REYES, J.

+"nicipal -irc"it Trial -o"rt (+-T-) of 4to. Tomas and +inalin! 4to. Tomas! ampanga and the ;ffice of the ro#incial rosec"tor of 4an

This is a complaint[1] for disbarment filed by complainants Fidela G. Bengco (Fidela) and Teresita N. Bengco (Teresita) against respondent Atty. ablo Bernardo (Atty. Bernardo) for deceit! malpractice! cond"ct

Fernando!

ampanga! respecti#ely! finding probable ca"se for the filing of

the criminal information[&] against both Atty. Bernardo and Andres +agat (+agat) before the 8egional Trial -o"rt (8T-) of 4an Fernando! ampanga! Branch /=! charging them $ith the crime of 9stafa p"nishable "nder Article >1&! par. *(a) of the 8e#ised enal -ode.

"nbecoming a member of the Bar and #iolation of his d"ties and oath as a la$yer.

The acts of the respondent $hich ga#e rise to the instant complaint are as follo$s% That sometime on or abo"t the period from April 1&! 1''( to )"ly **! 1''(! Atty. ablo Bernardo $ith the help and in conni#ance and coll"sion $ith a certain Andres +agat [$ilf"lly] and illegally committed fra"d"lent act $ith intent to defra"d herein complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco by "sing false pretenses! deceitf"l $ords to the effect that he $o"ld e,pedite the titling of the land belonging to the +iranda family of Tagaytay -ity $ho are the ac."aintance of complainants herein and they con#inced herein complainant[s] that if they $ill finance and deli#er to him the amo"nt of [ ]/'&!000.00 as ad#ance money he $o"ld e,pedite the titling of the s"b1ect land and f"rther by means of other similar deceit li2e misrepresenting himself as la$yer of 3illiam Gatchalian! the prospecti#e b"yer of the s"b1ect land! $ho is the o$ner of lastic -ity at -anomay 4treet! 5alen6"ela! +etro +anila and he is the one handling 3illiam Gatchalian7s b"siness transaction and that he has contracts at NA+89A! :9N8! -9N8; and 89G<4T98 ;F :99:4 $hich representation he $ell 2ne$ $ere false! fra"d"lent and $ere only made to ind"ce the complainant[s] to gi#e and deli#er the said amo"nt ([ ]/'&!000.00) and once in possession of said amo"nt! far from complying $ith his obligation to e,pedite and ca"se the titling of the s"b1ect land! [$ilf"lly]! "nla$f"lly and illegally misappropriated! misapplied and con#erted the said amo"nt to his personal "se and benefit and despite demand "pon him to ret"rn the said amo"nt! he failed and ref"sed to do so! $hich acts constit"te deceit! malpractice! cond"ct "nbecoming a member of the Bar and 5iolation of :"ties and ;ath as a la$yer.[*]

The respondent $as re."ired to file his -omment. [?] ;n 4eptember */! *00/! the respondent filed an "ndated -omment! [(] $herein he denied the allegations against him and a#erred the follo$ing% *. @e had not decei#ed both complainants bet$een the period from April 1&! 1''( to )"ly **! 1''( for p"rposes of getting from them the amo"nt of [ ]/'&!000.00. <t $as Andy +agat $hom they contacted and $ho in t"rn so"ght the legal ser#ices of the respondent. <t $as Andy +agat $ho recei#ed the said money from them. >. There $as no conni#ance made and entered into by Andy +agat and respondent. The arrangement for titling of the land $as made by Teresita N. Bengco and Andy +agat $ith no participation of respondent. /. The acceptance of the respondent to render his legal ser#ice is legal and allo$ed in la$ practice.[=]

The case $as referred to the <ntegrated Bar of the for in#estigation! report and recommendation.

hilippines (<B )

;n Febr"ary 1?! *00&! the <B

ordered the respondent to s"bmit a

#erified comment p"rs"ant to 8"le 1>'AB! 4ection ? of the 8"les of -o"rt as it appeared that the respondent7s "ndated comment filed $ith the -o"rt $as not #erified.[']

;n +arch 1&! *00&! respondent thro"gh co"nsel re."ested for an <n s"pport of their complaint! the complainants attached thereto 8esol"tions dated :ecember (! 1''= and )"ne **! 1''' of the Third
[>] [/]

additional fifteen (1&) days from +arch 1(! *00&! or "ntil April 1! *00&! $ithin $hich to comply d"e to his medical confinement.[10]

Thereafter! on April /! *00&! the respondent filed a second motion[11] for e,tension praying for another *0 days! or "ntil April **! *00&! alleging that he $as still reco#ering from his illness.

;n A"g"st >! *00&! the case $as set for mandatory conference.
[1*]

for 9stafa against the former before the Third +"nicipal -irc"it Trial -o"rt! of 4to. Tomas and +inalin! 4to. Tomas! ampanga. <n the preliminary in#estigation cond"cted by the said co"rt! it finds s"fficient gro"nds to hold respondent and +agat for trial for the crime of 9stafa defined "nder par. *(a) of Art. >1& of the 8e#ised enal -ode! as amended. The case $as transmitted to the ;ffice of the ro#incial rosec"tor of ampanga for appropriate action as per ;rder dated ( :ecember 1''=. The Assistant ro#incial rosec"tor of the ;ffice of the ro#incial rosec"tor of ampanga cond"cted a reAin#estigation of the case. :"ring the reA in#estigation thereof! +agat $as $illing to reimb"rse to complainants the amo"nt of [ ]*00!000.00 beca"se according to him the amo"nt of [ ]*'&!000.00 sho"ld be reimb"rsed by respondent considering that the said amo"nt $as t"rned o#er to respondent for e,penses inc"rred in the doc"mentation prior to the titling of the s"b1ect land. Both respondent and +agat re."ested for se#eral e,tensions for time to pay bac2 their obligations to the complainants. @o$e#er! despite e,tensions of time granted to them! respondent and +agat failed to f"lfil their promise to pay bac2 their obligation. @ence! it $as resol#ed that the offer of compromise $as constr"ed to be an implied admission of g"ilt. The Asst. ro#incial rosec"tor belie#es that there $as no reason to dist"rb the findings of the in#estigating 1"dge and an <nformation for 9stafa $as filed against respondent and +agat on = )"ly 1''' before the 8egional Trial -o"rt! 4an Fernando! ampanga. The fail"re of the la$yer to ans$er the complaint for disbarment despite d"e notice on se#eral occasions and appear on the sched"led hearings set! sho$s his flo"ting resistance to la$f"l orders of the co"rt and ill"strates his despiciency for his oath of office as a la$yer $hich deser#es disciplinary sanction , , ,. From the facts and e#idence presented! it co"ld not be denied that respondent committed a crime that import deceit and #iolation of his attorney7s oath and the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility "nder both of $hich he $as bo"nd to Eobey the laws of the land.7 The commission of "nla$f"l acts! specially crimes in#ol#ing moral t"rpit"de! acts of dishonesty in #iolation of the attorney7s oath! grossly immoral cond"ct and deceit are gro"nds for s"spension or disbarment of la$yers (8"le 1>=! 4ection *(! 88-). The miscond"ct complained of too2 place in 1''( and complainants filed the case only on 1? April *00/. As pro#ided for by the 8"les of roced"re of the -ommission of Bar :iscipline! as amended! dated */ +arch *00/! CA complaint for disbarment! s"spension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in t$o (*) years

The respondent failed to appearB th"s! the <B

considered the

respondent in defa"lt for his fail"re to appear and for not filing an ans$er despite e,tensions granted. The case $as then s"bmitted for report and recommendation.[1>]

Based on the records of the case! <n#estigating -ommissioner 8ebecca 5illan"e#aA+aala made the follo$ing findings% [;]n or before the period from 1& April 1''( to ** )"ly 1''(! respondent $ith the help and in conni#ance and coll"sion $ith a certain Andres +agat (C+agatD)! by "sing false pretenses and deceitf"l $ords! [$ilf"lly] and illegally committed fra"d"lent acts to the effect that respondent $o"ld e,pedite the titling of the land belonging to the +iranda family of Tagaytay -ity! $ho $ere the ac."aintance of complainants. 8espondent and +agat con#inced complainants that if they finance and deli#er to them the amo"nt of [ ]/'&!000.00 as ad#ance money! they $o"ld e,pedite the titling of the s"b1ect land. 8espondent represented himself to be the la$yer of 3illiam Gatchalian! the o$ner of lastic -ity located at -anomay 4treet! 5alen6"ela! +etro +anila! $ho $as allegedly the b"yer of the s"b1ect land once it has been titled. 8espondent and +agat also represented that they ha#e contacts at NA+89A! :9N8! -9N8; and the 8egister of :eeds $hich representation they 2ne$ to be false! fra"d"lent and $ere only made to ind"ce complainants to gi#e and deli#er to them the amo"nt of [ ]/'&!000.00. ;nce in possession of the said amo"nt! far from complying $ith their obligation to e,pedite and ca"se the titling of the s"b1ect land! respondent and +agat [$ilf"lly]! "nla$f"lly and illegally misappropriated! misapplied and con#erted the said amo"nt to their personal "se and benefit and despite demand "pon them to ret"rn the said amo"nt! they failed and ref"sed to do so. <n #ie$ of the deceit committed by respondent and +agat! complainants filed a complaint

from the date of the professional miscond"ctD (4ection 1! 8"le 5<<<).[1/]

declaration that he had to stop acting as her legal co"nsel sometime in the third ."arter of 1''(. The respondent pointed o"t the admission made by

The <n#estigating -ommissioner recommended that% , , , [8]espondent ATTY. PABLO A. BERNARDO be SUSPENDED for a period of TWO YEARS from receipt hereof from the practice of his profession as a la$yer and as a member of the Bar. [1&]

Fidela in her direct testimony before the 8T- that she recei#ed the amo"nt! as e#idenced by photocopies of receipts.

