HEINZ R. HECK v. JUDGE ANTHONY E.

SANTOS 401 SCRA 46 (2003) Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties the preparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant judicial sloth. Heinz R. Heck is one of the defendants in a Civil Case before the Regional Trial presided by Judge Anthony E. Santos. Heck and his co-defendant did not receive a copy of the order to schedule the trial on June 10 and 11, 1996. Consequently, they and their counsel failed to appear therein. Since only the plaintiffs counsel, Atty. Manuel Singson, appeared in thathearing, Judge Santos considered the non-attendance of Heck and his co-defendant as waiver of their right to present evidence. Judge Santos thereafter ordered that the case to be submitted for decision. He therefore authorized Atty. Singson to prepare the draft of the decision. The decision issued by Judge Santos was copied verbatim from the draft which Atty. Singson prepared. Hence, Heck filed an administrative complaint charging Judge Santos with violation of Section 1, Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Santos guilty for adopting Singsons work as his own. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Santos is guilty of gross ignorance of the law HELD: The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA. Santos order for the counsel of one of the parties to draft the decision and his adoption verbatim of the draft clearly violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. The pertinent canons of which read: Canon 2, a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Canon 3, a Judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence adjudicative responsibilities.

By such order, Judge Santos abdicated a function exclusively granted to him by no less than the fundamental law of the land. It is axiomatic that decision-making, among other duties, is the primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench. He must use his own perceptiveness in understanding and analyzing the evidence presented before him and his own discernment when determining the proper action, resolution or decision. Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties thepreparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant judicial sloth. Lack of malice or bad faith is not an excuse. It bears emphasis that a judge must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision. He should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.