Legal Ethics Green Notes 2013

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. - Philippians 3:14

Prepared by: Prof. Erickson H. Balmes

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love

him."1 CORINTHIANS 2:9

1. It is an offense of exciting or stirring unnecessary suits and quarrels

a. amicus curiaeb. barratryc. forum shoppingd. ambulance chasing

2. Which of the following are the 4 duties of a lawyer?

a. To Society, To the Bar, to the Constitution, to the Peopleb. To Society, To the Republic, to the Church, to the Clientc. To Society, To the Courts, To the Bar, to the Clientd. To Society, to the Courts, to the IBP, to the Bar

3. Who among the following lawyers are not prohibited from practicing law

a. Lawyers who were appointed as Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissionb. Lawyers connected with the office of the Solicitor Generalc. Lawyers who elected as Senators or Congressmend. Lawyers who were appointed to the Judiciary

4. Which among the following qualifications are not required to be possessed by applicants for the Bar Examinations

a. Natural Born Citizenb. Possession of Good Moral Characterc. Philippine Residencyd. Degree in Bachelor of Laws

5. It is the improper practice of filing several actions or petitions in the same or different tribunals arising from the same cause and seeking substantially identical reliefs in the hope of winning one of them.

a. Litis pendentiab. Forum Shoppingc. Res Judicatad. Pro se Practice

BAR OPERATIONS 2013

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 1 of 27

in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS



6. Which among the following choices is not a possible consequence of forum shopping?

a. Summary dismissal of the multiple petition or complaintb. Penalty for direct contempt of court on the party and his lawyerc. Disciplinary proceeding for the lawyer concerned.d. Award of damages and attorney’s fees to the defendant / respondent.

7. It is the form prescribed for sworn statements where no rights of titles are transferred before a notary public?

a. Acknowledgmentb. Verificationc. Juratd. Notarial undertaking

8. Which of the following does not form part of the duty of a notary public

a. To charge reasonable notarial feesb. To keep a notarial registerc. To affix to acknowledgment the date of the expiration of his commission, as required by lawd. To forward his notarial register, when filed, to the proper clerk of court. e. To make the proper notation regarding residence certificates.

9. Which of the following choices, as provided under the Rules of Court, do not form part of the basis of applying the principle of quantum meruit or “as much as he deserves”?

a. The skill demandedb. The importance of the subjectc. The length of membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippinesd. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved.e. The contingency or certainty of compensation.

10. Which of the following is not included in the criteria for determining whether a person is engaged in the practice of law?

a. Application of knowledge of lawb. Compensationc. Habitualityd. Retainer Agreemente. Attorney –Client Relationship

11. Who among the following lawyers cannot practice law?

a. Lawyers who are members of the Provincial Boardb. Lawyers who are elected as Senatorsc. Retired Judges

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





d. Lawyers elected as Municipal Vice-Mayorse. Lawyers elected as City Mayors

12. He is a lawyer who haunts hospitals, and visits homes of the afflicted, officiously intruding their presence and persistently offering his service on the basis of a contingent fee.

a. Medico Legalb. Ambulance Chaserc. Forensic Lawyerd. Contingent Fee Lawyere.Counsel de Parte

13. Generally, lawyers are not allowed to advertise their services. However, there are certain recognized exceptions. Which of the following choices do not constitute as an exception to the general rule?

a. Writing Legal Articlesb. Listing in the Law List c. Listing in the Phone directory with area of expertise d. Giving of Ordinary Professional Cards.

14. Which of the following choices is not a purpose of Bar Matter 850 or the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education?

a. To keep abreast with laws and jurisprudenceb. Enhance the standards of the practice of lawc. Provide a venue for the strengthening of the professional bonds between lawyersd. Maintain the ethics of the profession

15. Who among the following lawyers are not exempted from the MCLE?

a. Solicitor Generalb. Law Deansc. Law Professorsd. Government Corporate Counsel

16. Which of the following duties do not form part of a lawyer’s duty to the legal profession?

a. Courtesy and fairness b. Fidelity and loyaltyc. Not to encroach upon the employment of another lawyerd. Not to assist in the unauthorized practice of law

17. Which of the following duties do not form part of a lawyer’s duty to the courts?

a. Respectb. Fiduciary dutyc. Not to influence the Court

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





d. To assist in the administration of justice

18. A lawyer is duty bound to assist in the speedy administration of justice. Which of the following duties do not belong to a lawyer’s duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice?

a. No to engage in forum shoppingb. To be prepared during hearingsc. To treat witness properlyd. To seek continuance when the witness is unavailable for examination

19. Among the choices given, which two words best describe the dual role of a lawyer vis-à-vis his client?

a. Fiduciaryb. Confidantc. Agentd. Counselore. Adviserf. Mentorg. Servant

20. Generally, a lawyer who is appointed as a counsel de oficio should not reject his appointment. Which among the given choices is a valid ground for refusal of lawyer of his appointment as counsel de officio?

a. Established guilt of the accusedb. Lack of witnesses for the defensec. Conflict of interestd. Inability of the client to pay attorney’ fees

