1995 (70 list of cases) TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S..docx

LIST OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINSTLAWYERS & JUDGES

January- December (1995)

By:TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S.

LLB-3B

JANUARY

1) Guillermo vs. Judge Reyes, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93–1088, January 18, 1995

CASE NATURE: Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment, Gross Incompetence, Misconduct, and Ignorance of the Law

Supreme Court’s Ruling:We have heretofore ruled that a judge may not be held

administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. To unjustifiably hold otherwise, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly unbearable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. The error must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in evident bad faith. It is only in this latter instance, when the judge acts fraudulently or with gross ignorance that administrative sanctions are called for as an imperative duty of this Court. As a matter of public policy then, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.15 It does not mean, however, that a judge, given the leeway he is accorded in such cases, should not evince due care in the performance of his adjudicatory prerogatives. In this regard, as already noted, respondent judge had been remiss in the grant of bail and the scrupulous observance of the requisites therefor.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge Jose C. Reyes, Jr. is hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall definitely be dealt with more severely by this Court.

2) Vda. de Eco vs. Atty. Ramirez, A.C. No. 1647, January 20, 1995CASE NATURE: Malpractice (RULE 138, Section 27, Rules of Court)

Supreme Court’s Ruling: By preponderance of evidence, it has been amply proved that

respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez deceived complainant by making it appear in a document on January 15, 1976 that she received P4,880.00 or more than what she actually received. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member ‘of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. Respondent’s act of defrauding an illiterate complainant of the monetary award for her husband’s death, for which she waited nearly ten years, is deplorable and should not be viewed lightly. Not only does respondent degrade himself as a lawyer but he thereby besmirches the honorable profession to which he belongs. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year from receipt of this Resolution.

3) Belen vs. Judge Soriano, A.M. No. MTJ-94–920 January 20, 1995CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Incompetence and Neglect of Duty

Supreme Court’s Ruling: We agree with the findings of Executive Judge Panganiban. The

charge of gross ignorance of the law has no basis since the error lay with the prosecution for filing the information directly before respondent MTC judge instead of the RTC. The charge of gross incompetence likewise has no merit since the same was not substantiated by complainant. There is no question however, that it

http://central.com.ph/escra/reader/14997675723/AAAG0933-rw/

took respondent judge four years to act on the motion to elevate Criminal Case No. 2431, and that the said omission amounts to negligence, causing unreasonable delay in the disposition of the case violated the constitutional requirement on the speedy administration of justice.

4) Tan vs. Judge Coliflores, Adm. No. MTJ-94–972 January 20, 1995CASE NATURE: Delaying the Transmission of Court Records

Supreme Court’s Ruling:As far as Judge Coliflores is concerned, we find him not liable for

the year-long delay in the transmission of the records. While he has supervision of respondent Legaspi, respondent Judge cannot be expected to constantly check on the latter’s performance of his duties since respondent Legaspi is presumed to be a responsible employee. To the contrary, respondent Judge had a right to expect that the Branch Clerk of Court would enforce his order. We do not find respondent Legaspi’s explanation for the delay to be persuasive. As the Branch Clerk of Court, he is responsible for seeing to it that the records of appealed cases are properly sent to the appropriate appellate court without delay. He has shown in this case want of diligence for which he should be held administratively liable. He has failed to set an example of official integrity, responsibility and efficiency for others, especially those in his staff. Respondent Legaspi deserves more than a stern reprimand.

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, the Court RESOLVED: (a) to DISMISS the charges against Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores for lack of merit; and (b) to IMPOSE on respondent Branch Clerk of Court Jose A. Legaspi a fine equivalent to his salary for three (3) months for negligence in the performance of his official functions.


5) Bongalonta vs. Atty. Castillo, CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995

CASE NATURE: Unjust and Unethical Conduct

Supreme Court’s Ruling:A lawyer deserves to be suspended for using, apparently through

negligence, the IBP official receipt number of another lawyer. However, as to the fact that indeed the two respondents placed in their appearances and in their pleadings the same IBP No. “246722 dated 1–12–88,” respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo deserves to be SUSPENDED for using, apparently thru his negligence, the IBP official receipt number of respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija. According to the records of the IBP National Office, Atty. Castillo paid P 1,040.00 as his delinquent and current membership dues, on February 20, 1990, under IBP O.R. No. 2900538, after Bongalonta filed her complaint with the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline. The explanation of Atty. Castillo’s Cashier Secretary by the name of Ester Fraginal who alleged in her affidavit dated March 4, 1993, that it was all her fault in placing the IBP official receipt number pertaining to Atty. Alfonso M. Martija in the appearance and pleadings of Atty. Castillo and in failing to pay in due time the IBP membership dues of her employer, deserves scant consideration, for it is the bounden duty and obligation of every lawyer to see to it that he pays his IBP membership dues on time, especially when he practices before the courts, as required by the Supreme Court. The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and recommendations. It is well to stress again that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such



privilege. One of these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation. For this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty of committing a falsehood in violation of his Iawyer’s oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. A copy of the Resolution shall be spread on the personal record of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

6) Mappala vs. Judge Nunez, A.M. No. RTJ-94–1208 January 26, 1995CASE NATURE: Gross Inefficiency, Serious Misconduct and Violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics

Supreme Court’s Ruling:As to complainant’s charge of gross inefficiency, we find that

respondent rendered the decision beyond the reglementary period of ninety days, reckoned from May 27, 1993, the date when the last pleading was filed. We are not impressed with respondent’s excuse that it took time to resolve the three consolidated actions involving grave offenses. If respondent required more time to resolve the cases, he is not without recourse. He should have asked for more time to decide the cases from this Court, giving the justification therefor. In Alfonso-Cortes v. Maglalang, 227 SCRA 482 (1993), we emphasized “for the guidance of the judges manning our courts, that cases pending before their salas must be decided within the aforementioned period


and that failure to observe said rule constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge” (citing Marcelino v. Cruz, Jr., 121 SCRA 51 [1983]).

WHEREFORE, respondent is FINED Five Thousand Pesos (P5, 000.00), to be paid within thirty days from receipt hereof, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or of acts calling for disciplinary action will be dealt with more severely.

7) Abad vs. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-92–813, January 30, 1995CASE NATURE: Delay in Disposition of Case

Supreme Court’s Ruling:The charge of collusion to deliberately delay the disposition of

S.P. No. 2648 cannot be sustained. Mere suspicion that a Judge was partial to a party is not enough; there should be evidence, adequate evidence, to prove the charge. However, respondent failed to discharge his duty to personally take note of and render a decision in S.P. No. 2648 within ninety days from submission of the case for decision. That he forgot about the case because of his heavy work load and advanced age is not an adequate defense against respondent’s act of submitting false certificates of service; that circumstance may, however, be taken into account to mitigate his administrative responsibility. The Court observes that the respondent Judge had shown candor and contriteness and that no issue of integrity had been legitimately raised against him. ACCORDINGLY, having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, respondent Judge Antonio D. Belen is hereby FINED the amount of One Thousand (P 1,000.00) Pesos, deductible from his accumulated leave credits, for inadvertently delaying the disposition of S.P. No. 2648. The respondent is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act(s) will be dealt with more severely.