<n an ;rder[1'] dated +ay 1(! *00( iss"ed by the <B ! the complainant $as re."ired to comment $ithin fifteen (1&) days from receipt thereof.

;n Febr"ary 1! *00(! the <B 8esol"tion No. F5<<A*00(A0?&! viz%

Board of Go#ernors iss"ed

<n her -omment![*0] Fidela e,plained that it too2 them ."ite some time in filing the administrati#e case beca"se they too2 into consideration the possibility of an amicable settlement instead of a 1"dicial proceeding since it $o"ld stain the respondent7s rep"tation as a la$yerB that the respondent $ent into hiding $hich prompted them to see2 the assistance of -<:G agents from -amp ;li#as in order to trace the respondent7s $hereabo"tsB that the respondent $as d"ly accorded the opport"nity to be heardB and finally! that no restit"tion of the *00!000.00 pl"s corresponding interest has yet been made by the respondent.

894;G59: to A:; T and A 8;59! as it is hereby A:; T9: and A 8;59: with modification! the 8eport and 8ecommendation of the <n#estigating -ommissioner of the abo#eAentitled case! herein made part of this 8esol"tion as Anne, CADB and! finding the recommendation f"lly s"pported by the e#idence on record and the applicable la$s and r"les! Atty. ablo 4. Bernardo is hereby ordered! the restitution of the amount of [P !"","""."" $ithin si,ty (?0) days from receipt of notice $ith Warnin# that if he does not ret"rn the amo"nt $ith in si,ty days from receipt of this ;rder then he $ill be meted the penalty of Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.[1?]

;n )"ne *1! *00=! Fidela filed a +anifestation [*1] stating that the 8T;n +ay 1?! *00(! the respondent promptly filed a +otion for 8econsideration[1(] of the aforesaid 8esol"tion of the <B . The respondent a#erred that% (1) the <B resol"tion is not in accord $ith the r"les rendered a decision in the criminal case for 9stafa finding the acc"sed! Atty. Bernardo and +agat Cg"ilty of conspiracy in the commission of 9stafa "nder Article >1& par. *(a) of the 8e#ised enal -ode and both are sentenced to

considering that the complaint $as filed more than t$o (*) years from the alleged miscond"ct and therefore! m"st ha#e been dismissed o"trightB (*) he did not commit any misrepresentation in con#incing Fidela to gi#e him money to finance the titling of the landB (>) he $as hired as a la$yer thro"gh +agat $ho transacted $ith Teresita as e#idenced by a +emorand"m of Agreement[1=] signed by the latterB (/) he $as denied d"e process $hen the <n#estigating -ommissioner considered him as in defa"lt after ha#ing ignored the representati#e he sent d"ring the hearing on A"g"st >! *00&B and (&) he long restit"ted the amo"nt of **&!000.00 not as an offer of compromise b"t based on his moral obligation as a la$yer d"e to Teresita7s

s"ffer si, (?) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minim"m to t$el#e (1*) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as ma,im"m.D[**]

<n a Getter[*>] dated +arch *>! *00'! addressed to the <B ! Fidela so"ght the resol"tion of the present action as she $as already =? years of age. Gater! an 9,Aparte +otion to 8esol#e the -ase [*/] dated 4eptember 1! *010 $as filed by the complainants. <n another Getter dated ;ctober *?! *011! Fidela! being == years old! so"ght for Atty. Bernardo7s restit"tion of the amo"nt of *00!000.00 so she can "se the money to b"y her medicine and other needs.

8"les *.0> and >.01 of the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility read% The -o"rt adopts and agrees $ith the findings and concl"sions of the <B . Ru$e !."%. H A la$yer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal b"siness. <t is first $orth mentioning that the respondent7s defense of prescription is "ntenable. The -o"rt has held that administrati#e cases against la$yers do not prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the instit"tion of the administrati#e complaint $ill not erase the administrati#e c"lpability of a There is no ."estion that the respondent committed the acts complained of. @e himself admitted in his ans$er that his legal ser#ices $ere hired by the complainants thro"gh +agat regarding the p"rported titling of land s"pposedly p"rchased. 3hile he begs for the -o"rt7s ind"lgence! his contrition is shallo$ considering the fact that he "sed his position as a la$yer in order to decei#e the complainants into belie#ing that F"rther! consistent $ith his fail"re to file his ans$er after he himself pleaded for se#eral e,tensions of time to file the same! the respondent failed to appear d"ring the mandatory conference! as ordered by the <B . As a la$yer! the respondent is considered as an officer of the co"rt $ho is called "pon to obey and respect co"rt processes. 4"ch acts of the respondent are a deliberate and contempt"o"s affront on the co"rt7s a"thority $hich can not be co"ntenanced. The practice of la$ is not a b"siness. <t is a profession in $hich d"ty to p"blic ser#ice! not money! is the primary consideration. Ga$yering is not primarily meant to be a moneyAma2ing #ent"re! and la$ ad#ocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a li#elihood sho"ld be <t can not be o#erstressed that la$yers are instr"ments in the administration of 1"stice. As #ang"ards of o"r legal system! they are e,pected to maintain not only legal proficiency b"t also a high standard of morality! honesty! integrity and fair dealing. <n so doing! the people7s faith and confidence in the 1"dicial system is ens"red. Ga$yers may be disciplined H $hether in their professional or in their pri#ate capacity H for any cond"ct that is $anting in morality! honesty! probity and good demeanor.[*?] <t is li2e$ise settled that a disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a la$yer despite ha#ing in#ol#ed the same set of facts. )"rispr"dence has it Cthat a finding of g"ilt in the criminal case $ill not necessarily res"lt in a finding of liability in the administrati#e case. -on#ersely! the respondent7s ac."ittal does not necessarily e,c"lpate him administrati#ely.D [*=] a secondary consideration. The d"ty to p"blic ser#ice and to the administration of 1"stice sho"ld be the primary consideration of la$yers! $ho m"st s"bordinate their personal interests or $hat they o$e to themsel#es.[*(] he can e,pedite the titling of the s"b1ect properties. @e ne#er denied that he did not benefit from the money gi#en by the complainants in the amo"nt of /'&!000.00. Ru$e %."&. H A la$yer shall not "se or permit the "se of any false! fra"d"lent! misleading! decepti#e! "ndignified! selfAla"datory or "nfair statement or claim regarding his ."alifications or legal ser#ices.

la$yer. ;ther$ise! members of the bar $o"ld only be emboldened to disregard the #ery oath they too2 as la$yers! prescinding from the fact that as long as no pri#ate complainant $o"ld immediately come for$ard! they stand a chance of being completely e,onerated from $hate#er

administrati#e liability they o"ght to ans$er for.[*&]

<n #ie$ of the foregoing! this -o"rt has no option b"t to accord <n Yu v. Palaa![*'] the -o"rt held that% 8espondent! being a member of the bar! sho"ld note that administrati#e cases against la$yers belong to a class of their o$n. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosec"tion $ill not constit"te a pre1"dicial ."estion e#en if the same facts and circ"mstances are attendant in the administrati#e proceedings. Besides! it is not so"nd 1"dicial policy to a$ait the final resol"tion of a criminal case before a complaint against a la$yer may be acted "ponB other$ise! this -o"rt $ill be rendered helpless to apply the r"les on admission to! and contin"ing membership in! the legal profession d"ring the $hole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition! $hen the ob1ecti#es of the t$o proceedings are #astly disparate. :isciplinary proceedings in#ol#e no pri#ate interest and afford no redress for pri#ate grie#ance. They are "nderta2en and prosec"ted solely for the p"blic $elfare and for preser#ing co"rts of 1"stice from the official ministration of persons "nfit to practice la$. The attorney is called to ans$er to the co"rt for his cond"ct as an officer of the co"rt. [>0] (-itations omitted) him the p"nishment commens"rate to all his acts and to accord the complainants! especially the ==Ayear old Fidela! $ith the 1"stice they "tmost deser#e.

W)ERE*ORE, in #ie$ of the foregoing! respondent Atty. ablo 4. Bernardo is fo"nd g"ilty of #iolating the -ode of rofessional

8esponsibility. Accordingly! he is SUSPENDED from the practice of la$ for ONE +&, YEAR effecti#e "pon notice hereof.

F"rther!

the

-o"rt ORDERS Atty.

ablo

4.