21. The attorney client privilege is one of the traits that separates lawyering as a profession from a business endeavor. Which of the following choices do not constitute as a valid exception to the rule on attorney client privilege?

a. When authorized by the clientb. When required by lawc. When the client has been away for so longd. The announced intention of a client to commit a crime

22.It is the right of a lawyer to kept the client’s fund, documents and papers that has lawfully come to his possession until payment of his lawful fee.

a. Charging Lienb. Charging feec. Retaining Liend. Particular Lien

22. Which of the following is an unethical form of attorney’s fee arrangement?

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





a. Hourly Rateb. Fixed Cash Feec. Retainer Feed. Champertous Contracte. Acceptance fee

23. It is the action filed by a lawyer against his clients for collection of attorney’s fees

a. Collection caseb. Case for sum of money with damagesc. Assumpsitd. Rescission of Retainer Agreement with Damagese. Rescission of Retainer Agreement with claim for payment of attorney’s fees and Damages

24. It is the disciplinary sanction imposed upon a lawyer where the extent of the wrong is very small and the degree of culpability is very slight. It is also imposed where the conduct of the a lawyer falls short of the exacting standards of candor and fairness required to be observed by them.

a. Warningb. Reprimand / Admonitionc. Fined. Suspension e. Disbarment

25. Who among the following officers/offices are not authorized to investigate Disbarment cases:

a. IBP Committee on Bar Disciplineb. Office of the Solicitor General c. Judge of a Lower Courtd. Any Officer of the Supreme Courte. Philippine Bar Association

26. Which of the following choices is a not a mitigating circumstance in disbarment proceedings?

a. Good faithb. Want of intention to commit a wrongc. Non-payment of agreed value of attorney’s feesd. Desistance of complainante. Youth and inexperience in the bar.

27. Which among the following choices is not a source of judicial ethics?

a. Code of Judicial Conductb. 1987 Constitution c. Revised Rules of Courtd. Revised Penal Code

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





e. Bilateral and Multi-Lateral Treaties Entered into by the Supreme Court with courts of other jurisdictions.f. Republic Act 3019

28. It is the primordial and the most important duty of every member of the Bench

a. Dispensing of Justiceb. Execution of Final Judgmentc. Decision Makingd. Conviction of the Guilty and Acquittal of the Innocente. Hearing of Cases

29. Which of the following is not an element of the offense of unjust judgment committed by a judge?

a. Offender is a judgeb. Offender renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decisionc. Offender receives a pecuniary benefit in exchange for the judgment that he rendered d. The judgment is unjuste. Judge knows that his judgment is unjust

30. Which of the following choices do not belong as a fundamental purpose of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines?

a. To elevate the standards of the legal professionb. To improve the administration of justicec. To bring all lawyers closer to one another by providing them with a forum for interactiond. To enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibilities more effectively

31. It is a pleading that while is good in form is false in fact?

a. Negative pleadingb. Scam pleadingc. False pleadingd. Sham pleading

32. It is an answer that does not present a defense to the action or one which tenders no material issue

a. False Answerb. Frivolous Answerc. Negative Pregnant Answerd. Sham answer

33. It is concerned with minimizing the risk of legal trouble and maximizing legal rights for entities at that time when transactional or similar facts are being considered and made.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





a. Pre-emptive Lawyeringb. Alternative Lawyerc. Minimalist Lawyeringd. Preventive Lawyering

34. Which of the following duties are not required of lawyers under the Lawyer’s Oath

a. To delay no man for money or maliceb. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippinesc. To uplift the administration of justice d. To conduct oneself as a lawyer to the best of his knowledge

35. It is present when a lawyer is asked to enforce the right of a client in case where he will also be asked to defend another client from such enforcement.

a. Dual Representationb. Conflict of Interestc. Unethical Representationd. Dual Lawyering

36. It is the primary duty of lawyers who are public prosecutors

a. To convict criminalsb. To prosecute casesc. To file information against the accusedd. To see to it that justice is done

37. Which of the task/acts cannot be done by a lawyer who has left government service

a. Practice of Law for private concernsb. Handle clients on any matter that he handled before in governmentc. Do pro-bono litigationd. File a case against the government on behalf of a client

38. Which among the following tasks is excluded in the general authority of a lawyer under the Rules of Court?

a. Compromise their client’s litigationb. Bind their clientsc. Take appealsd. Appear for his client during the trial

39. It means that in the court of justice of the peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose.

a. Nolle Pro Se Que Practiceb. Pro Se Practice c. Pro Bono Practiced. Self Practice

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





40. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, the practice of the legal profession by a member of the Sanggunian is restricted but not prohibited. Which among the following is not a restriction on such practice?

a. They shall not appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office, agency or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party

b. They shall not collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings including the local government unit of which he is an official

c. They cannot accept pro bono criminal cases involving individuals who are not their constituents

d. They shall not use property and personnel of the government

41. Which among the following choices is not a valid ground for withdrawal as counsel of a client?

a. Lack of confidence of the counsel on the sincerity of the clientb. When the lawyer has been elected or appointed to public officec. Possibility of conflict of interestd. Inability to work with other counsels

42. In certain instances, a lawyer is allowed to withdraw or retire from a court case without the consent of his client. Which of the following is not part of procedure of such valid withdrawal?

a. file a motion for withdrawal in courtb. serve a copy of his motion upon his client and the adverse party at least 3 days before

the date set for hearingc. Execute verified affidavit of termination of services to accompany motion for withdrawald. The motion should afford ample time to his client to get a replacement lawyer.