FEBRUARY8) Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1183

February 06, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion

Supreme Court’s Ruling:WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Armie E. Elma, presiding judge,

Branch 153, Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, is hereby found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. Respondent judge is hereby DISMISSED from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. This Resolution is immediately executory.

9) Judge Agcaoili vs. Judge Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-92-6-251, February 07, 1994

CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the law, Dereliction of Duty, and Gross Misconduct

Supreme Court’s Ruling:We sustain the findings of the Investigating Judge on the guilt of

respondent. Indeed, the evidence clearly shows that respondent Judge committed acts amounting to gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, and serious misconduct. WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent JUDGE JOSE O. RAMOS guilty of gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, and serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the judicial service. Consequently, he is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations.





10) Re: Atty. Gener C. Endona, AM. No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995

CASE NATURE: Dereliction of Duty and Serious Misconduct

Supreme Court’s Ruling:From the foregoing, it is clear that it is the duty of Atty. Endona to deposit the daily collections of the fund every day with the local or nearest Land Bank of the Philippines branch. Thus, Atty. Endona was remiss in the performance of his duties when he deposited the fund collections for the month of June, 1994 only on August 1,1994 and for the months of July and August on September 16, 1994. We find Atty, Endona guilty of dereliction of duty and serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the judicial service. IN VIEW WHEREOF, Atty. Gener C. Endona is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00 payable to this Court within five (5) days from notice hereof, with stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

11) Office of the Court Administrator vs. Antonio, A.M. No. MTJ-93-858. February 15, 1995

CASE NATURE: Robbery/ Extortion and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Supreme Court’s Ruling:There is no excuse for such corrupt behavior. Respondent judge's

actions were a conscious and deliberate attempt to subvert justice for his personal gain. His dishonesty and evident bad faith are appalling and seriously damage the reputation of a magistrate's most honorable profession, where public and private conduct should be beyond reproach. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and a judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.



Clearly, there is no place for respondent judge in the judiciary. Dismissing him from service is necessary to protect the public from his maleficence in office.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DISMISS respondent Pedro C. Antonio from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and to FORFEIT all his retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, if any. This resolution shall be immediately executory.

12) Gil vs. Judge Son, A. M. No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Misconduct and Oppression

Supreme Court’s Ruling:The judge is the visible representation of the law and, more

importantly, of justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him an intermediary of justice between two conflicting interests, especially in the station of municipal judges, like respondent Judge, who have that close and direct contact with the people before anybody else in the judiciary. Thus, for the judge to return that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for others to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law." It is thus evident that Judge Son's conduct has failed to measure up to what is expected of a member of the bench, and has demonstrated his unfitness to remain in office.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Eufronio T. Son is hereby DISMISSED from the Judiciary with prejudice to reinstatement in the government service in any capacity, and with concomitant forfeiture of all earned or accrued retirement or other benefits. He is ORDERED to pay Teotimo L. Gil the amount of P 15,000.00, with legal interest computed from the date of the filing of the complaint until actual payment. He is also ORDERED to immediately vacate his office and henceforth cease and desist from performing any function or act in connection therewith.

13) Muñez vs. Judge Ariño, A.M. No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995




CASE NATURE: Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment

Supreme Court’s Ruling:In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a

judge done in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts may be erroneous. But, while judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgment, yet, it is highly imperative that they should be conversant with basic legal principles.

WHEREFORE, a FINE of P5,000.00 is imposed on respondent Judge Ciriaco Ariño. He is enjoined to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties as a judge and warned that a repetition of the similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

14) Arvisu vs. Judge Sumilang, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Negligence

Supreme Court’s Ruling:The Respondent Judge cannot attribute the delay in the

resolution of the motion to dismiss to his staff. Respondent Judge is aware of the motion to dismiss and the opposition thereto. On 15 April 1993, respondent Judge issued an Order stating that the motion to dismiss as well as the opposition thereto is deemed submitted for resolution. It is his obligation to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and maintain professional competence in court management. It is also his duty to organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.A Judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement by Court Personnel. Proper and efficient Court management is as much his responsibility. He is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. Court personnel are not the guardians of a Judge's responsibilities.



IN VIEW WHEREOF, We find respondent Judge Augusto O. Sumilang guilty of gross negligence and he is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P3, 000.00.

MARCH

15) Gamido vs. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials & Atty. De la Rea, 242 SCRA 83 March 01, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct

Supreme Court’s Ruling:Atty. dela Rea’s explanation is unsatisfactory; however, his

spontaneous voluntary admission may be considered in mitigation of his liability. As a notary public for a long time, as evidenced by the fact that his questioned jurat is indicated to have been entered in Book 45 of his notarial register, he should know the similarities and differences between a jurat and an acknowledgment. The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner Gamido was not necessary for the jurat because it is not an acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this had been his belief since he was first commissioned as a notary public, then he has been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a jurat. Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or to take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest.

WHEREFORE, for grave misconduct, ATTY. ICASIANO M. DELA REA is hereby FINED in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), without prejudice to criminal prosecution as may be warranted under the circumstances. He is WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

16) Kaw vs. Judge Anunciacion, Jr., Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-93-811 March 01, 1995





CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct, Incompetence and Impartiality

Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Court hereby imposes a FINE of P10,000.00 each on respondent Judge Casiano P. Anunciacion and Sheriff III Samuel A. Aribuabo and WARNS them that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

17) Panganiban vs. Judge Guerrero, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-94-1200, March 01, 1995

CASE NATURE: Oppressive Conduct

Supreme Court’s Ruling:A judge’s official conduct should be free from and be untainted by

the appearance of impropriety, and his or her personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his or her everyday life, should be beyond reproach. Respondent judge has not been exactly scrupulous in exemplifying such high ideals, as earlier narrated. One improvident act committed in an unguarded moment could have been understandable, but not a regrettable series thereof.

It need only be said that public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. What is worse in the case of respondent judge is that the hapless recipient of his deplorable behavior was a subordinate fellow worker in government and a lady to boot. Certainly, nothing could be more demoralizing to an employee than an insensitive and unkind colleague who is her superior at that.

WHEREFORE, a FINE of P1,000.00 is hereby imposed upon respondent Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero, Jr., which shall be deducted from the amount retained by this Court from his retirement benefits.