Bernardo (1) to RETURN the amo"nt of *00!000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco $ithin TEN +&", DAYS from receipt of this :ecision and (*) to SUB-.T his proof of compliance thereof to the -o"rt! thro"gh the ;ffice of the Bar -onfidant $ithin TEN +&", DAYS therefromB $ith a STERN WARN.N/ that fail"re to do so shall merit him the additional penalty of

As the records re#eal! the 8T- e#ent"ally con#icted the respondent for the crime of 9stafa for $hich he $as meted the penalty of sentenced to s"ffer si, (?) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minim"m to t$el#e (1*) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as ma,im"m. 4"ch criminal con#iction clearly "ndermines the respondent7s moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. 8"le 1>=! 4ection *( pro#ides that% SE'. !(. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme ourt! "rounds therefor. # A member of the bar may be disbarred or s"spended from his office as attorney by the 4"preme -o"rt for any deceit! malpractice or other gross miscond"ct in s"ch office! grossly immoral cond"ct or by reason of his con#iction of a crime in#ol#ing moral t"rpit"de! or for any #iolation of the oath $hich he is re."ired to ta2e before the admission to practice! or for a $ilf"l disobedience appearing as attorney for a party $itho"t a"thority to do so.

s"spension from the practice of la$ for one (1) year.

Get copies of this :ecision be entered in his record as attorney and be f"rnished the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines and all co"rts in the co"ntry for their information and g"idance. SO ORDERED.

'AR-EL.TA .. 0A/U.RRE, complainant, 'AST.LLO, respondent. PER C R!"#:

vs. ATTY.

AL*REDO

C8"le (.0> A A la$yer shall not engage in cond"ct that ad#ersely reflects on his fitness to practice la$! nor sho"ld he! $hether in p"blic or pri#ate life! beha#e in a scandalo"s manner to the discredit of the legal profession.D <mmoral cond"ct has been defined as% C,,, that cond"ct $hich is so $illf"l! flagrant! or shameless as to sho$ indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the comm"nity. F"rthermore! s"ch cond"ct m"st not only be immoral! b"t"rossly immoral. That is! it m"st be so corr"pt as to constit"te a criminal act or so "nprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed "nder s"ch scandalo"s or re#olting circ"mstances as to shoc2 the common sense of decency.D[1>] <n his affida#it dated 4eptember 10! 1''(! d"ly ac2no$ledged before a notary p"blic! he declared e,plicitly% C1. That < had a relationship $ith one -armelita Iag"irre! my officemateB C*. That as a res"lt of that relationship! she is presently pregnant $ith my childB C>. That < hereby #ol"ntarily recogni6e the child no$ "nder (sic) her $omb to be my o$nB C/. That < am $illing to s"pport the said child henceforth! incl"ding hisJher personal and medical needs! ed"cation! ho"sing! food! clothing and other necessities for li#ing! $hich < $ill gi#e thro"gh hisJher mother! -armelita Iag"irre! "ntil heJshe becomes of legal age and capable to li#e on hisJher o$nB $%. That < "nderta2e to sign the birth certificate as an additional proof that heJshe is my childB ho$e#er! my fail"re to sign does not negate the recognition and ac2no$ledgement already done hereinB C?. That < am e,ec"ting this affida#it $itho"t comp"lsion on my part and being a la$yer! < ha#e f"ll 2no$ledge of the conse."ence of s"ch ac2no$ledgment and recognition.D[1/] +ore incriminating is his hand$ritten letter dated +arch 1*! 1''= $hich states in part% CAyo2o ng "mabot tayo sa 2"ng saanAsaan pa. All yo"r officemates! e.g.! Ate Ging! Glo! G"y and others (say) that < am the loo2 li2e(sic) of yo"r da"ghter. C@ere7s my bargain. < $ill help yo" in s"pporting yo"r da"ghter! b"t < cannot promise fi, amo"nt for monthly s"pport of yo"r da"ghter. @o$e#er it shall not be less than &00 b"t not more than 1!000.D[1&]

Before this -o"rt is a etition for :isbarment filed by -armelita <. Iag"irre against Atty. Alfredo -astillo on the gro"nd of Gross <mmoral -ond"ct. The facts as borne by the records are as follo$s% -omplainant and respondent met sometime in 1''? $hen the t$o became officemates at the National B"rea" of <n#estigation (NB<). [1] 8espondent co"rted complainant and promised to marry her $hile representing himself to be single.[*] 4oon they had an intimate relationship that started sometime in 1''? and lasted "ntil 1''(. [>] :"ring their affair! respondent $as preparing for the bar e,aminations $hich he passed. ;n +ay 10! 1''(! he $as admitted as a member of the hilippine Bar. [/] <t $as only aro"nd the first $ee2 of +ay 1''( that complainant first learned that respondent $as already married $hen his $ife $ent to her office and confronted her abo"t her relationship $ith respondent. [&] ;n 4eptember 10! 1''(! respondent! $ho by no$ is a la$yer! e,ec"ted an affida#it! admitting his relationship $ith the complainant and recogni6ing the "nborn child she $as carrying as his.[?] ;n :ecember 0'! 1''(! complainant ga#e birth to a baby girl! Aletha )essa. [(] By this time ho$e#er! respondent had started to ref"se recogni6ing the child and gi#ing her any form of s"pport.[=] 8espondent claims that% he ne#er co"rted the complainantB $hat transpired bet$een them $as nothing b"t m"t"al l"st and desireB he ne#er represented himself as single since it $as 2no$n in the NB< that he $as already married and $ith childrenB['] complainant is almost 10 years older than him and 2ne$ beforehand that he is already marriedB [10] the child borne by complainant is not his! beca"se the complainant $as seeing other men at the time they $ere ha#ing an affair.[11] @e admits that he signed the affida#it dated 4eptember 10! 1''( b"t e,plains that he only did so to sa#e complainant from embarrassment. Also! he did not 2no$ at the time that complainant $as seeing other men.[1*] After d"e hearing! the <B -ommission on Bar :iscipline fo"nd Atty. Alfredo -astillo g"ilty of gross immoral cond"ct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of indefinite s"spension from the practice of la$. The -o"rt agrees $ith the findings and recommendation of the <B . The -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility pro#ides% C8"le 1.01 A A la$yer shall not engage in "nla$f"l! dishonest! immoral or deceitf"l cond"ct.D ,,, ,,, C-AN;N ( A A la$yer shall at all times "phold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession! and s"pport the acti#ities of the <ntegrated Bar.D ,,, ,,, ,,, ,,,

<n the recent case of &u"uid vs. 'ud"e castigating a 1"dge stated that%

amano! 'r.! the -o"rt in

C...e#en as an ordinary la$yer! respondent has to conform to the strict standard of cond"ct demanded of members of the profession. -ertainly! fathering children by a $oman other than his la$f"l $ife fails to meet these standards.D[1?] 4iring a child $ith a $oman other than his $ife is a cond"ct $ay belo$ the standards of morality re."ired of e#ery la$yer.[1(] +oreo#er! the attempt of respondent to renege on his notari6ed statement recogni6ing and "nderta2ing to s"pport his child by -armelita demonstrates a certain "nscr"p"lo"sness on his part $hich is highly cens"rable! "nbecoming a member of a noble profession! tantamo"nt to selfAst"ltification.[1=] This -o"rt has repeatedly held% Cas officers of the co"rt! la$yers m"st not only in fact be of good moral character b"t m"st also be seen to be of good moral character and leading li#es in accordance $ith the highest moral standards of the comm"nity. +ore specifically! a member of the Bar and officer of the co"rt is not only re."ired to refrain from ad"ltero"s relationships or the 2eeping of mistresses b"t m"st also so beha#e himself as to a#oid scandali6ing the p"blic by creating the belief that he is flo"ting those moral standards.D[1'] 3hile respondent does not deny ha#ing an e,traAmarital affair $ith complainant he see2s "nderstanding from the -o"rt! pointing o"t that Cmen by nat"re are polygamo"s!D[*0] and that $hat happened bet$een them $as Cnothing b"t m"t"al l"st and desire.D [*1] The -o"rt is not con#inced. <n fact! it is appalled at the reprehensible! amoral attit"de of the respondent. 8espondent claims that he did not "se any deception to $in her affection. Granting arg"endo that complainant entered into a relationship $ith him 2no$ing f"ll $ell his marital stat"s! still it does not absol#e him of gross immorality for $hat is in ."estion in a case li2e this is respondent7s fitness to be a member of the legal profession. <t is not dependent $hether or not the other party 2no$ingly engaged in an immoral relationship $ith him. 3e agree $ith the <B that the defense of in pari delicto is not feasible. The -o"rt held in Mortel vs. (spiras) C<n a disbarment proceeding! it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari delicto beca"se this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant! b"t one to p"rge the la$ profession of "n$orthy members! to protect the p"blic and the co"rts.D[**] The illicit relationship $ith -armelita too2 place $hile respondent $as preparing to ta2e the bar e,aminations. Th"s! it cannot be said that it is "n2no$n to him that an applicant for admission to membership in the bar m"st sho$ that he is possessed of good moral character! a re."irement $hich is not dispensed $ith "pon admission to membership of the bar. [*>] This ."alification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession! b"t its contin"ed possession is essential to maintain one7s