43.Under the Civil Code, Attorney’s Fees by way of damages can be recovered. Which of the following grounds is not a valid basis for the claim of attorney’s fees as damages?

a. When exemplary damages are awardedb. In case of clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the lawyerc. In criminal cases or malicious prosecution against the plaintiffd. In cases of contingent fee arrangement where the fees of the lawyer is to be taken from

the award of the lower court

44. It is the equitable right of an attorney to have the fees due him for his service be secured out of the judgment for the payment of money and executions in pursuance thereof in the particular suit.

a. Right to Quantum Meruit

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





b. Possessory Lienc. Charging Liend. Retaining Lien

45. Which of the following is not a ground for disbarment of lawyer?

a. Violation of oath of officeb. Withdrawal as a counsel de oficioc. Grossly immoral conductd. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

46. Which among the following lawyers are not subject to the investigation of the IBP under the grievance procedures of the Rules of Court?

a. Law professors and bar reviewersb. Lawyers commissioned as Notaries Publicc. Judges of the Lower Courtsd. Filipino lawyers overseas

47. MTC and MCTC judges may perform notarial acts ex officio, however certain requisites must concur before they can validly perform such acts. Which among the requisites listed below is essential and is required for the MTC and MCTC judge to validly perform notarial acts ex officio?

a. Permission sought from and granted by the Office of the Court Administratorb. Certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or

notary public of such municipality or circuitc. Notarization to be done after officer hoursd. Notarial services are to be performed for free

48. The period of time under the 1987 Constitution within which cases pending with the Supreme Court are to be decided in the interest of speedy administration of justice?

a. Two Yearsb. 12 Monthsc. 1 Yeard. 24 Monthse.

49. What is the best form of advertisement for a lawyer?

a. Testimonials of former clientsb. Hard earned reputation for fidelity to private trust, excellence and dedication to the

cause of his clientc. Writing of legal articles in law journalsd. Election as officer and active participation in the activities of the IBP

50. It is the failure of the lawyer to exercise on behalf of his client the knowledge, skill and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the bar resulting an actual loss to the client.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





a. Gross Misconductb. Unethical Negligencec. Malpracticed. Gross Professional Negligence

JURISPRUDENCE PORTION

JESSIE R. DE LEON vs. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO

A.C. No. 8620 / January 12, 2011BERSAMIN

Facts – On January 2, 2006, the Government brought suit for the purpose of correcting the transfer

certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land located in Malabon City then registered in the names of defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu.

De Leon, as a voluntary intervenor in the civil case, two years later (April 21, 2008) accuses the respondent, the counsel of the defendants in such civil case, with serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney. The respondent’s offense was allegedly committed by his filing for defendants various pleadings despite said spouses being already deceased at the time of filing.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





The respondent in his comment explained that the persons who had engaged him as attorney to represent the Lim family in the civil case were William and Leonardo Lim, the children of the named defendants.

Issue –Whether or not the respondent violate the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional

Responsibility

Ruling –The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer’s Oath, providing:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE

COURT. Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any

in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

The foregoing ordain ethical norms that bind all attorneys, as officers of the Court, to act with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys not only the presumption of regularity in the discharge of their duties, but also the immunity from liability to others for as long as the performance of their obligations to their clients does not depart from their character as servants of the Law and as officers of the Court. In particular, the statements they make in behalf of their clients that are relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are absolutely privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor. Such cloak of privilege is necessary and essential in ensuring the unhindered service to their clients’ causes and in protecting the clients’ confidences.

We find that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit any falsehood or falsification in his pleadings. Accordingly, we dismiss the patently frivolous complaint.

FLORENDA V. TOBIAS vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734 / January 19, 2011PERALTA

Facts – In her verified Complaint dated June 6, 2007, Tobias alleged that respondent Judge

Limsiaco, Jr. offers “package deals” for cases filed in the court where he presides. She stated that sometime in June 2006, she requested her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to inquire from the Court about the requirements needed in filing an ejectment case. Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero allegedly proposed to Vollmer that for the sum of P30,000.00, respondent would provide the lawyer, prepare the necessary pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment case which they contemplated to file.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





Issue – Whether or not the respondent’s acts are violates the rules contained in New Code of

Judicial Conduct.