18) Tucay vs. Judge Domagas, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1286 March 02, 1995

CASE NATURE: Ignorance of the Law, Serious Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Discretion.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:We agree with the foregoing observations of the OCA. We wish to

add that, although the Provincial Prosecutor had interposed no objection to the grant of bail to the accused, respondent judge should nevertheless have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained from the prosecution whether the latter was not really contesting the bail application.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and is sternly warned that the commission of a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.

19) Antonino vs. Judge Velez, Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-92-789, March 07, 1995

CASE NATURE: Abuse of Authority and Inefficiency

Supreme Court’s Ruling:The Canons of Judicial Ethics provides in Canon 3 that a judge’s

official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach. Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. This Court has consistently demanded faithful compliance with these canons and



imposed administrative sanctions against erring judges. A fine of P2,000.00 is reasonable under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, for abuse of authority and for inexcusable neglect of duty or inefficiency, respondent Judge FRANCISCO X. VELEZ is hereby FINED in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2, 000.00) and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

20) Atty. Padilla vs. Arabia, A.M. No. 93-774, March 08, 1995

CASE NATURE: Serious Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:It is undisputable that the most difficult phase of any proceeding

is the execution of judgment. Hence, the officers charged with the delicate task of the enforcement and/or implementation of the same must, in the absence of a restraining order, act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice; otherwise, the decisions, orders or other processes of the courts of justice and the like would be futile. Stated differently, the judgment if not executed would be just an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party.

WHEREFORE, respondent Deputy Sheriff Paisal M. Arabia is hereby DISMISSED from the service for serious misconduct and dereliction of duty, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of government including government-owned or controlled corporations.

21) Gonzaga vs. Atty.Realubin, A.C. No. 1955, March 14, 1995

CASE NATURE: Disbarment

Supreme Court’s Ruling:



The very first canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a “lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process.” Moreover, Rule 138, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every lawyer to take an oath to “obey the laws of the Republic of the Philippines as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein.” And for any violation of this oath, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred by this Court. All of these underscore the role of the lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. The transgression of any provision of law by a lawyer is a repulsive and reprehensible act which the court will not countenance. In the instant case, respondent clearly violated the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, more particularly Section 246 thereof. Then too, respondent has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. Not only that, he has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall be misled or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent Atty. Crisanto P. Realubin from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months commencing upon receipt of this Resolution. Copies of this Resolution shall be distributed to the courts and to the Bar Confidant and shall be spread on the personal record of respondent.

22) Balantes vs. Judge Ocampo III, A.M. No. MTJ-93-853, March 14, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Abuse of Authority


We find respondent judge to have grossly abused his authority in issuing the questioned writs of demolition. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Judge Julian Ocampo III, MTCC, Branch I, Naga City is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00 with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction in the future will merit a stiffer penalty. The complaint against respondent Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Lilia S. Buena is hereby DISMISSED.

23) Wingarts vs. Judge Mejia, A.M. No. MTJ-94-1012 March 20, 1995

CASE NATURE: Incompetence and Ignorance of the law


A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence and should administer justice impartially and without delay. He should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence, dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. A judge owes it to the public and to the legal profession to know the factual bases of the complaint and the very law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy. He is called upon to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. Party litigants will have greater faith in the administration of justice if judges cannot just be accused of apparent deficiency in the analysis of the facts of the case and in their grasp of the legal principles. For, service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end.

In any event, respondent judge deserves to be appropriately penalized for his regrettably erroneous action in connection with Criminal Case No. 2664 of his court. We have repeatedly stressed that a municipal trial judge occupies the forefront of the judicial arm that is closest in reach to the public he serves, and he must accordingly act at all times with great constancy and utmost probity.20 Any kind of failure in the discharge of this grave responsibility cannot be countenanced in order to maintain the faith of the public in the judiciary, especially on the level of courts to which most of them resort for redress.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Servillano M. Mejia is ORDERED to pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), with a STERN WARNING



that the commission of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

24) Cardines vs. Judge Rosete, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-94-1000, March 22, 1995

CASE NATURE: Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law


In the case of respondent Judge, even assuming arguendo that he did not give the prosecution an opportunity to be heard and present evidence on the guilt of the accused, he cannot be faulted because the crime charged is punishable with life imprisonment which at the time of its commission and the filing of the criminal complaint was bailable as a matter of right. Verily, respondent Judge acted accordingly in initially granting bail to the accused. ACCORDINGLY, the complaint against respondent Judge Gregorio L. Rosete, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Moncada-San Manuel-Anao, Tarlac, for misconduct and gross ignorance of the law is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

25) Atty. Zarate vs. Judge Romanillos, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1140, March 23, 1995

CASE NATURE: Illegal Solicitation, Grave Abuse of Position, Dishonesty, Immorality, Oppression, Other Acts Inimical to Public Service, and Gross Ignorance of the Law (Grave & serious misconduct)


The Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and a judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.

ACCORDINGLY, in view of our aforestated finding that respondent Judge Romanillos is guilty of grave and serious misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had he not resigned during the pendency of this case, and it appearing that respondent has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges if any; the Court, consistent with the penalties imposed in Valenzuela (supra.), hereby orders the FORFEITURE of all leave and





retirement benefits and privileges to which herein respondent Judge Romanillos may be entitled WITH PREJUDICE to reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.

26) Legaspi vs. Judge Garrete, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-92-713, March 27, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct, Abuse of Authority, Dishonesty and Immorality.


The purported joke of respondent requiring complainants to remain single as a precondition to their continued employment is not amusing at all. Granting that such statement was made in jest, it was done in poor taste. Respondent forgets that a judge should be prudent and more circumspect in his utterances, remembering that his conduct in and outside the courtroom is under constant observation. To make matters worse, respondent has not shown that he made any clarification of his facetious statement. He allowed his remarks to stand uncorrected thereby giving the color of veracity and, consequently, force to his words. Naturally, being temporary employees, Lanie and Glenita who was made to sign an undated letter of resignation, would unquestionably comply with the directives of respondent judge as their continuance in office depended on his good graces.

These highly irregular and anomalous actuations of respondent plainly contravene the mandates of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rules 3:08 and 3:09 of Canon 3. He has demonstrated that he cannot maintain professional competence in court management, organize and supervise court personnel for efficient dispatch of business, and observe unceasingly the high standards of public service. Indeed, the conduct of respondent could hardly create in his salas an atmosphere conducive to industry, dedication and commitment to excellence. We have held that a judge must be at the forefront of all efforts to preserve and enhance the public trust character of a public office and anyone who cannot do so should not be allowed to stay a minute longer in any judicial seat.



WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Francisco A. Garrete of the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Loreto-La Paz, Agusan del Sur, is DISMISSED from the service with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporation, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges. This dismissal shall be immediately executory, hence, respondent judge is ordered to VACATE his position forthwith and to CEASE AND DESIST from further performing his official functions.

27) Philippine National Bank vs. Atty. Cedo, Adm. Case No. 3701 March 28, 1995

CASE NATURE: Violations of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility & Canon 6 of Professional Ethics


The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent were fully substantiated. Respondent’s averment that the law firm handling the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant consideration in the light of the attestation of complainant’s counsel, Atty. Pedro Singson, that in one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses’ case, respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. Furthermore, during the hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the same case, respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of record that respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer. Moreover, the IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm to be true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 15.02) since the client’s secrets and confidential records and information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times. In addition to the findings of the IBP, this Court finds this occasion appropriate to emphasize the paramount importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting interests. The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force and effect to respondent in the case at bar. Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in violation of



Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately.Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in Metro Manila.

28) Roces vs. Atty. Aportadera, Adm. Case No. 2936, March 31, 1995

CASE NATURE: Malpractice and Gross Misconduct


The Court cannot accept respondent’s claim that he notarized the questioned Deed of Sale in good faith, without knowledge of any defect therein. He undoubtedly knew that Isabel Roces could not have executed the deed in Iloilo City on January 4, 1980 because she was hospitalized in Metro Manila. Nevertheless, he notarized the same, expressly subscribing that Isabel had appeared before him in Iloilo City on January 4, 1980 exhibiting a Residence Certificate issued on February 1, 1980 (at which time Isabel was already dead) and acknowledging to him that it was her free and voluntary act. Clearly, respondent’s conduct is not in accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent ATTY. JOSE G. APORTADERA is found GUILTY of malpractice and gross misconduct, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

29) Asinas, Jr. vs. Judge Trinidad, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-94-902, March 27, 1995

CASE NATURE: Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty and Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment


ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds respondent Judge Ernesto T. Trinidad of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Branch 63 guilty of unjustifiable delay in the resolution of Criminal Cases Nos. 130338 and 130339 and hereby imposes upon him a FINE in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS, with a warning that a repetition of the





same or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely. The charge of knowingly rendering an unjust and unfounded judgment is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

30) Atienza vs. Judge Brillantes, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, March 29,1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Immorality and Impropriety


It is evident that respondent failed to meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in the legal profession. While the deceit employed by respondent existed prior to his appointment as a Metropolitan Trial Judge, his immoral and illegal act of cohabiting with De Castro began and continued when he was already in the judiciary.

The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties but also as to his behavior as a private individual. There is no duality of morality. A public figure is also judged by his private life. A judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times, in the performance of his judicial duties and in his everyday life. These are judicial guideposts too self-evident to be overlooked. No position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary.

APRIL

31) Reyes vs. Atty. Maglaya, Adm. Case No. 2125, April 03, 1995

CASE NATURE: Misconduct


The Court is in full accord with the findings and recommendation of the IBP that respondent by his admissions has sufficiently demonstrated conduct showing his unfitness for the confidence and trust which characterize the attorney-client relationship. By his unexplained failure to return the amount of P1,500.00 demanded by complainant-client receipt of which he had acknowledged and which he





had agreed to return at the earliest possible opportunity, he failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer. He has in particular disregarded Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that “a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand x x x.” His inexcusable act of withholding money belonging to his client warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanction. Considering the foregoing, the recommendation of the IBP that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year is approved.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby SUSPENDS ATTY. LEOPOLDO T. MAGLAYA from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from notice hereof, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or any other misconduct will be dealt with more severely.

32) Dr. Alforte vs. Judge Santos, A.M. No. MTJ-94-914, April 10, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct, Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment, Malfeasance and Nonfeasance


On the charge of rendering an unjust judgment, even assuming that respondent erred in acquitting Baltao, she still cannot just be charged administratively lacking the element of bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose (Re: Judge Silverio S. Tayao, RTC, Br. 143, Makati, 229 SCRA 723 [1994]). “Malice and bad faith on the part of the judge in rendering an unjust decision must still be proved”(Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Villanueva, 216 SCRA 121 [1992]). Thus, failure on the part of complainant—as she indeed failed to prove malice and bad faith to have been committed by respondent when she rendered the decision acquitting Balta warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint. WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent is DISMISSED.

33) Sule vs. Judge Biteng, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-95-1018, April 18, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law & Incompetence






We also find completely unacceptable the respondent’s explanation that notice to the prosecutor would have been an idle ceremony because in view of the voluntary surrender of accused Villalobos, he was already predisposed to grant the petition for bail. This aggravates his unfamiliarity with the constitutional mandate and the substantive and the procedural principles involved in the grant of bail in cases involving capital offenses.

WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of law and incompetence, respondent JUDGE JONATHAN S. BITENG is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20, 000.00) and WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

34) Alcantara vs. Judge Tamin & Atty. Aloot, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1305, April 21, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct, Gross Negligence, Grave Abuse of Discretion, and Bias and Partiality


The Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, in his memorandum to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa dated February 7, 1995, found respondent judge to have committed grave abuse of discretion “in rendering the order allowing his brother’s mother-in-law to be an oppositor in the special civil action knowing fully well that on very same date he no longer have (sic) the jurisdiction to act on the motion of the would be oppositor.”

ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to ADOPT the above-mentioned recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, and hereby imposes a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) upon respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act or offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely. The administrative case against Attorney Rufino Aloot is hereby REFERRED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for whatever action it may deem proper.

35) Marcelino vs. Judge Singson, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-94-962, April 24, 1995





CASE NATURE: Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Judiciary


The Court has held in a number of instances that mere desistance on the part of the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of administrative cases against members of the bench. The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine the veracity of the charges made and to discipline, such as the results of its investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. The Court’s interest in the affairs of the judiciary is a paramount concern that must not know bounds.

The Canons of Judicial Ethics requires a judge to keep himself free from any appearance of impropriety. His personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for he is, as he so aptly is perceived to be, the visible personification of law and of justice. A judicial office circumscribes a personal conduct, and imposes a number of inhibitions, whose faithful observance is the price one has to pay for holding an exalted position.

We agree with the Office of the Court Administrator in finding respondent Judge guilty of misconduct. It would appear, however, that respondent Judge somehow has relented and realized that his actuations have, indeed, been intemperate that could warrant a mitigation of his liability.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is hereby ordered to pay a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and ADMONISHED to be more circumspect than he has heretofore shown.

MAY

36) Manlavi vs. Judge Gacott, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293, May 09, 1995

CASE NATURE: Partiality, Miscarriage of Justice and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Decision


The acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary power, unless when they are committed with

fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED.