good standing in the professionB[*/] it is a contin"ing re."irement to the practice of la$[*&] and therefore admission to the bar does not precl"de a s"bse."ent 1"dicial in."iry! "pon proper complaint! into any ."estion concerning his mental or moral fitness before he became a la$yer. This is beca"se his admission to practice merely creates a reb"ttable pres"mption that he has all the ."alifications to become a la$yer. The -o"rt held% CThe practice of la$ is not a right b"t a pri#ilege besto$ed by the 4tate on those $ho sho$ that they possess! and contin"e to possess! the ."alifications re."ired by la$ for the conferment of s"ch pri#ilege. 3e m"st stress that membership in the bar is a pri#ilege b"rdened $ith conditions. A la$yer has the pri#ilege to practice la$ only d"ring good beha#ior. @e can be depri#ed of his license for miscond"ct ascertained and declared by 1"dgment of the co"rt after gi#ing him the opport"nity to be heard.D[*?] and in Dumada" vs. &umaya% CThe practice of la$ is a pri#ilege b"rdened $ith conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness! maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithf"l compliance $ith the r"les of the legal profession are the conditions re."ired for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for en1oying the pri#ilege to practice la$.D[*(] 8espondent repeatedly engaged in se,"al congress $ith not his $ife and no$ ref"ses to recogni6e and s"pport a child pre#io"sly recogni6ed and promised to s"pport. -learly respondent #iolated the standards of morality re."ired of profession and sho"ld be disciplined accordingly. a $oman $hom he therefore! the legal

As consistently held by this -o"rt! disbarment shall not be meted o"t if a lesser p"nishment co"ld be gi#en.[*=] 8ecords sho$ that from the time he too2 his oath in 1''(! he has se#ered his ties $ith complainant and no$ li#es $ith his $ife and children in +indoro. As of no$! the -o"rt does not percei#e this fact as an indication of respondent7s effort to mend his $ays or that he recogni6es the impact of his offense on the noble profession of la$. Ne#ertheless! the -o"rt deems it more appropriate "nder the circ"mstances that indefinite s"spension sho"ld be meted o"t than disbarment. The s"spension shall last "ntil s"ch time that respondent is able to sho$! to the f"ll satisfaction of the -o"rt! that he had instilled in himself a firm con#iction of maintaining moral integrity and "prightness re."ired of e#ery member of the profession. The r"le is settled that a la$yer may be s"spended or disbarred for any miscond"ct! e#en if it pertains to his pri#ate acti#ities! as long as it sho$s him to be $anting in moral character! honesty! probity or good demeanor.[*'] A''ORD.N/LY! in #ie$ of the foregoing! the -o"rt finds respondent GK<GTL of Gross <mmoral -ond"ct and ordered to s"ffer <N:9F<N<T9 4K4 9N4<;N from the practice of la$. Get a copy of this :ecision be attached to Atty. -astillo7s personal record in the ;ffice of the Bar -onfidant and a copy thereof be f"rnished the <B and all co"rts thro"gho"t the co"ntry.

P).L.P S./*R.D A. *ORTUN, etitioner! #s. PR.-A 1ESUSA B. 2U.NSAYAS, -A. /E--A O2UENDO, DENN.S AYON, NEN.TA O2UENDO, ES-AEL -AN/UDADATU, 1OSE PA3.A, -EL.NDA 2U.NTOS DE 1ESUS, REYNALDO )ULO/, RED-OND BATAR.O, -ALOU -AN/A)AS, DAN.LO /O0O, /-A NETWOR4 .N'., throu#h its ne5 e6itors Raff7 1imene8 an6 3i9tor So$$orano, SOP).A DEDA'E, ABS:'BN 'ORPORAT.ON, throu#h the )ea6 of its Ne5s /rou;, -aria Ressa, 'E'.L.A 3.'TOR.A ORE<A:DR.LON, P).L.PP.NE DA.LY .N2U.RER, .N'. re;resente6 =7 its E6itor:in:'hief Lett7 1imene8 -a#sano9, TET') TORRES, P).L.PP.NE STAR re;resente6 =7 its E6itor:in:'hief .saa9 Be$monte, an6 EDU PUNAY, 8espondents. The -ase Before the -o"rt is a petition for -ontempt filed by Atty. hilip 4igfrid A. Fort"n (petitioner) against Atty. rima )es"sa B. M"insayas (Atty. M"insayas)! +a. Gemma ;."endo (Gemma)! :ennis Ayon (Ayon)! Nenita ;."endo (Nenita)! 9smael +ang"dadat" (+ang"dadat")! )ose a#ia ( a#ia)! +elinda M"intos :e )es"s (:e )es"s)! 8eynaldo @"log (@"log)! 8edmond Batario (Batario)! +alo" +angahas (+angahas)! and :anilo Go6o (Go6o). Atty. M"insayas and the other respondents! $ho are not from the media! are referred to in this case as Atty. M"insayas! et al. etitioner also named as respondents G+A Net$or2! <nc. (G+A Net$or2) thro"gh its ne$s editors 8affy )imene6 and 5ictor 4ollorano! 4ophia :edace (:edace)! AB4A -BN -orporation (AB4A-BN) thro"gh the @ead of its Ne$s Gro"p +aria 8essa (8essa)! -ecilia 5ictoria ;reNaA:rilon (:rilon)! hilippine :aily <n."irer! <nc. ( :<) represented by its 9ditorAinA-hief Getty )imene6 +agsanoc! Tetch Torres (Torres)! hilippine 4tar ( hil4tar) represented by its 9ditorAinA-hief <saac Belmonte! and 9d" "nay ( "nay). 8espondents Atty. M"insayas! et al. and respondent media gro"ps and personalities are collecti#ely referred to in this case as respondents. The Ante9e6ent *a9ts ;n *> No#ember *00'! a con#oy of se#en #ehicles carrying the relati#es of then +ag"indanao #iceAmayor 9smael OTotoO +ang"dadat"! as $ell as la$yers and 1o"rnalists! $as on their $ay to the -ommission on 9lections office in 4hariff Ag"a2 to file +ang"dadat"7s -ertificate of -andidacy 1 $hen they $ere accosted by a gro"p of abo"t 100 armed men at a chec2point in 4itio +alating! Ampat"an to$n! some fo"r to ten 2ilometers from their destination.*The gro"p $as ta2en hostage and bro"ght to a hilly and sparselyApop"lated part of 4itio +agating! Barangay 4alman! Ampat"an! +ag"indanao.> The gr"esome aftermath of the hostageAta2ing $as later disco#ered and shoc2ed the $orld. The hostages $ere systematically 2illed by shooting them at close range $ith a"tomatic $eapons! and their bodies and #ehicles $ere d"mped in mass gra#es and co#ered $ith the "se of a bac2hoe./ These gr"esome 2illings became 2no$n as the +ag"indanao +assacre. A total of &( #ictims $ere 2illed! >0 of them 1o"rnalists. 4"bse."ently! criminal cases for +"rder $ere filed and raffled to the 8egional Trial -o"rt of M"e6on -ity! Branch **1! and doc2eted as -riminal -ases No. MA0'A1?*1/=A1(*! MA0'A1?**1?A>1! MA10A1?*?&*! and MA10A 1?>(??. etitioner is the co"nsel for :at" Andal Ampat"an! )r. (Ampat"an! )r.)! the principal acc"sed in the m"rder cases.

<n No#ember *010! Atty. M"insayas! et al. filed a disbarment complaint against petitioner before this -o"rt! doc2eted as Bar +atter No. A.-. ==*(. The disbarment case is still pending. etitioner alleged that on ** No#ember *010! G+A Ne$s T5 internet $ebsite posted an article! $ritten by :edace! entitled O+ang"dadat"! others see2 disbarment of Ampat"an la$yer!O a portion of $hich reads% ;n +onday! +ag"indanao Go#ernor 9smael OTotoO +ang"dadat" and fo"r others filed a >> page complaint against la$yer 4igrid Fort"n $hom they acc"sed of Oengaging in e#ery concei#able chichancery or artifice to "nd"ly delay the proceedings by "sing and ab"sing legal remedies a#ailable.O& ;n e#en date! <n."irer.net! the $ebsite of :<! also p"blished an article! $ritten by Torres! $hich according to petitioner also stated details of the disbarment case! as follo$s% O8espondent Atty. Fort"n had ast"tely embar2ed in an "ntiring ."est to obstr"ct! impede and degrade the administration of 1"stice by filing co"ntless ca"ses of action! all in the hope of b"rying the principal iss"e of his client7s participation or g"ilt in the m"rder of &( people that illAfated day of No#ember *>! *00'!O the petitioners said.? etitioner f"rther alleged that on *> No#ember *010! hil4tar p"blished an article! $ritten by "nay! $hich ga#e details of the disbarment allegations! th"s% OAttorney Fort"n "sed and ab"sed legal remedies a#ailable and allo$ed "nder "nder the r"les! m"ddled the iss"es and di#erted the attention a$ay from the main s"b1ect matter of the cases! read the complaint. PPPPP PPPPP PPPPP O8espondent Attorney Fort"n7s act of misleading the prosec"tion and trial co"rt is a dishonestJdeceitf"l cond"ct #iolati#e of -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility!O read the complaint. O<n so doing! he diminished the p"blic confidence in the la$ and the legal profession! rendering him "nfit to be called a member of the Bar.O( F"rther! petitioner alleged that on *> No#ember *010! -hannel *> aired on national tele#ision a program entitled OAN- resents% -rying for )"stice% the +ag"indanao +assacre.O :rilon! the program7s host! as2ed ."estions and allo$ed Atty. M"insayas to disc"ss the disbarment case against petitioner! incl"ding its principal points. etitioner $as allegedly singled o"t and identified in the program as the lead co"nsel of the Ampat"an family. etitioner alleged that Atty. M"insayas! et al. acti#ely disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint against him in #iolation of 8"le 1>'AB of the 8"les of -o"rt on the confidential nat"re of disbarment proceedings. etitioner f"rther alleged that respondent media gro"ps and personalities conspired $ith Atty. M"insayas! et al. by p"blishing the confidential