Ruling – The respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to a

prospective litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the litigant, and preparing a motion, which pleading was filed in his court and was acted upon by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond reproach and reflective of the integrity of his office. Indeed, the said acts of respondent violate Section 1 of Canon 2 – Integrity, Section 2 of Canon 3 – Impartiality, and Section 1 of Canon 4 – Propriety of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

IMELDA R. MARCOS vs. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062 / January 18, 2011PER CURIAM

Facts – On November 15, 2006, Marcos filed a complaint-affidavit charging Judge Pamintuan with

Gross Ignorance of the Law for reversing motu proprio the final and executory order of then Acting Presiding Judge Antonio Reyes dated May 30, 1996.

Issue – Whether or not the act of Judge Pamintuan in reversing a final and executory constitutes

gross ignorance of the law.

Ruling –

It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, to wit: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely.

It is inexcusable for Judge Pamintuan to have overlooked such basic legal principle no matter how noble his objectives were at that time. Judges owe it to the public to be well informed, thus, they are expected to be familiar with the statutes and procedural rules at all times. When the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

The Court agrees with the view of OCA that Judge Pamintuan manifested gross ignorance of the law. Verily, he failed to conform to the high standards of competence required of judges under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge exhibits an utter lack of know-how with the rules or with settled jurisprudence, he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. It is highly crucial that judges be acquainted with the law and basic legal principles. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one not even judges.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. JUDGE BENJAMIN P. ESTRADA, RTC, Branch 9, and JUDGE JOSEFINA GENTILES-BACAL, RTC, Branch 10, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON

A.M. No. RTJ-09-2173 / January 18, 2011BRION

Facts – Atty. Nicandro A. Cruz of the Office of the Court Administrator reported that in the course of

reviewing the Monthly Report of cases from the MTCC Malaybalay City, Bukidnon noted several orders that were issued by Executive Judge Josefina Gentiles-Bacal, RTC, and Judge Benjamin P. Estrada, RTC, Branch 9, dismissing the cases then pending in the MTCC.

Atty. Cruz pointed out that the MTCC had no regular presiding judge at the time the orders were issued, as Judge Estrada, the former presiding judge, had been appointed to preside over the RTC, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, on June 1, 2008. Atty. Cruz commented that Judge Estrada could no longer take cognizance of cases pending in his former sala after he took his oath on July 17, 2008; neither could Judge Bacal do the same even if she had then been the executive judge of the RTC, Malaybalay City.

Issue – Whether or not the respondent judges acted with gross ignorance of law when they took

over the judicial functions of the lower court.

Ruling – There is no question about the guilt of the two judges. Their shared intention to uphold the

right of the accused to liberty cannot justify their action in excess of their authority, in violation of existing regulations. The vacuum in a first level court, such as the MTCC in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, created by the absence of a presiding judge, is not remedied by a take over of the duties of the still-to-be appointed or designated judge for the court, which exactly was what Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal did.

VICTORIANO SY vs. Judge OSCAR E. DINOPOL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Koronadal City


Facts – Judge Dinopol presided over a complaint filed by Sps. Victoriano and Loreta Sy against

Metrobank for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage but later inhibited himself from acting on the case. Sy claimed that while the above case was pending in Judge Dinopol’s sala, the judge asked him for commodity loans in the form of construction materials to be used in the construction of the judge’s house.

On September 15, 2005, Metrobank filed with the RTC, South Cotabato, a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the same parcels of land covered by the previous case involving the same parties. Judge Dinopol issued an Order granting the petition, and issued the writ of possession on July 21, 2006.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





Issues – 1. Whether or not Judge Dinopol’s act of handling a case closely intertwined with the previous

case may be characterized as gross ignorance of law.2. Whether or not the respondent is liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge.

Ruling – 1. Judge Dinopol cannot be disciplined for ignorance of the law and of procedure in his

handling the previous Civil Case, as he inhibited himself, nor in his handling of Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession because of the essential nature of the proceeding itself.

As the Court held in Santiago v. Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera, Inc., the proceeding in a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is ex-parte and summary in nature. It is brought for the benefit of one party only and may be granted even without notice to the mortgagor, in this case, complainant Sy. Moreover, the duty of the court to grant a writ of possession is a ministerial function. The court does not exercise its official discretion or judgment. Judge Dinopol, before whom the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed, had no discretion on whether to issue the writ of possession or not. It cannot be said, therefore, that Judge Dinopol exposed himself or exhibited bias in favor of Metrobank when he issued the writ of possession.

2. However, we find Judge Dinopol to have committed a serious impropriety in his or his family’s financial or business dealings with Sy. Judge Dinopol violated Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to a judge’s impartiality when he received accommodations from Sy for the building materials he needed for the construction of his house. He compromised his position as a judge.

In addition, we find that Judge Dinopol also violated Section 1 of Canon 1, which highlights the independence of a judge in performing his official duties. Canon 2, which requires a judge to promote integrity in the discharge of his official functions. And Canon 4, which mandates a judge to observe and maintain proper decorum and its appearance in his public office. His actions no doubt diminished public confidence and public trust in him as a judge. His actions gave the public the impression and the appearance that he can be influenced by extraneous factors - other than the legal arguments and the court evidence – in discharging his judicial functions.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO L. LEONIDA, OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 27, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA


Facts – This Administrative case at bench stemmed from a judicial audit and inventory of pending

cases conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, Sta. Cruz, Laguna and in Branch 74, Regional Trial Court, Malabon City. The audits were conducted because respondent Judge Leonardo L. Leonida applied for Optional Retirement effective July 5, 2008.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





In sum, Judge Leonida failed to decide 102 criminal cases and 43 civil cases both in Branch 27 and Branch 74, and failed to resolve motions in ten (10) civil cases in Branch 27.