37) Paredes vs. Judge Manalo, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-93-842, May 10, 1995

CASE NATURE: Violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct


The Respondent Judge must also be reminded that the court is not helpless with regard to numerous postponements requested by counsel for complainants. Judges should be vigilant in avoiding unreasonable delay in the resolution of cases. If the need arises, the court motu proprio could use its coercive power to direct compliance by the parties. Besides, we find no cause for respondent Judge to be anxious over the possible non-appearance of complainants. The records show that the policemen were able to keep track of complainants’ whereabouts. There was therefore no basis for his fears.

Under the foregoing circumstances, we find no valid reason for respondent’s departure from the procedure laid down by the Rule on Summary Procedure. Shortcuts in judicial processes are to be avoided where they impede rather than promote a judicious dispensation of justice. However respondent Judge’s administrative culpability is mitigated by his intention to resolve the criminal cases with the least delay by ensuring the presence of in its early resolution.

Once more, we must emphasize that judges are the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice.11 They are therefore required to observe and abide by the rules and procedures especially those which relate to the scope of their authority so as to guarantee the orderly and efficient administration of justice. WHEREFORE, for his disregard of Sec. 10 of the Rule on Summary Procedure and Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, JUDGE JACINTO A. MANALO, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Coron-Busuanga, Palawan, is FINED P3,000.00 which he is directed to pay within thirty (30) days from service hereof, and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

http://central.com.ph/escra/reader/14997675723/p244scra9970064001-rw/


38) Miraflor vs. Atty. Hagad, Adm. Case No. 2468, May 12, 1995

CASE NATURE: Obstruction of Justice


We fully agree with the recommendation that the case should be dismissed. We find no evidence of malice or improper motive in the actuations of respondents who merely discharged their respective functions to the best of their professional abilities within the confines of law and jurisprudence. Evidently, complainants cast the bigger blame upon respondent Hagad whom they accuse of instigating the whole scheme of defeating Nilo’s rights to the monetary award. Such accusation has no basis. A lawyer’s devotion to his client’s cause not only requires but also entitles him to employ every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to succeed. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the complaint for lack of merit.

39) Cruz vs. Judge Pascual, ADM. MAT. No. MTJ-93-782, May 12, 1995

CASE NATURE: Abuse of Authority, Incompetence, Partiality, Lack of Professionalism and Ignorance of the Law


WHEREFORE, as recommended, respondent Judge Filomeno S. Pascual, MTC, Angat, Bulacan, is FINED P3,000.00 for his delay in the rendition of the judgment in Crim. Case No. 2139 which he is directed to pay within thirty (30) days from service hereof, and ADMONISHED to be more conscientious and prompt in the performance of his duties. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.Let copies of this decision be attached to the personal record of respondent Judge.

JUNE



40) Atty. Boquiren vs. Judge Del Rosario-Cruz, Adm. Case No. MTJ-94-894, June 02, 1995

CASE NATURE: Contempt


It appears prima facie that the foregoing words are aimed at seriously undermining the integrity of this Court. Complainant seems to have forgotten his duty, as a lawyer and as an officer of the court, to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers (Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility). ACCORDINGLY, finding the motions for reconsideration without merit the same are hereby DISMISSED. Complainant Atty. Felixberto N. Boquiren, however, is hereby ordered to explain within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution why he should not be cited for contempt and/or subject to disciplinary action.

41) Cui vs. Judge Madayag, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1150, June 05, 1995

CASE NATURE: Ignorance of the Law, Grave Misconduct and Oppression


The case of respondent Judge should be no different. For judges are called to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. They are not “common men and women, whose errors men and women forgive and time forgets. Judges sit as the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice, their last recourse where all other institutions have failed.” Most importantly, respondent Judge is required by Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. As we held in one case, there will be faith in the administration of justice only if there be a belief on the part of the litigant that the occupants of the bench cannot justly be accused of deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.

Lastly, we are appalled that a simple notice of hearing of 15 November 1991 prepared on 7 November 1991 slept for seven (7) days in respondent’s court before it was mailed to plaintiffs on the eve of the hearing. Such display of laxity and inefficiency on the part of the court personnel militates against the management skills of respondent

http://central.com.ph/escra/reader/14997675723/AAAC8570-rw/


Judge. It indicates that he has not been meticulous and zealous as he should have been in organizing and supervising the work of his subordinates as required by Canon 3, Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This impression is reinforced by respondent’s failure to check from the records whether notice of hearing was served on plaintiffs before conducting the hearing on the motion to lift preliminary injunction. It was only upon plaintiffs’ Manifestation that he came to know the reason for their absence at the hearing.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Job B. Madayag, RTC, Br. 145, Makati, is FINED P5,000.00 for his disregard of Sec. 6, Rule 15, of the Rules of Court, and for violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, with STERN WARNING that the commission of a similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Judge is further REPRIMANDED for the delay in the service of the Notice of Hearing in Civil Cases Nos. 91-683 and 91-684 and ADMONISHED to faithfully observe the explicit mandate of Canon 3, Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, not only by adopting measures in his court for the prompt and efficient release of court orders but also by establishing an effective system of monitoring of such releases to the parties, in order to strictly comply with the requirement of due process. Let copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records of respondent Judge.

42) Santos vs. Judge Ofilada, A.M. RTJ-94-1217, June 16, 1995

CASE NATURE: Incompetence, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Oppression and Grave Misconduct


The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that a fine of P20,000.00 be imposed on respondent judge and that he be warned against a repetition of the same administrative misconduct. We approve the recommendation since it is but in accordance with the penalty imposed by the Court in previous cases involving the same issues.

ON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, respondent Judge Carlos C. Ofilada of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan is hereby ORDERED to pay a FINE of P20,000.00, with a STERN WARNING

that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will definitely warrant a more severe sanction. Let a copy of this decision be attached to the personal record of respondent judge. Additionally, in the best interest of a fair trial and a just disposition of the criminal actions involved, it is hereby ORDERED that Criminal Cases Nos. 1433-M-94 and 1434-M-94, be RE-RAFFLED among the other branches of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. The judge or judges to whom the cases shall thereafter be assigned shall forthwith cancel the present bail bonds of the accused Rolando Lopez in the aforesaid cases, promptly issue the corresponding warrants of arrest therein, and thereafter conduct the proper hearings with due notice to all parties concerned of such bail petitions as may be filed by said accused.

43) Gallo vs. Judge Cordero, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1035, June 21, 1995

CASE NATURE: Non-feasance, Bias, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Graft and Favoritism


Thus, respondent judge not only has shown gross ignorance of law and procedure but has also failed to live up to the norm that “judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial.” He thus violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that “a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” In the words of Rule 2.01 of that Canon, “A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” ACCORDINGLY, a FINE of P10,000.00 is imposed on respondent Judge Jose Cordero, the same to be deducted from whatever retirement benefits he may be entitled to receive from the government.