materials on their respecti#e media platforms. etitioner pointed o"t that :rilon disc"ssed the disbarment complaint $ith Atty. M"insayas in a tele#ision program #ie$ed nation$ide etitioner alleged that the p"blic circ"lation of the disbarment complaint against him e,posed this -o"rt and its in#estigators to o"tside infl"ence and p"blic interference. etitioner alleged that opinion $riters $rote abo"t and commented on the disbarment complaint $hich opened his professional and personal rep"tation to attac2. @e alleged that the p"rpose of respondents in p"blishing the disbarment complaint $as to malign his personal and professional rep"tation! considering the follo$ing% (1) the bases of the charges $ere not ne$ b"t $ere based on incidents that s"pposedly too2 place in )an"ary *010B (*) it $as timed to coincide $ith the anni#ersary of the +ag"indanao +assacre to f"el hatred! contempt and scorn for Ampat"an! )r. and his co"nsel and #iolated the acc"sed7s right to pres"mption of innocence and d"e processB (>) it $as p"blished follo$ing articles $ritten abo"t petitioner7s ad#ocacy for the rights of an acc"sed and negated the impact of these articles on the p"blicB and (/) respondents 2ne$ that the charges $ere baseless as petitioner al$ays opted for speedy trial and protection of the acc"sed7s rights at trial. etitioner f"rther alleged that in anno"ncing their Oca"ses of actionO in the disbarment case! respondents $ere only see2ing the appro#al and sympathy of the p"blic against him and Ampat"an! )r. <n its -omment! G+A Net$or2 alleged that it has no ne$spaper or any p"blication $here it co"ld ha#e printed the article. <t alleged that it did not broadcast the disbarment complaint on its tele#ision station. G+A Net$or2 alleged that the p"blication had already been done and completed $hen Atty. M"insayas distrib"ted copies of the disbarment complaint and th"s! the members of the media $ho reported the ne$s and the media gro"ps that p"blished it on their $ebsite! incl"ding G+A Net$or2! did not #iolate the confidentiality r"le. G+A Net$or2 f"rther alleged that :edace! a field reporter for the 1"diciary! acted in good faith and $itho"t malice $hen she for$arded the ne$s to the ne$s des2. G+A Ne$s also acted in good faith in posting the ne$s on its $ebsite. G+A Net$or2 denied that it conspired $ith the other respondents in p"blishing the ne$s. G+A Net$or2 alleged that it posted the disbarment complaint! $itho"t any "nfair! critical! and "ntr"thf"l comment! and only after it $as Op"blishedO by Atty. M"insayas! et al. $ho f"rnished copies of the disbarment complaint to the media reporters. G+A Net$or2 alleged that it had no intention to malign petitioner7s personal and professional rep"tation in posting the ne$s abo"t the disbarment complaint on its $ebsite. <n her -omment! :edace clarified that she is a field ne$s reporter of G+A Net$or2 and not a $riter of the G+A Ne$s T5 $ebsite. @er beat incl"des the 4"preme -o"rt! the -o"rt of Appeals! and the :epartment of )"stice. :edace alleged that on ** No#ember *010! she recei#ed an ad#ice from fello$ field reporter +ar2 +er"eNas that the la$yer of +ang"dadat" $o"ld be filing a disbarment case against petitioner. 4he $aited at the 4"preme -o"rt. At aro"nd &%00 p.m.! Atty. M"insayas arri#ed. Atty. M"insayas ga#e copies of the petition to ne$s reporters and :edace recei#ed one. :edace prepared and sent her ne$s story to G+A Net$or2 $here it $ent to the editor. :edace alleged that she did not breach the r"le on confidentiality of disbarment proceedings against la$yers $hen she reported the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner. 4he alleged that she acted in good faith and $itho"t malice in for$arding her ne$s story to the ne$s des2 and that she had no intention to! and co"ld not! infl"ence or interfere in the

proceedings of the disbarment case. 4he f"rther alleged that she honestly belie#ed that the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner $as ne$s$orthy and sho"ld be reported as ne$s. :< alleged in its -omment that it shares content $ith the <n."irer.net $ebsite thro"gh a syndication b"t the latter has its o$n editors and p"blish materials that are not fo"nd on the broadsheet. <t alleged that hilippine :aily <n."irer! <nc. and <n."irer <nteracti#e! <nc. are t$o different corporations! $ith separate legal personalities! and one may not be held responsible for the acts of the other. Torres= alleged in her -omment that on 1( No#ember *010! a pri#ate prosec"tor told her and se#eral other reporters that a disbarment case $o"ld be filed against petitioner. The disbarment case $as act"ally filed on ** No#ember *010 $hen Torres recei#ed a copy of the complaint. 4ince the lead of the story came from a la$yer! Torres did not consider that $riting a story abo"t the filing of the disbarment complaint might amo"nt to contempt of co"rt. Torres alleged that the $riting of the story $as an independent act and she did not conspire $ith any of the other respondents. Torres maintained that she acted in good faith in $riting the ne$s report beca"se the +ag"indanao +assacre $as a matter of p"blic concern and the allegations in the disbarment complaint $ere in connection $ith petitioner7s handling of the case. Torres f"rther asserted that petitioner is a p"blic fig"re and the p"blic has a legitimate interest in his doings! affairs and character. <n her -omment! 8essa alleged that she $as the former head of AB4A -BN7s Ne$s and -"rrent Affairs Gro"p and the former +anaging :irector of AN-. @o$e#er! she $as on terminal lea#e beginning >0 ;ctober *010 in ad#ance to the e,piration of her contract on > )an"ary *011. 8essa alleged that she had no participation in the prod"ction and sho$ing of the broadcast on *> No#ember *010. 8essa adopts the ans$er of her coArespondents AB4A-BN and :rilon insofar as it $as applicable to her case. AB4A-BN and :rilon filed a 1oint -omment. AB4A-BN alleged that AB4A -BN Ne$s -hannel! commonly 2no$n as AN-! is maintained and operated by 4arimano2 Net$or2 Ne$s (4NN) and not by AB4A-BN. 4NN! $hich prod"ced the program OAN- resents% -rying for )"stice% the +ag"indanao +assacre!O is a s"bsidiary of AB4A-BN b"t it has its o$n 1"ridical personality altho"gh 4NN and AB4A-BN ha#e interloc2ing directors. AB4A -BN and :rilon alleged that the presentation and hosting of the program $ere not malicio"s as there $as no criminal intent to #iolate the confidentiality r"le in disbarment proceedings. They alleged that the program $as a commemoration of the +ag"indanao +assacre and $as not a report solely on the disbarment complaint against petitioner $hich too2 only a fe$ min"tes of the oneAho"r program. They alleged that the program $as not a p"blication intended to embarrass petitioner $ho $as not e#en identified as the respondent in the disbarment complaint. :rilon e#en ca"tioned against the re#elation of petitioner7s name in the program. AB4A -BN and :rilon f"rther alleged that prior to the broadcast of the program on *> No#ember *010! the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner $as already the s"b1ect of $idespread ne$s and already of p"blic 2no$ledge. They denied petitioner7s allegation that they conspired $ith the other respondents in #iolating the confidentiality r"le in disbarment proceedings. Finally! they alleged that the contempt charge #iolates their right to e."al protection beca"se there $ere other reports and p"blications of the disbarment complaint b"t the p"blishers $ere not incl"ded in the