Issue – 1. Whether or not Judge Leonida is guilty of gross incompetence and gross inefficiency for

failure to decide one hundred two (102) criminal cases and forty-three (43) civil cases.

Ruling – Precedents have shown that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the reglementary

period warrants administrative sanction. The Court treats such cases with utmost rigor for any delay in the administration of justice; no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case. Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice; it undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute.

As a general principle, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory. In the same vein, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is emphatic in enjoining judges to administer justice without delay by disposing of the court’s business promptly and deciding cases within the period prescribed by law.

Judge Leonida was clearly remiss in his duties as a judge for he did not take the above constitutional command to heart. Neither did he observe the above rules which have encapsulated the Court’s strict message: “the need and the imperative” for judges to promptly and expeditiously decide cases including all incidents therein.

MANSUETA T. RUBIN vs. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR.,Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2267 / January 19, 2011BRION

Facts – Mansueta Rubin, the widow of the late Feliciano Rubin who was appointed as the Judicial

Administrator of Spouses Rubin, charged Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. of Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust, Grave Abuse of Authority of a Judge, Manifest Bias and Partiality, and Violation of Judicial Conduct in handling the Intestate proceedings of Spouses Dioscoro Rubin and Emperatriz Rubin. The complainant alleged that the respondent Judge, by way of devious schemes and clever machinations extorted money from the aforesaid Estate by lending expertise in connivance with other lawyer in pursuing an alleged claim against the Estate allegedly intended for workers’ wages as money claims against the Estate, in another labor case. In addition to that, the investigation reveals that Judge Aguirre sent a letter to Mr. Feliciano Rubin to discuss and to expedite a possible extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the deceased Spouses Rubin.

Issues – 1. Whether or not the respondent committed impropriety when he sent a letter to the

administrator of the estate under settlement pending before his court?

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





Ruling – In Agustin v. Mercado, we declared that employees of the court have no business meeting

with litigants or their representatives under any circumstance. This prohibition is more compelling when it involves a judge who, because of his position, must strictly adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct; a judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.

Under the circumstances, Judge Aguirre’s act was improper considering that he opened himself to suspicions in handling the case. His action also raised doubts about his impartiality and about his integrity in performing his judicial function.

We take note that the complained act was committed before the New Code of Judicial Conduct took effect on June 1, 2004. Under the circumstances, Judge Aguirre is liable under the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics . Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that “a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”

RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA, ET AL., ALL EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS against ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS, CA –

Mindanao Station

A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J / January 11, 2011VELASCO, JR.

Facts – The complainants filed with this Court an unverified letter-complaint dated April 30, 2008

charging Justice Elbinias with Gross Inefficiency; Bribe Solicitation; Drinking Liquor in Office Premises; Personal Use of Government Property and Resources; Falsification of a Favored Employee’s Daily Time Record; Disrespect Towards fellow Justices; Oppression through Intemperate, Oppressive and Threatening Language; and Grave Abuse of Authority.

They prayed for (1) the dismissal from service of Justice Elbinias; (2) his preventive suspension pending investigation of the instant administrative complaint; (3) the provision of “security” to them from his retaliation and reprisal on account of this complaint; and (4) the acceptance by the Court of their enclosed resignation letters without the prior approval of Justice Elbinias for fear that they would be peremptorily terminated by him instead.

Issue – 1. Whether or not the anonymous complaint will prosper.

Ruling – It must be noted that most of the complainants are lawyers, and are presumed and ought to

know the formal requirement of verification for administrative complaints as stated under Section 1, Rule 140:

SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





their allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Emphasis supplied.)

The above rule provides three ways by which administrative proceedings against judges may

be instituted: (1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court; (2) upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations; or (3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity.

Indeed, complainants not only failed to execute a verified complaint but also never submitted their affidavits showing personal knowledge of the allegations embodied in their letter-complaints.

Even granting arguendo and considering the letter-complaints as anonymous complaints, still these cannot prosper as stated earlier because the averments and material allegations of complainants are neither verifiable from public records of indubitable integrity nor supported or substantiated by other competent evidence submitted by complainants.

ELADIO D. PERFECTO vs. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270 / January 31, 2011CARPIO MORALES

Facts – Eladio D. Perfecto charges Judge Alma Consuelo Esidera, Presiding Judge of the Regional

Trial Court (RTC) of Northern Samar, Branch 20, of soliciting and receiving at the Prosecutor’s Office the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00) from practitioner Atty. Albert Yruma, and the same amount from Public Prosecutor Rosario Diaz, purportedly to defray expenses for a religious celebration and barangay fiesta. Furthermore, complainant charges respondent with acts of impropriety ─ scolding her staff in open court and treating in an “inhuman and hostile” manner practitioners “who are not her friends.” He adds that respondent even arrogantly treats public prosecutors assigned to her sala.