44) Raboca vs. Judge Pantanosas, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-93-884, June 23, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Inefficiency, Incompetence, Ignorance of the Law, Grave Misconduct, Bias and Malicious Delay






Initially, the respondent Judge attempted to so excuse the delay by citing his other duties as an officer of the Municipal Judges League; later, he cited his failing eyesight. Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct would demand that judges should regulate their extrajudicial activities in a manner that would not interfere with or affect adversely their judicial functions. Regarding the belated explanation that respondent Judge suffered from an eyesight problem, it would appear to us to be more of an afterthought than not; while he underwent an eye operation, it was not, however, until after several months later (in December 1992), or about ten months after the submission of the case for decision that he did undergo it. In any event, the excuse sought, albeit deserving perhaps some sympathy, would not warrant a total justification for respondent’s nonfeasance. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is FINED the reduced amount of P1,000.00 6 and CAUTIONED against a repetition of similar acts in the future.

45) Celino vs. Judge Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1317, June 27, 1995

CASE NATURE: Failure to Render Judgment


A judge faces enormous responsibilities as soon as he steps into office. However, he is mandated to dispose the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required period.12 He could not take refuge behind the alleged inefficiency of his staff. Proper and efficient court management is as much as a judge’s responsibility.13

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold respondent Judge Zeus C. Abrogar administratively liable for his failure to render the decision in Civil Case No. 88-2042 within the prescribed period of ninety (90) days from the time the same was submitted for decision. Accordingly, respondent judge is ordered to pay a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), 14 with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely by this Court. Let a copy of this decision be attached to respondent judge’s personal records.

JULY

46) Alvarado vs. Judge Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-93-835, July 03, 1995



CASE NATURE: Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Discretion and Gross Misconduct


We see no reason to declare respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption.

The acts complained of against respondent particularly refer to her judicial functions. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

47) Villalon vs. Atty. Buendia, Adm. Case No. 2747, July 06, 1995

CASE NATURE: Falsehood


Moreover, it is well to note “x x x, that statements made in the course of judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged—that is, privileged regardless of the defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice—if the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry” (People v. Aquino, 18 SCRA 555, 558 [1966]). What is relevant or pertinent should be liberally considered to favor the writer, and the words should not be scrutinized with microscopic intensity. We find nothing in the complaint that would constitute a violation by respondent of the lawyer’s oath. WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

48) Millare vs. Atty. Montero, A.C. No. 3283, July 13, 1995

CASE NATURE: Violation Canon 19, Rule 19.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility (A Lawyer is not a Gun for Hire)





Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required to represent his client “within the bounds of the law.” The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.

By having willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a favorable judgment, which efforts were all rebuffed, respondent violated the duty of a member of the Bar to institute actions only which are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly contestable under the laws (Garcia v. Francisco, 220 SCRA 512 [1993]). As correctly noted by the Committee on Bar Discipline “in filing a number of pleadings, actions and petitions, respondent ‘has made a mockery of the judicial processes’ and disregarded canons of professional ethics in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a judgment in the case was rendered, thus, ‘abused procedural rules to defeat ends of substantial justice’ ” (Report and Recommendation, IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, p. 2). WHEREFORE, respondent is SUSPENDED for one year.

49) Litigio vs. Judge Dicon, A.M. No. MTJ-93-806, July 13, 1995

CASE NATURE: Willful Non-Payment of Just Debt


Needless to state, this Court does not look with favor at the members of the judiciary who fail to discharge their obligations. Respondent is reminded that public servants, particularly those employed in the judiciary, should conduct themselves, both in public and in private, with propriety and decorum. WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint in A.M. No. MTJ-93-806 for being moot and academic and the complaint in A.M. No. MTJ-93-863 for raising issues which should be the subject of a civil case filed with the appropriate court.

50) Reyes vs. Gaa, A.M. No. 1048, July 14, 1995

CASE NATURE: DISBARMENT




It is settled that affirmative testimony is given greater weight than negative testimony (Delos Reyes v. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653 [1989]). When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him (Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics 93 [1949]. He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him (Bayasen v. Court of Appeals, 103 SCRA 197 [1981]; Vda. de Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 393 [1978]). Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds (Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634 [1989]). WHEREFORE, respondent is DISBARRED and his name is orderedSTRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and spread on the personal records of respondent.

51) Moroño vs. Judge Lomeda, A.M. No. MTJ-90-400, July 14, 1995

CASE NATURE: Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service


This Court has several times before stressed that a judge is viewed as the visible representation of law and justice from whom the people draw their will and inclination to obey the law; the judge must, accordingly, be the first to abide by the law and present an example for others to follow.

For all the foregoing, the Court concludes that respondent Judge Lomeda was (1) grossly negligent in violating or disregarding the constitutional rights of complainant Moroño and (2) guilty of having given false testimony before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City in Criminal Cases Nos. 7592, 7593 and 7594. The Court holds that such gross negligence and false testimony constitutes serious dishonesty and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Aurelio J.V. Lomeda is hereby DISMISSED from the Judiciary with prejudice to reinstatement or re-



employment in any capacity in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, with forfeiture of all earned or accrued retirement and leave privileges and benefits to which he might be entitled. This Decision is immediately executory, and respondent is hereby ORDERED to vacate immediately his office and henceforth cease and desist from performing any function or act in connection with such office. This Decision shall be served by personal service. Let a copy of this Decision be spread in the personal record of respondent Judge, as well as in the records of the Office of the Bar Confidant.

52) Cabilao vs. Judge Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-93-818, July 14, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Ignorance of the Law, Gross Misconduct and Abuse of Discretion


WHEREFORE, finding that respondent judge acted with gross ignorance of the law and with grave abuse of discretion in the performance of his functions, a fine of P5,000.00 is hereby imposed upon him with a STERN WARNING that commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with severely by this court.

53) Moreno vs. Judge Bernabe, A.M. No. MTJ-94-963, July 14, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law


` The Respondent, by his own admission that he solemnized the marriage between complainant and Marcelo Moreno without the required marriage license, has dismally failed to live up to his commitment to be the “embodiment of competence, integrity and independence” and to his promise to be “faithful to the law.” Respondent cannot hide behind his claim of good faith and Chris-tian motives which, at most, would serve only to mitigate his liability but not exonerate him completely. Good intentions could never justify violation of the law.