charge. They also assailed the penalty of imprisonment prayed for by petitioner as too harsh. <n their 1oint -omment! respondents +ang"dadat"! Ayon! Nenita! and Gemma alleged that petitioner failed to pro#e that they acti#ely participated in disseminating details of the disbarment complaint against him. They alleged that $hile they $ere the ones $ho filed the disbarment complaint against petitioner! it does not follo$ that they $ere also the ones $ho ca"sed the p"blication of the complaint. They alleged that petitioner did not pro#ide the name of any partic"lar person! dates! days or places to sho$ the alleged confederation in the dissemination of the disbarment complaint. 8espondents :e )es"s! @"log! Batario! and +angahas! in their capacity as members of the Board of Tr"stees of the Freedom F"nd for Filipino )o"rnalists! <nc. (FFF)) and Atty. M"insayas! former co"nsel for FFF)! also filed a 1oint -omment claiming that the alleged posting and p"blication of the articles $ere not established as a fact. 8espondents alleged that petitioner did not s"bmit certified tr"e copies of the articles and he only offered to s"bmit a digital #ideo dis2 (:5:) copy of the tele#ised program $here Atty. M"insayas $as allegedly inter#ie$ed by :rilon. 8espondents alleged that! ass"ming the articles $ere p"blished! petitioner failed to s"pport his allegations that they acti#ely disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint. <n their 1oint -omment! hil4tar and "nay alleged that on ** No#ember *010! Atty. M"insayas! et al. $ent to this -o"rt to file the disbarment complaint b"t they $ere not able to file it on that day. ' Atty. M"insayas! et al. $ere able to file the disbarment complaint the follo$ing day! or on *> No#ember *010. hil4tar and "nay alleged that their ne$s article! $hich $as abo"t the plan to file a disbarment complaint against petitioner! $as p"blished on *> No#ember *010. <t came o"t before the disbarment complaint $as act"ally filed. They alleged that the ne$s article on the disbarment complaint is a ."alified pri#ileged comm"nication. They alleged that the article $as a tr"e! fair! and acc"rate report on the disbarment complaint. The article $as straightfor$ard! tr"thf"l! and acc"rate! $itho"t any comments from the a"thor. They alleged that "nay reported the plan of +ang"dadat"! et al. to file the disbarment complaint against petitioner as it in#ol#ed p"blic interest and he percei#ed it to be a ne$s$orthy s"b1ect. They f"rther alleged that ass"ming the ne$s article is not a pri#ileged comm"nication! it is co#ered by the protection of the freedom of e,pression! speech! and of the press "nder the -onstit"tion. They also alleged that the case is a criminal contempt proceeding and intent to commit contempt of co"rt m"st be sho$n by proof beyond reasonable do"bt. They f"rther alleged that they did not commit any contemptible act. They maintained that the ne$s article did not impede! interfere $ith! or embarrass the administration of 1"stice. They f"rther claimed that it is improbable! if not impossible! for the article to infl"ence the o"tcome of the case or s$ay this -o"rt in ma2ing its decision. The article also did not #iolate petitioner7s right to pri#acy beca"se petitioner is a p"blic fig"re and the p"blic has a legitimate interest in his doings! affairs! and character. a#ia died d"ring the pendency of this case 10 and $as no longer incl"ded in the -omment filed for the FFF) Tr"stees. Go6o resigned as member of the FFF) Tr"stees and $as no longer represented by the FFF) co"nsel in filing its comment.11 Go6o did not file a separate comment.

The .ssue The only iss"e in this case is $hether respondents #iolated the confidentiality r"le in disbarment proceedings! $arranting a finding of g"ilt for indirect contempt of co"rt. The Ru$in# of this 'ourt First! the contempt charge filed by petitioner is in the nat"re of a criminal contempt. <n People v. *odoy!1* this -o"rt made a distinction bet$een criminal and ci#il contempt. The -o"rt declared% A criminal contempt is cond"ct that is directed against the dignity and a"thority of the co"rt or a 1"dge acting 1"diciallyB it is an act obstr"cting the administration of 1"stice $hich tends to bring the co"rt into disrep"te or disrespect. ;n the other hand! ci#il contempt consists in failing to do something ordered to be done by a co"rt in a ci#il action for the benefit of the opposing party therein and is! therefore! an offense against the party in $hose behalf the #iolated order is made. A criminal contempt! being directed against the dignity and a"thority of the co"rt! is an offense against organi6ed society and! in addition! is also held to be an offense against p"blic 1"stice $hich raises an iss"e bet$een the p"blic and the acc"sed! and the proceedings to p"nish it are p"niti#e. ;n the other hand! the proceedings to p"nish a ci#il contempt are remedial and for the p"rpose of the preser#ation of the right of pri#ate persons. <t has been held that ci#il contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor! b"t a po$er of the co"rt. <t has f"rther been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt! and that no one can be p"nished for a criminal contempt "nless the e#idence ma2es it clear that he intended to commit it. ;n the contrary! there is a"thority indicating that since the p"rpose of ci#il contempt proceedings is remedial! the defendant7s intent in committing the contempt is immaterial. @ence! good faith or the absence of intent to #iolate the co"rt7s order is not a defense in ci#il contempt.1> The records of this case sho$ed that the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner had been p"blished and $as the s"b1ect of a tele#ised broadcast by respondent media gro"ps and personalities. 3e shall disc"ss the defenses and arg"ments raised by respondents. $#" %etwor&, !nc. G+A Net$or27s defense is that it has no ne$spaper or any p"blication $here the article co"ld be printedB it did not broadcast the disbarment complaint in its tele#ision stationB and that the p"blication $as already completed $hen Atty. M"insayas distrib"ted copies of the disbarment complaint to the media.

G+A Net$or2 did not deny that it posted the details of the disbarment complaint on its $ebsite. <t merely said that it has no p"blication $here the article co"ld be printed and that the ne$s $as not tele#ised. ;nline posting! ho$e#er! is already p"blication considering that it $as done on G+A Net$or27s online ne$s $ebsite. Philippine 'aily !n(uirer, !nc. :< a#erred that it only shares its contents $ith <n."irer.net thro"gh a syndication. :< attached a photocopy of the syndication page stating that O[d]"e to syndication agreements bet$een :< and <n."irer.net! some articles p"blished in :< may not appear in <n."irer.net.O1/ A #isit to the $ebsite describes <n."irer.net as Othe official ne$s $ebsite of the hilippine :aily <n."irer! the hilippines7 most $idely circ"lated broadsheet! and a member of the <n."irer Gro"p of -ompanies.O 1& :< $as not able to f"lly establish that it has a separate personality from <n."irer.net. ")S*C)% Corporation AB4A-BN alleged that 4NN is its s"bsidiary and altho"gh they ha#e interloc2ing directors! 4NN has its o$n 1"ridical personality separate from its parent company. AB4A-BN alleged that 4NN controls the lineA"p of sho$s of AN-. 3e agree $ith AB4A-BN on this iss"e. 3e ha#e r"led that a s"bsidiary has an independent and separate 1"ridical personality distinct from that of its parent company and that any s"it against the the latter does not bind the former and #iceA#ersa.1? A corporation is an artificial being in#ested by la$ $ith a personality separate and distinct from that of other corporations to $hich it may be connected.1( @ence! 4NN! not AB4A-BN! sho"ld ha#e been made respondent in this case. #aria Ressa 8espondent 8essa alleged that she $as on terminal lea#e $hen the program abo"t the +ag"indanao +assacre $as aired on AN- and that she had no hand in its prod"ction. 8essa7s defense $as s"pported by a certification from the @"man 8eso"rce Acco"nt @ead of AB4A-BN! stating that 8essa $ent on terminal lea#e beginning >0 ;ctober *010. 1= This $as not disp"ted by petitioner. Sophia 'edace, +etch +orres, Cecilia ,ictoria -re.a*'rilon, and Edu Punay Basically! the defense of respondents :edace! Torres! :rilon! and "nay $as that the disbarment complaint $as p"blished $itho"t any comment! in good faith and $itho"t maliceB that petitioner is a p"blic fig"reB that the +ag"indanao +assacre is a matter of p"blic interestB and that there $as no conspiracy on their part in p"blishing the disbarment complaint. They also arg"ed that the ne$s reports $ere part of pri#ileged comm"nication.

<n :rilon7s case! she f"rther alleged that the tele#ision program $as a commemoration of the +ag"indanao +assacre and not solely abo"t the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner. 9#en as the disbarment complaint $as briefly disc"ssed in her program! petitioner7s name $as not mentioned at all in the program. ,iolation of Confidentiality Rule /y Respondent #edia $roups and Personalities 4ection 1=! 8"le 1>'AB of the 8"les of -o"rt pro#ides% 4ection 1=. onfidentiality. A roceedings against attorneys shall be pri#ate and confidential. @o$e#er! the final order of the 4"preme -o"rt shall be p"blished li2e its decisions in other cases. The -o"rt e,plained the p"rpose of the r"le! as follo$s% , , ,. The p"rpose of the r"le is not only to enable this -o"rt to ma2e its in#estigations free from any e,traneo"s infl"ence or interference! b"t also to protect the personal and professional rep"tation of attorneys and 1"dges from the baseless charges of disgr"ntled! #indicti#e! and irresponsible clients and litigantsB it is also to deter the press from p"blishing administrati#e cases or portions thereto $itho"t a"thority. 3e ha#e r"led that malicio"s and "na"thori6ed p"blication or #erbatim reprod"ction of administrati#e complaints against la$yers in ne$spapers by editors andJor reporters may be actionable. 4"ch premat"re p"blication constit"tes a contempt of co"rt! p"nishable by either a fine or imprisonment or both at the discretion of the -o"rt. , , ,1' <n People v. astelo!*0 the -o"rt r"led that contempt is a2in to libel and that the principle of pri#ileged comm"nication may be in#o2ed in a contempt proceeding. The -o"rt r"led% 3hile the present case in#ol#es an incident of contempt the same is a2in to a case of libel for both constit"te limitations "pon freedom of the press or freedom of e,pression g"aranteed by o"r -onstit"tion. 4o $hat is considered a pri#ilege in one may li2e$ise be considered in the other. The same safeg"ard sho"ld be e,tended to one $hether anchored in freedom of the press or freedom of e,pression. Therefore! this principle regarding pri#ileged comm"nications can also be in#o2ed in fa#or of appellant.*1 The -o"rt recogni6es that Op"blications $hich are pri#ileged for reasons of p"blic policy are protected by the constit"tional g"aranty of freedom of speech.O** As a general r"le! disbarment proceedings are confidential in nat"re "ntil their final resol"tion and the final decision of this -o"rt. <n this case! ho$e#er! the filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a matter of p"blic concern considering that it arose from the +ag"indanao +assacre case. The interest of the p"blic is not on petitioner himself b"t primarily on his in#ol#ement and participation as defense co"nsel in the +ag"indanao +assacre case. <ndeed! the allegations in the disbarment complaint relate to petitioners s"pposed actions in#ol#ing the +ag"indanao +assacre case.