Issue – 1. Whether or not the act of the respondent constitutes Impropriety and Unbecoming

Conduct.

Ruling – Respondent’s act of proceeding to the Prosecutor’s Office under the guise of soliciting for a

religious cause betrays not only her lack of maturity as a judge but also a lack of understanding of her vital role as an impartial dispenser of justice, held in high esteem and respect by the local community, which must be preserved at all times. It spawns the impression that she was using her

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





office to unduly influence or pressure Atty. Yruma, a private lawyer appearing before her sala, and Prosecutor Diaz into donating money through her charismatic group for religious purposes.

To stress how the law frowns upon even any appearance of impropriety in a magistrate’s activities, it has often been held that a judge must be like Caesar’s wife - above suspicion and beyond reproach. Respondent’s act discloses a deficiency in prudence and discretion that a member of the judiciary must exercise in the performance of his official functions and of his activities as a private individual.

In Atty. Guanzon, et al. v. Judge Rufon (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2038; 19 October 2007), the Court found respondent Judge Rufon guilty of vulgar and unbecoming conduct for uttering discriminatory remarks against women lawyers and litigants. Although respondent judge may attribute his intemperate language to human frailty, his noble position in the bench nevertheless demands from him courteous speech in and out of the court. Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in language.

It is never trite to caution respondent to be prudent and circumspect in both speech and action, keeping in mind that her conduct in and outside the courtroom is always under constant observation.

PIO ANGELIA vs. JUDGE JESUS L. GRAGEDA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2220 / February 7, 2011MENDOZA

Facts – Pio Angelia filed a verified complaint against Judge Grageda for the delay in the resolution of

motions relative to Civil Case No. 54-2001, entitled Pio Angelia v. Arnold Oghayan. Angelia averred that such civil case was filed way back on August 8, 2001. After numerous postponements, pre-trial was finally set on December 6, 2007. On December 20, 2007, counsel for complainant received an order dated December 6, 2007 dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. On December 28, 2007, Angelia filed a motion for reconsideration reasoning out that the failure to prosecute could not be attributed to him. On July 28, 2008, he filed his Urgent Motion for the Early Resolution of said December 2007 Motion for Reconsideration. He claimed that despite the lapse of a considerably long period of time, no action was taken by Judge Grageda.

Judge Grageda also admitted that while there was an apparent failure on his part to resolve the motion earlier, such delay was not intentional but simply brought about by the sheer volume of work in his sala, as there were many times that he was the only acting RTC Judge within his district, comprising of 2 cities and 3 municipalities in Davao del Norte.

Issue – 1. Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in resolving a motion.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





Ruling – In consonance with the Constitutional mandate that all lower courts decide or resolve cases

or matters within three (3) months from their date of submission, the Code of Judicial Conduct in Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 3.05 of Canon 3, provide:

Rule 1.02 – A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.

Rule 3.05 – A judge should dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

This Court has consistently held that failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. Such delay is clearly violative of the above-cited rules. Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. As a trial judge, Judge Grageda was a frontline official of the judiciary and should have at all times acted with efficiency and with probity.

Judges must decide cases and resolve matters with dispatch because any delay in the administration of justice deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and undermines the people’s faith in the judiciary. Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied.

TERESITA D. SANTECO vs. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE

A.C. No. 5834 / February 22, 2011PER CURIAM

Facts – The Court, in an administrative case filed against Atty. Luna B. Avance, found guilty of gross

misconduct for, among others, abandoning her client’s cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her without any explanation for doing so. She was then ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years.

Subsequently, while respondent’s five-year suspension from the practice of law was still in effect, the then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock receive letter-report informing him that respondent had appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein she misrepresented herself as "Atty. Liezl Tanglao." When her opposing counsels confronted her and showed to the court a certification regarding her suspension, respondent admitted and conceded that she is Atty. Luna B. Avance, but qualified that she was only suspended for three years and that her suspension has already been lifted.

The respondent was ordered to comment but failed to do so. She was found guilty of indirect contempt and FINED in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos. But despite due notice, however, respondent failed to pay the fine imposed

Issue – 1. Whether or not the respondent’s acts warrants her disbarment.

Ruling – The Court finds respondent unfit to continue as a member of the bar.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes. Here, respondent’s conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her as an officer of the court as she obviously possesses a habit of defying this Court’s orders.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct and/or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to wit:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

In repeatedly disobeying this Court’s orders, respondent proved herself unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC / February 8, 2011PER CURIAM

Facts – Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek

reconsideration of the decision of the Court dated October 12, 2010 that dismissed their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the decision he wrote for the Court in G.R. No. 162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo. Mainly, petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of the commission of plagiarism in the Philippines.

Issue –1. Whether or not the decision in Vinuya v. Romulo should be annulled on ground of

plagiarism.

