beliefs (against Canon 3, Rule 3.03
and Circular No. 13 (Guidelines in the Administration of Justice)
 Judge Floro, Jr.’s claimed that he is endowed with psychic powers, that
he can inflict pain and sickness to people, that he is the angel of death
and that he has unseen "little friends”
ON JUDGE FLORO’S ALLEGED MENTAL ILLNESS
All these arguments linked to charge of mental/psychological illness. Court thus held
that he should undergo mental or psychological examination. If mental illness is
proved to be true, renders him unfit to perform functions.
 Note, Judge Floro first refused to be examined. He was held in contempt for this.
Ultimately, the examination was conducted where it was found to be unfit in
performing his court duties as a judge.
 Judge Floro then submitted earlier evaluations which were all favorable to him.
 Justice Ramirez recommended that he be removed and dismissed from office.
 Court agrees – findings of mental impairment renders him unfit
 No indication that Judge Floro is anything but honorable man, however the
findings of psychosis by mental health professional indicate gross
deficiency in competence and independence
 Floro admitted that he believes in psychic visions, dwendes, and that he
has dwarf friends
 Floro believes that he can write while and trance, conduct healing
sessions etc.
 This belief system is at odds with the critical and impartial thinking
required of a judge under our judicial system.
 Judge Floro does not meet requirement of objectivity (lapses in judgment)
 Judges administer justice judicially, not according to some abstract
ideas of right and justice, but according to laws
 Lacks judicial temperament and fundamental requirements of competence and
objectivity
 In retrospect, he should not have been appointed. But no one is to blame
  JBC-009, Rules of the JBC” which required psychological/psychiatric test breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the
to be conducted by the SC was promulgated only in 2000. discipline of lawyers.
 At the time of his appointed, JBC could rely on evaluation of private
psychologist not accredited by the JBC In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered a
disciplinary action against the respondent Justice, judge or court official concerned as
 Given that Judge Floro was under preventive suspension for 7 years, Judge Floro
is entitled to the payment of back salaries, allowances and other economic a member of the Bar. The respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the
benefits for a period corresponding to three of his almost seven years complaint and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or
otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in both respects
suspension. (Court noted that delay can be imputed to him, thus he is entitled to
may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.
three years only)
This Resolution shall supplement Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and shall take effect
on the first day of October 2002. It shall apply to administrative cases already filed
1) FINE Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. in the total amount of FORTY THOUSAND
where the respondents have not yet been required to comment on the complaints.
(P40,000.00) PESOS for seven of the 13 charges against him
2) RELIEVE Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. of his functions as Judge of the Regional Trial
This Resolution shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Court, Branch 73, Malabon City and consider him SEPARATED from the service due to
a medically disabling condition of the mind that renders him unfit to discharge the Philippines.
functions of his office, effective immediately;
3) As a matter of equity, AWARD Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. back salaries, Very truly yours,
allowances and other economic benefits corresponding to three (3) years;
4) DISMISS the charge in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988 (second case) (Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
5) DISMISS the charge in A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC (Re: Resolution Dated 11 May 1999
Clerk of Court
Of Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.) for MOOTNESS.
SO ORDERED.

Samson vs Judge Caballero

[A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC.September 17, 2002]
RE:AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST
JUSTICES OF THE CA & THE SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 SEPT
2002.
A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC(Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against
Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special
Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Them Both as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar.)
Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and special courts; and court officials who are
lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action
of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of
August 5, 2009
A.M. RTJ-08-3128
Facts:
This is an administrative complaint for dishonesty and falsification of a public
document against respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero, Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 30, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.
Complainant Olga M. Samson alleged that respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero
should not have been appointed to the judiciary for lack of the constitutional
qualifications of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence, and for
violating the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which disqualifies from
nomination any applicant for judgeship with a pending administrative case.
According to the complainant, respondent, during his JBC interviews, deliberately
concealed the fact that he had pending administrative charges against him. She
disclosed that, on behalf of Community Rural Bank of Guimba (Nueva Ecija), Inc., she
had filed criminal and administrative charges for grave abuse of authority, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of Article 208 of the
Revised Penal Code against respondent in the Office of the Ombudsman on July 23,
2003.
At that time a public prosecutor, respondent allegedly committed certain
improprieties and exceeded his powers by overruling the Secretary of Justice in a
reinvestigation he conducted.

Held:

On March 24, 2004, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges. It also denied the
complainant’s motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition
for review on October 28, 2004 in the Court of Appeals (CA). In a decision dated
November 25, 2005, the appellate court held that it could not take cognizance of the
criminal charges against respondent on the ground that all appeals from the decisions
of the Office of the Ombudsman pertaining to criminal cases should be taken to the
Supreme Court by way of a petition for certiorari. As to the administrative aspect, the
CA reversed and set aside the decision and joint order of the Ombudsman dismissing
the charges against respondent. The CA then directed Ombudsman to file and
prosecute the administrative charges against respondent.

However, in any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be
considered a disciplinary action against the respondent justice, judge or court official
concerned as a member of the Bar. The respondent may forthwith be required to
comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not also be suspended,
disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in
both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution. (Emphasis supplied)

Before the Court approved this resolution, administrative and disbarment cases
against members of the bar who were likewise members of the court were treated
separately. However, pursuant to the new rule, an administrative case against a judge
of a regular court based on grounds which are also grounds for the disciplinary action
against members of the Bar shall be automatically considered as disciplinary
proceedings against such judge as a member of the Bar.

The first step towards the successful implementation of the Court’s relentless drive to
purge the judiciary of morally unfit members, officials and personnel necessitates the
imposition of a rigid set of rules of conduct on judges. The Court is extraordinarily
strict with judges because, being the visible representation of the law, they should set
a good example to the bench, bar and students of the law. The standard of integrity
imposed on them is – and should be – higher than that of the average person for it is
their integrity that gives them the right to judge.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 30, Cabanatuan City, GUILTY of dishonesty and falsification of an official
document. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits
and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in
any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations.

Respondent is likewise DISBARRED for violation of Canons 1 and 11 and Rules 1.01
and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his name STRICKEN from the
Roll of Attorneys.