The +ag"indanao +assacre is a #ery highAprofile case. ;f the &( #ictims of the massacre! >0 $ere 1o"rnalists. <t is "nderstandable that any matter related to the +ag"indanao +assacre is considered a matter of p"blic interest and that the personalities in#ol#ed! incl"ding petitioner! are considered as p"blic fig"re. The -o"rt e,plained it! th"s% B"t e#en ass"ming a person $o"ld not ."alify as a p"blic fig"re! it $o"ld not necessarily follo$ that he co"ld not #alidly be the s"b1ect of a p"blic comment. For he co"ldB for instance! if and $hen he $o"ld be in#ol#ed in a p"blic iss"e. <f a matter is a s"b1ect of p"blic or general interest! it cannot s"ddenly become less so merely beca"se a pri#ate indi#id"al is in#ol#ed or beca"se in some sense the indi#id"al did not #ol"ntarily choose to become in#ol#ed. The ;u=$i9>s ;rimar7 interest is in the e?ent@ the ;u=$i9 fo9us is on the 9on6u9t of the ;arti9i;ant an6 the 9ontent, effe9t an6 si#nifi9an9e of the 9on6u9t, not the ;arti9i;ant>s ;rior anon7mit7 or notoriet7.*> (Boldface in the original) 4ince the disbarment complaint is a matter of p"blic interest! legitimate media had a right to p"blish s"ch fact "nder freedom of the press. The -o"rt also recogni6es that respondent media gro"ps and personalities merely acted on a ne$s lead they recei#ed $hen they reported the filing of the disbarment complaint. The distrib"tion by Atty. M"insayas to the media of the disbarment complaint! by itself! is not s"fficient to absol#e the media from responsibility for #iolating the confidentiality r"le. @o$e#er! since petitioner is a p"blic fig"re or has become a p"blic fig"re beca"se he is representing a matter of p"blic concern! and beca"se the e#ent itself that led to the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner is a matter of p"blic concern! the media has the right to report the filing of the disbarment case as legitimate ne$s. <t $o"ld ha#e been different if the disbarment case against petitioner $as abo"t a pri#ate matter as the media $o"ld then be bo"nd to respect the confidentiality pro#ision of disbarment proceedings "nder 4ection 1=! 8"le 1>'AB of the 8"les of -o"rt. 4ection 1=! 8"le 1>'AB of the 8"les of -o"rt is not a restriction on the freedom of the press.+,wphi+ <f there is a legitimate p"blic interest! media is not prohibited from ma2ing a fair! tr"e! and acc"rate ne$s report of a disbarment complaint. <n the absence of a legitimate p"blic interest in a disbarment complaint! members of the media m"st preser#e the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings d"ring its pendency. :isciplinary proceedings against la$yers m"st still remain pri#ate and confidential "ntil their final determination.*/ ;nly the final order of this -o"rt shall be p"blished li2e its decisions in other cases.*& etitioner also failed to s"bstantiate his claim that respondent media gro"ps and personalities acted in bad faith and that they conspired $ith one another in their postings and p"blications of the filing of a disbarment complaint against him. 8espondent media gro"ps and personalities reported the filing of the disbarment complaint $itho"t any comments or remar2s b"t merely as it $as H a ne$s item. etitioner failed to pro#e that respondent media gro"ps and personalities acted $ith malicio"s intent. 8espondent media gro"ps and personalities made a fair and tr"e ne$s report and appeared to ha#e acted in good faith in p"blishing and posting the details of the disbarment complaint. <n the tele#ised broadcast of the commemoration of the +ag"indanao +assacre o#er AN-! the disbarment

case $as briefly disc"ssed b"t petitioner $as not named. There $as also no proof that respondent media gro"ps and personalities posted and p"blished the ne$s to infl"ence this -o"rt on its action on the disbarment case or to deliberately destroy petitioner7s rep"tation. <t sho"ld also be remembered that the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner entered the p"blic domain $itho"t any act on the part of the media. As $e $ill disc"ss later! the members of the media $ere gi#en copies of the disbarment complaint by one of the complainants. Esmael #an0udadatu, 'ennis "yon, %enita and #a. $emma -(uendo 8espondents! $hile admitting that they $ere some of the complainants in the disbarment complaint against petitioner! alleged that there $as no proof that they $ere the ones $ho disseminated the disbarment complaint. <ndeed! petitioner failed to s"bstantiate his allegation that +ang"dadat"! Ayon! Nenita! and Gemma $ere the ones $ho ca"sed the p"blication of the disbarment complaint against him. There $as nothing in the records that $o"ld sho$ that +ang"dadat"! Ayon! Nenita! and Gemma distrib"ted or had a hand in the distrib"tion of the disbarment complaint against petitioner. #elinda 1uintos 'e Jesus, Reynaldo 2ulo0, Redmond )atario, #alou #an0ahas, and "tty. Prima Jesusa ). 1uinsayas 8espondents :e )es"s! @"log! Batario! +angahas! and Atty. M"insayas alleged that petitioner $as not able to establish the posting and p"blication of the articles abo"t the disbarment complaint! and that ass"ming the posting and p"blication had been established! petitioner failed to s"pport his allegation that they acti#ely disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint. They f"rther alleged that they did not ca"se the p"blication of the ne$s articles and th"s! they did not #iolate the r"le on pri#acy and confidentiality of disbarment proceedings. <ndeed! petitioner failed to pro#e that! e,cept for Atty. M"insayas! the other respondents! namely :e )es"s! @"log! Batario! +angahas! and e#en Go6o! $ho did not file his separate comment! had a hand in the dissemination and p"blication of the disbarment complaint against him. <t $o"ld appear that only Atty. M"insayas $as responsible for the distrib"tion of copies of the disbarment complaint. <n its -omment! G+A Net$or2 stated that the p"blicationAha6 a$rea67 =een 6one an6 9om;$ete6 5hen 9o;ies of the 9om;$aint for 6is=arment 5ere 6istri=ute6 =7 one of the 6is=arment 9om;$ainants, Att7. Prima 2uinsa7as B B B.A *? :edace also stated in her -omment that OAtty. M"insayas ga#e copies of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Fort"n and she recei#ed one.O*( Atty. M"insayas is bo"nd by 4ection 1=! 8"le 1>'AB of the 8"les of -o"rt both as a complainant in the disbarment case against petitioner and as a la$yer. As a la$yer and an officer of the -o"rt! Atty. M"insayas is familiar $ith the confidential nat"re of disbarment proceedings. @o$e#er! instead of preser#ing its confidentiality! Atty. M"insayas disseminated copies of the disbarment complaint against petitioner to members of the media $hich act constit"tes contempt of co"rt. <n Relativo v. De &eon!*= the -o"rt r"led that the premat"re disclos"re by p"blication of the filing and pendency of disbarment proceedings is a #iolation of the confidentiality r"le. *' <n that case! Atty. 8elati#o! the complainant in a disbarment case! ca"sed the

p"blication in ne$spapers of statements regarding the filing and pendency of the disbarment proceedings. The -o"rt fo"nd him g"ilty of contempt. <ndirect contempt against a 8egional Trial -o"rt or a co"rt of e."i#alent or higher ran2 is p"nishable by a fine not e,ceeding >0!000 or imprisonment not e,ceeding si, months or both.>0 Atty. M"insayas acted $rongly in setting aside the confidentiality r"le $hich e#ery la$yer and member of the legal profession sho"ld 2no$. @ence! $e deem it proper to impose on her a fine of T$enty Tho"sand esos ( *0!000). 3@989F;89! $e find Atty. rima )es"sa B. M"insayas GK<GTL of indirect contempt for distrib"ting copies of the disbarment complaint against Atty. hilip 4igfrid A. Fort"n to members of the media and $e order her to pay a F<N9 of T$enty Tho"sand esos ( *0!000). 4; ;8:989:. RO-AN R. 3.LLALON, 1R., RO-AN R.'. ..., RO-AN *.'. .3, RO-AN A.'. 3., 1OSE 'LARO '. an6 ARSEN.O ROY '., a$$ surname6 3.LLALON, petitioners! #s. )ON. .NTER-ED.ATE APPELLATE 'OURT +*OURT) SPE'.AL 'ASES D.3.S.ON,, )ON. .NO'EN'.O D. -AL.A-AN +PRES.D.N/ 1UD/E O* RE/.ONAL TR.AL 'OURT, BRAN') CC.C AT SAN *ERNANDO, LA UN.ON,, 'ATAL.NA NE3AL 3DA. DE EBU.0A, ').LDREN O* PATRO'.N.O EBU.0A +1UST.NA, -AR.ANO, *EL.'.DAD, *RAN'.S'O, EU/EN.A, -AR.A, -AR'.ANA, an6 S.-EON, a$$ surname6 EBU.0A,, respondents.