Ruling – Plagiarism, a term not defined by statute, has a popular or common definition. To plagiarize,

says Webster, is "to steal and pass off as one’s own" the ideas or words of another. Stealing implies malicious taking. Black’s Law Dictionary, the world’s leading English law dictionary quoted by the Court in its decision, defines plagiarism as the "deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's original ideas or creative expressions as one’s own." The presentation of another person’s ideas as one’s own must be deliberate or premeditated—a taking with ill intent.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





There is no commonly used dictionary in the world that embraces in the meaning of plagiarism errors in attribution by mere accident or in good faith.

In Vinuya, Justice Del Castillo examined and summarized the facts as seen by the opposing sides in a way that no one has ever done. He identified and formulated the core of the issues that the parties raised. And when he had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their resolution. It was here that he drew materials from various sources, including the three foreign authors cited in the charges against him. He compared the divergent views these present as they developed in history. He then explained why the Court must reject some views in light of the peculiar facts of the case and applied those that suit such facts. Finally, he drew from his discussions of the facts and the law the right solution to the dispute in the case. On the whole, his work was original. He had but done an honest work.

The Court will not, therefore, consistent with established practice in the Philippines and elsewhere, dare permit the filing of actions to annul the decisions promulgated by its judges or expose them to charges of plagiarism for honest work done.

LYDELLE L. CONQUILLA vs. JUDGE LAURO G. BERNARDO, Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue, Bulacan

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737 / February 9, 2011CARPIO

Facts –A criminal complaint for direct assault was filed against the complainant Conquilla before

the MTC of Bocaue, Bulacan. On 8 July 2008, respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to hold the complainant for trial for the crime of direct assault.

Complainant then filed an administrative complaint, alleging that under A.M. No. 05-08-[2]6-SC, first level court judges no longer have the authority to conduct preliminary investigations. Thus, she avers that respondent judge committed an illegal act constituting gross ignorance of the law and procedure when he conducted the preliminary investigation and issued the warrant of arrest.

Issue – 1. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of law.

Ruling – The conduct of preliminary investigation by respondent judge was in direct contravention of

A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on 3 October 2005, amending Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by removing the conduct of preliminary investigation from judges of the first level courts. Thus, under Section 2 of Rule 112, only the following officers are authorized to conduct preliminary investigations: (a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





assistants; (b) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and (c) Other officers as may be authorized by law.

Clearly, MTC judges are no longer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation. It was therefore incumbent upon respondent judge to forward the records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, instead of conducting the preliminary investigation himself.

Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Indeed, competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. Section 3, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to maintain and enhance their knowledge and skills to properly perform their judicial functions.

When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply the law. Anything less is gross ignorance of the law. Judges should exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules, and should be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence.

DANIEL G. SEVILLA vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO S. LINDO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, MALABON CITY

A.M. No. MTJ-08-1714 / February 9, 2011BERSAMIN

Facts – Daniel G. Sevilla charged Hon. Francisco S. Lindo, then the Presiding Judge of the

Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, in Malabon City with delay in the disposition of Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260 (violation of BP22).

Sevilla alleged that he was the private complainant in the criminal case which was raffled to Branch 55, presided by Judge Lindo; that he testified once in the case, but his testimony pertained only to his personal circumstances; that after he gave such partial testimony, Judge Lindo adjourned the session for lack of material time, and persistently reset the subsequent hearings for lack of material time; that Judge Lindo’s indifference was designed to force him to accept the offer of an amicable settlement made by the accused; and that Judge Lindo’s coercion was manifested in open court and in his chamber by telling him in the presence of the accused: “Mr. Sevilla, ang hirap mo namang pakiusapan. Konting pera lang yan. Bahala ka maghintay sa wala.”

Issue – 1. Whether or not Judge Lindo was administratively liable for the numerous postponements in

Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260.

Ruling – Judge Lindo should be held liable for delay in the disposition of his cases that was

tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties.

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





Although the postponement of a hearing in a civil or criminal case may at times be unavoidable, the Court disallows undue or unnecessary postponements of court hearings, simply because they cause unreasonable delays in the administration of justice and, thus, undermine the people’s faith in the Judiciary, aside from aggravating the financial and emotional burdens of the litigants. For this reason, the Court has enjoined that postponements and resettings should be allowed only upon meritorious grounds, and has consistently reminded all trial judges to adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements.

The strict judicial policy on postponements applies with more force and greater reason to prosecutions involving violations of BP 22, whose prompt resolution has been ensured by their being now covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. The Court has pronounced that the Rule on Summary Procedure was precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.

RENE C. RICABLANCA vs. JUDGE HECTOR B. BARILLO

A.M. No. MTJ-08-1710 / February 15, 2011CARPIO MORALES

Facts – In a verified complaint dated July 3, 2006, Rene C. Ricablanca, Court Stenographer I of the

Municipal Trial Court of Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, charged Judge Hector Barillo, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Canlaon City, with Grave Judicial Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law.

The complainant alleged that while respondent was still Acting Presiding Judge of the MTC Guihulngan, he issued orders archiving the five (5) criminal cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guihulngan, instead of forwarding them to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for review and appropriate action.