We reiterate our ruling in Imbing v. Tiongson:





The fact that complainant has lost interest in prosecuting the administrative case against herein respondent judge will not necessarily warrant a dismissal thereof. Once charges have been filed, the Supreme Court may not be divested of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth of the matter alleged in the complaint. The Court has an interest in the conduct of members of the Judiciary and in improving the delivery of justice to the people, and its efforts in that direction may not be derailed by the complainant’s desistance from further prosecuting the case he or she initiated. To condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act, is to strip this Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the Judiciary. Definitely, personal interests are not material or controlling. What is involved here is a matter of public interest considering that respondent is no ordinary citizen but an officer of the court whose personal behavior not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00 and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

54) Cordova vs. Judge Tornilla, A.M. No. MTJ-94-997, July 17, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law


It is the duty of the lawyer to inform the court of his client’s death, incapacity or incompetency during the pendency of the action and to give the name and address of the executor, administrator, guardian or other legal representatives of the decedent. The court, if the action survives, shall then order upon proper notice the legal representatives of the decedent to appear and be substituted for him within the time granted in said order (Bonifacio v. Dizon, 177 SCRA 294 [1989]; Ferreira v. Vda. de Gonzalez, 104 Phil. 143 [1958]). WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

AUGUST



55) Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Matas, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-836, August 02, 1995

CASE NATURE: Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.


The demands of public interest and public policy would not be expeditiously served if administrative cases should be made to await the termination of criminal cases or civil cases based upon the same facts or incidents from which the administrative cases arose. In view of the public trust character of a public office which exacts accountability and utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency at all times, administrative cases must be resolved as expeditiously as possible. It is primarily for this reason that in administrative cases only substantial evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or preponderance of evidence as in civil cases (Section 5, in relation to Sections 1 and 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court). We thus rule that the pendency of a criminal case based on the same facts or incidents which gave rise to an administrative case does not suspend the administrative proceedings. However, in consideration of the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed, in the former and in the latter, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding in the other. WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is DISMISSED, and respondents JUDGE JESUS V. MATAS and EDUARDO C. TORRES, JR. are hereby ABSOLVED of all the charges against them in the Amended Complaint.

56) De los Santos-Reyes vs. Judge Montesa, Jr., Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-983, August 07, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law and Dishonesty


The respondent judge has indisputably failed to comply with the strict and exacting demands of the public-trust character of his office.





WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of law or incompetence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, respondent Judge CAMILO O. MONTESA, JR., Presiding Judge of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, is hereby ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. His dismissal shall take effect immediately upon his receipt of a copy of this decision which must be personally served by the Office of the Court Administrator.

57) Chin vs. Judge Gustilo, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1243, August 11, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Discretion, Malfeasance in Office and Maladministration of Justice


Nonetheless we have stressed the importance of the duty of members of the judiciary to keep abreast of the laws, rulings and jurisprudence affecting their jurisdiction. (Vasquez v. Malvar, 85 SCRA 10 (1978); Ajeno v. Inserto, 71 SCRA 166 (1976); Aducayen v. Flores, 51 SCRA 78 (1973)) It is not too much to expect that judges show acquaintance with statutes, procedural rules and authoritative doctrines. Respondent judge’s failure to comply with this duty resulting in the failure to give notice to the prosecution of pending application for bail merits a reprimand.

WHEREFORE, respondent judge is REPRIMANDED for failure to give notice to the public prosecutor of an application for bail with warning that a repetition of this offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.

58) Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Fuentes, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1270, August 23, 1995

CASE NATURE: Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service


We disagree, however, with the recommendation of the Deputy Court Administrator to fine Judge Renato Fuentes twenty thousand





pesos (P20,000.00). Judge Fuentes has not been charged by any interested party, in relation to the issuance of the writs of execution against the government, particularly, the DPWH. The imposition of fine against Judge Fuentes will deny him procedural due process.

The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to conduct an investigation on Judge Renato Fuentes and to charge him if the result of the investigation so warrants. The Office of the Solicitor General is likewise ordered to take appropriate action to recover the value of the serviceable or repairable equipment which were unlawfully hauled by Alex Bacquial.

SEPTEMBER

59) Santiago vs. Atty.Fojas, Adm.Case No. 4103, September 07, 1995

CASE NATURE: Disbarment


It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

We do not therefore hesitate to rule that the respondent is not free from any blame for the sad fate of the complainants. He is liable for inexcusable negligence. WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is



hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.

60) Amatan vs. Judge Aujero, A.M. No. RTJ-93-956, September 27, 1995



Finally, every judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. A judge should not only be aware of the bare outlines of the law but also its nuances and ramifications, otherwise, he would not be able to come up with decisions which are intrinsically fair. In failing to exercise even ordinary common sense, a judge could be held administratively liable for a verdict that could in no way be legally or factually sustained or justified.

ACCORDINGLY, we are constrained to find respondent judge GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law for which he is hereby REPRIMANDED and FINED ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PES0S. Let this decision appear in respondent’s record of service.

OCTOBER

61) Rosacia vs. Atty. Bulalacao, Adm. Case No. 3745, October 02, 1995

CASE NATURE: Suspension


The Court reiterates that an attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated as it is not good practice to permit him afterwards to defend in another case other person against his former client under the pretext that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former case. It behooves respondent not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. The relation of attorney and client is one of confidence and trust in the highest



degree. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. An attorney not only becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client’s cause, but also learns from his client the weak and strong points of the case. No opportunity must be given attorneys to take advantage of the secrets of clients obtained while the confidential relation of attorney and client exists. Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the loss of the confidence of the people.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three months. Let this resolution be attached to respondent’s record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof furnished to all courts and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

62) Cordova vs. Judge Labayen, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995

CASE NATURE: Violation of Canon I, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility


As an officer of the court, a lawyer has the sworn duty to assist in, not to impede or pervert, the administration of justice. The present administrative charge seeks to cast doubt on the integrity of respondent judges, the judicial personnel and the court which they represent, in flagrant abdication of the bounden responsibility of a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice. Atty. Sabio thus deserves to be punished for instigating the filing of an administrative complaint by his clients, in the guise of upholding their rights but actually to frustrate the enforcement of lawful court orders and consequently obstruct the desirable norms and course of justice.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Salvador T. Sabio is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision. He is warned that a more severe sanction shall be imposed should he commit another administrative offense. Let copies hereof be attached to his record and served on the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on all courts of the land.



63) Gonzales vs. Atty. Sabacajan, Adm. Case No. 4380, October 13, 1995

CASE NATURE: Violations of Canon 15, Rule 15.07 & Canon 19, Rule 19.01of the Code of Professional Responsibility


The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the good faith and diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients. If complainants did have the alleged monetary obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily confiscating their certificates of title since there is no showing in the records that the same were given as collaterals to secure the payment of a debt. Neither is there any intimation that there is a court order authorizing him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title. Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon his client the need for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged financial obligations to his client and presumably to impress the latter of his power to do so.

Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show to this Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority justifying the possession by him or his client of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on the personal records of respondent and have copies thereof furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and duly circularized to all courts in the country.



64) Abadilla vs. Judge Tabiliran, Jr., A.M.No. MTJ-92-716O, October 25, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Immorality, Deceitful Conduct, and Corruption Unbecoming of a Judge


By committing the immorality in question, respondent violated the trust reposed on his high office and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and strict standards of morality required of the law profession. (Imbing v. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690). WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. guilty of gross immorality, deceitful conduct and corruption and, consequently, orders his dismissal from the service. Such dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government-service, all without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.

NOVEMBER

65) Perez vs. Judge Suller, A.M. No. MTJ-94-936, November 06, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Abuse of Discretion, Misconduct, Ignorance of the Law and Acts Unbecoming of a Judge


The Court finds that respondent judge should have refrained from handling the preliminary investigation since he was closely related to the complainant, Cristobal Suller, Jr., his nephew and a relative by consanguinity within the sixth degree. While conducting preliminary investigation may not be construed strictly as “sitting in a case,” the underlying reason behind disqualification under Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 1 of Rule 137 is the same. Clearly, respondent judge’s participation in the preliminary investigation involving his nephew is a violation of the aforequoted rules laid down to guide members of the judiciary. The rationale for the rule on disqualification of a judge stems from the principle that no judge should preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge should not handle a case in which he might be perceived to be susceptible to bias and partiality. The rule



is intended to preserve the people’s faith and confidence in the courts of justice.

We have declared often enough that the behavior of judges and court personnel, must at all times, not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be above suspicion. Due process cannot be satisfied in the absence of that degree of objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to reassure litigants of his being fair and just. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, moreover, mandates that a judge should avoid, not merely impropriety in all his acts but even the appearance of impropriety.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent judge is FINED in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for not having inhibited himself in the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. SM-7962 entitled “People of the Philippines v. Carlo Perez, et al.” with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

66) Ford vs. Daitol, Adm. Case No. 3736, November 16, 1995

CASE NATURE: Suspension


After careful consideration of the records of the case, the Court finds that the suspension of respondent from the practice of law is proper. The Court agrees with the IBP that respondent had been remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel for complainant. A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellee’s brief on behalf of his client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. It has been stressed that the determination of whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion.

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent Atty. Escolastico Daitol from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months, with a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar offense


will be more severely dealt with. Respondent is also DIRECTED to return to complainant the amount of P600.00 which he had received as attorney’s fees.

67) Gimeno vs. Judge Arcueno, Sr., A.M. No. MTJ-94-981, November 29, 1995

CASE NATURE: Grave Abuse of Discretion and Ignorance of the Law


The Respondent Judge explained that he set the case for hearing in order precisely to accord the public prosecutor with an opportunity to contest the application for bail. Since the public prosecutor merely filed his comment, thus leaving the matter to the sound discretion of the judge, respondent Judge felt that he could forthwith act on the incident.

Although the explanation is not enough to completely exculpate respondent Judge, the circumstances, coupled with his sincere belief in the propriety of his order, warrant a mitigation of the usual sanction this Court metes in cases of this nature. We reduce, accordingly, OCA’s recommended penalty to a P5,000.00 Fine.

WHEREFORE, Judge Arcueno, Sr., is directed to pay a FINE in the amount of P5,000.00. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be severely dealt with by this Court.

DECEMBER

68) Heirs of the Late Nasser D. Yasin vs. Judge Felix, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1167, December 04, 1995

CASE NATURE: Gross Ignorance of the Law, Partiality and Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment


The charge of gross ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment has no factual basis. If ever respondent



judge committed any error at all, it was an error of judgment and not every error of judgment can be attributable to a judge’s ignorance or the law. Neither can it be said that he knowingly rendered an unjust judgment given the antecedents of the instant case. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is a firmly established principle in our jurisprudence that a judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of judgment in the absence of a showing of any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose on his part. For if every error of a judge should be punished, then perhaps no judge, however good, competent, honest and dedicated he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary without a blemished record and a tarnished image. It is the obligation of the judge to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and maintain professional competence in court management, and for negligence in the management of his office, he deserves to be appropriately penalized.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED for LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL PROOF. I, therefore, VOTE for the EXONERATION of Judge Augusto N. Felix.

Respondent Augusto N. Felix found negligent in the management of his office hence meted a P2,000.00 fine with stern warning against the commission of similar offense.

69) Manlangit vs. Judge Urgel, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1028, December 04, 1995



The erroneous issuance of the warrant of arrest against complainant necessarily caused him and his family undue anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment. Indeed, complainant had to hire a counsel and incur expenses for his bond to fight for his liberty which he could have lost due to a patently erroneous warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge. Life, liberty and property hang on the balance everytime a judge wields judicial power. We cannot overemphasize the importance of a judge’s cautious, diligent and intelligent performance of judicial functions. Reckless judges make justice a tormenting illusion to our people.



IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent judge MELITO L. URGEL isfined One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and is admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of his judicial functions, with a warning that repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely in the future.

70) State Prosecutors vs. Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, December 11, 1995

CASE NATURE: Misconduct


It may be conceded that respondent, in acting the way he did, committed a legal error which usually is remediable by appeal or by any other modes sanctioned by the Rules of Court and “does not raise a question of improper judicial conduct subject to judicial discipline.” But egregious legal error, legal error motivated by bad faith, or a continuing pattern of legal error do amount to misconduct subject to discipline, ranging from admonishment to removal from office. And legal error is egregious and serious enough to amount to misconduct when judges deny individuals their basic or fundamental rights, such as when defendants were not advised of their constitutional right to counsel, coerced to plead guilty, sentenced to jail when only a fine is provided by law, sentenced to jail for a period longer than the maximum sentence allowed by law, or particularly similar to this case when defendants were denied a full and fair hearing—a constitutional right equally afforded to the prosecution but unceremoniously ignored by respondent. The gravity of his actuation cannot be shrugged off casually. Respondent has followed a course of judicial conduct which is in utter disregard of the law, established rules of practice and basic notions of fair play, and his impressive scholastic record as student of law all the more punctuates his blunder rather than temper it.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Court’s September 19, 1994 Decision is MODIFIED. Respondent Judge Manuel T. Muro is considered suspended from office without pay for the period from September 19, 1994 to the date this Resolution is promulgated. He may, therefore, be REINSTATED to office immediately. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the respondent’s personal record.



Date post:	18-Jul-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinzkat
View:	21 times
Download:	0 times

1995 (70 list of cases) TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S..docx

Documents