Issue – 1. Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty for gross ignorance of the law.

Ruling –The Court finds that, indeed, respondent is liable for gross ignorance of the law. A judge

owes it to himself and his office to know basic legal principles by heart and to harness that knowledge correctly and justly, failing which public’s confidence in the courts is eroded.

In issuing the orders archiving the five criminal cases, respondent failed to consider that he was acting not as a trial judge but an investigating judge of an MTC whose actions were thus governed by Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure on preliminary investigations. He ought to have known that after conducting preliminary investigation on the criminal cases, it was his

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





duty to transmit his resolution thereon to the provincial or city prosecutor for appropriate action. His failure to do so betrays an utter lack of familiarity with the Rules.

The complaint against respondent is for gross ignorance of the law in which the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence; it must have been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption the presence of which in the present case is not clear.

Be that as it may, such leeway afforded a judge does not mean that he should not evince due care in the performance of his adjudicatory functions. Sanctions are still in order as such lapses in judgment cannot be countenanced. As the Court has repeatedly stressed, a judge, having applied for the position and appointed as such, is presumed to know the law. Thus, when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT - BRANCH 56, MANDAUE CITY, CEBU

A.M. No. 09-7-284-RTC / February 16, 2011PERALTA

Facts – This administrative matter stemmed from the Report dated July 6, 2009 on the judicial audit

and physical inventory of cases conducted by the Audit Team of the Office of the Court Administrator in March 2007 in the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, Cebu, in anticipation of the compulsory retirement of Judge Augustine A. Vestil, then presiding judge of the same court.

The report disclosed that during the audit, the trial court has: (1) a total caseload of 1,431 cases consisting of 555 civil cases and 876 criminal cases; (2) 15 cases submitted for decision, but were already beyond the reglementary period; (3) two cases with pending incidents awaiting resolution, which were beyond the reglementary period; and (4) 247 cases, which had remained dormant for a considerable length of time.

Issue –1. Whether or not Judge Vestil should be administratively liable for failure to decide cases

within the reglementary period.

Ruling – We cannot overemphasize the Court’s policy on prompt resolution of disputes. Justice

delayed is justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of Section 16, Article III of the Constitution.

The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved. Thus,

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence if public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. There is no excuse for mediocrity in the performance of judicial functions. The position of judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the law and the Constitution in the discharge of official duties.

Failure to render decisions and orders within the mandated period constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which then makes Judge Vestil liable administratively. Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge punishable under Section 11 (B) of the same Rule.

JUDGE NAPOLEON E. INOTURAN vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidenta

SANCHO E. GUINANAO vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental

A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362 / A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785 / February 22, 2011PER CURIAM

Facts – Before us are two (2) consolidated cases filed against Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr. The first

case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to comply with the directives of the Court. He was found guilty of ignorance of the law and procedure and for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.The second case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to decide a case within the 90-day reglementary period. This court resolved to declare Judge Limsiaco in contempt and to impose a fine of P1,000.00 for his continued failure to file the required comment to the administrative complaint.

Issue – 1. Whether or not Judge Limsiaco should be administratively liable for unethical conduct and

gross inefficiency under the provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling –Case law teaches us that a judge is the visible representation of the law, and more

importantly of justice; he or she must, therefore, be the first to follow the law and weave an example for the others to follow. Interestingly, in Julianito M. Salvador v. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., etc., a case where Judge Limsiaco was also the respondent, we already had the occasion to impress upon him the clear import of the directives of the Court, thus:

For a judge to exhibit indifference to a resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially is gross misconduct, and may even be considered as outright disrespect for the Court. The office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of the judicial system.

We cannot overemphasize that compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This duty is verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The obligation to uphold the dignity of his office and the institution which he belongs to is also found in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct under Rule 2.01 which mandates a judge to behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by Judge Limsiaco constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Court’s authority. His conduct also reveals his deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court, shown by his failure to heed our warnings and directives. Judge Limsiaco’s actions further disclose his inability to accept our instructions. Moreover, his conduct failed to provide a good example for other court personnel, and the public as well, in placing significance to the Court’s directives and the importance of complying with them.

GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS+

Ad Majorem DEI Gloriam

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDManila and Batangas City

July 9, 2013

THE BARRISTERS’ CLUB OFFICERS

Chancellor: ABBYGAILE T. GONZALES

Vice Chancellor: ROMEL L. BASILAN

Secretary: JESSA ALYSSA G. REYES

Treasurer: MILDRED P. AMBROS

PRO: ROBYN B. DELA PENA

PRO: AARON JAMES E. CO

BAR OPERATIONS 2013





Business Manager: RUDDY ALLEN N. YEE

Business Manager: LESLIE D. RAGUINDIN

SSG Representative: ANNE LUCILLE B. RUIZ

Ex-Officio: RONA B. ESTRADA

Adviser: ATTY. ISAGANI G. CALDERON

Dean, College of Law: ATTY. REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

BAR OPERATIONS 2013



Date post:	07-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	louisp
View:	293 times
Download:	6 times

Legal Ethics Green Notes 2013

Documents