9BK<IA! and )"stina 9b"i6a 4an )"an (N95AG! et als.)! in the :isbarment -ase for the p"rpose of impeaching their testimonies in the -i#il -ase. ri#ate respondents filed a +otion to 4tri2e from the records of the -i#il -ase all matters relating to the proceedings in the :isbarment -ase. ;#er petitionersQ opposition! on 4eptember *0! 1'=&! the Trial -o"rt iss"ed its ."estioned ;rder granting the +otion to 4tri2e. The dispositi#e portion of said ;rder reads% 3@989F;89! finding the motion to be $ellAta2en! and as prayed for in the motion! all direct references to the proceedings in the disbarment case against Atty. 5illalon! )r. are hereby ordered stri2ing (sic) o"t from the records and henceforth! f"rther references to s"ch matters are barred. The Trial -o"rt opined that the admission of the contested e#idence $o"ld #iolate 4ection 10! 8"le 1>' of the 8"les of -o"rt pro#iding that Oproceedings against attorneys shall be pri#ate and confidentialO. <t maintained that petitioner 5illalon Ois not at liberty to $ai#e the pri#ilege of confidentialityO of the proceedings in the :isbarment -ase considering the p"blic interest in#ol#ed Oe#en if it $o"ld ser#e his interest!O and that 4ection 10! 8"le 1>' pro#ides no e,ception. Their +otion for 8econsideration ha#ing been denied on ;ctober 1(! 1'=&! petitioners! resorted to a etition for -ertiorari! rohibition! and mandam"s before the respondent Appellate -o"rt to n"llify the ;rder of 4eptember *0! 1'=& and to re."ire the Trial -o"rt to allo$ Athe impeaching e#idence to remain in the records of the -i#il -ase. ;n Febr"ary >! 1'=?! respondent Appellate -o"rt denied d"e co"rse and dismissed the etition holding that Or"lings of the trial co"rt on proced"ral ."estions and admissibility of e#idence d"ring the co"rse of the trial are interloc"tory in nat"re and may not be the s"b1ect of separate appeal or re#ie$ on certiorari.O +oreo#er! it reasoned o"t that! ass"ming the Trial -o"rt erred in re1ecting petitionersQ proffered e#idence! their reco"rse is to ma2e a formal offer of the e#idence "nder 8"le 1>*! 4ection >& of the 8"les. The reconsideration of said r"ling so"ght by petitioners $as denied for lac2 of merit on Febr"ary 1'!1'=?. etitioners no$ a#ail of this etition for 8e#ie$ on certiorari praying among others! for the ann"lment of respondent Appellate -o"rtQs :ecision! $hich s"stained the Trial -o"rt ;rders of 4eptember *0! 1'=& and ;ctober 1(! 1'=&! for ha#ing been iss"ed $ith gra#e ab"se of discretion. 3e find merit in the etition. etitioners introd"ced the testimonies of pri#ate respondentsQ $itnesses in the :isbarment -ase for p"rposes of impeaching their credibility in the -i#il -ase. & etitioners claim that pri#ate respondentsQ $itnesses Oha#e gi#en conflicting testimonies on important fact"al matters in the disbarment case! $hich are inconsistent $ith their present testimony and $hich $o"ld accordingly cast a do"bt on their credibility.O ! That is a defense tool sanctioned by 4ections 1& and 1? of 8"le 1>* pro#iding%

;n +ay 1?! 1'('! -i#il -ase No. *('' for OAnn"lment of :eed of Absol"te 4ale! 8eco#ery of ossession and :amagesO $as filed by pri#ate respondent -atalina N95AG 5da. de 9b"i6a! mother of the other pri#ate respondents all s"rnamed 9b"i6a! against petitioner Atty. 8oman 8. 5illalon! )r. (briefly! petitioner 5illalon) and his sons! before the then -o"rt of First <nstance of Ga Knion (the Trial -o"rt)! for the reco#ery of a parcel of land located at Krbi6tondo! 4an )"an. Ga Knion. The property in#ol#ed $as also the s"b1ect of a :isbarment -ase (Adm. -ase No. 1/==) pre#io"sly filed on )"ly **! 1'(& $ith this -o"rt by pri#ate respondent Francisco 9BK<IA! charging petitioner 5illalon $ith falsification of a deed of absol"te sale of that property in his and his sonsQ fa#or! b"t $hich petitioner 5illalon claimed to ha#e been his contingent fee for the professional ser#ices he had rendered to 9BK<IAQs parents for s"ccessf"lly handling -i#il -ase No. 1/1= entitled O a"lino 9b"i6a! et all #s. atrocinio 9b"i6a! et al.O before the then -o"rt of First <nstance of Ga Knion! Branch <<. The :isbarment -ase $as referred by this -o"rt to the ;ffice of the 4olicitor General for in#estigation! report and recommendation $here testimonial e#idence $as recei#ed. The case still pends thereat. <n the co"rse of the trial of the -i#il -ase! petitioners introd"ced in e#idence the testimonies of some of the pri#ate respondents! namely! N95AG!

4ec. 1&. -mpeachment of adverse party.s witness.AA $itness may be impeached by the party against $hom he $as called! by contradictory e#idence! by e#idence that his general rep"tation for tr"th! honesty! or integrity is bad or by e#idence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent $ith his present testimony! b"t not by e#idence of partic"lar $rongf"l acts! e,cept that it may be sho$n by the e,amination of the $itnesses! or the record of the 1"dgment! that he has been con#icted of an offense. 4ec. 1?. /ow witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. ABefore a $itness can be impeached by e#idence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent $ith his present testimony! the statements m"st be related to him! $ith the circ"mstances of the times and places and the persons present! and he m"st be as2ed $hether he made s"ch statements! and if soB allo$ed to e,plain them <f the statements be in $riting they m"st be sho$n to the $itness before any ."estion is p"t to him concerning them . By iss"ing its ;rder to stri2e! the Trial -o"rt depri#ed petitioners of their right to impeach the credibility of their ad#erse partiesQ $itnesses by pro#ing that on former occasions they had made statements inconsistent $ith the statements made d"ring the trial! despite the fact that s"ch statements are material to the iss"es in the -i#il -ase. The s"b1ect matter in#ol#ed in the disbarment proceedings i.e.! the alleged falsification of the deed of absol"te sale in petitionersQ fa#or! is the same iss"e raised in the -i#il -ase $herein the ann"lment of the said deed of absol"te sale is so"ght. Admittedly! said ;rder is interloc"tory in character. @o$e#er! since it $as iss"ed in patent ab"se of discretion! certiorari lies. certiorari may be a#ailed of to contest an interloc"tory order to correct a patent ab"se of discretion by the lo$er -o"rt in iss"ing the same. % <t may also be applied for $hen the broader interests of 1"stice so re."ire or $hen ordinary appeal is not an ade."ate remedy! D as in this case. The offer of e#idence! s"ggested by respondent Appellate -o"rt as a remedy open to petitioners! $hile proced"rally correct! $o"ld be inade."ate and ineffecti#e for p"rposes of impeachment. The broader interests of 1"stice $o"ld then re."ire that petitioners be gi#en s"fficient latit"de to present and pro#e their impeaching e#idence for 1"dicial appreciation. 3hile proceedings against attorneys sho"ld! indeed! be pri#ate and confidential e,cept for the final order $hich shall be made p"blic! E that confidentiality is a pri#ilegedJ right $hich may be $ai#ed by the #ery la$yer in $hom and for the protection of $hose personal and professional rep"tation it is #ested! p"rs"ant to the general principle that rights may be $ai#ed "nless the $ai#er is contrary to p"blic policy! among others. F <n fact! the -o"rt also notes that e#en pri#ate respondentsQ co"nsel to"ched on some matters testified to by N95AG in the disbarment proceedings and $hich $ere the s"b1ect of cross e,amination. A--;8:<NGGL! the -o"rt hereby 49T4 A4<:9 respondent Appellate -o"rtQs :ecision dated Febr"ary >! 1'=?! and 8esol"tion dated Febr"ary

1'! 1'=?! and directs the 8egional Trial -o"rt of Ga Knion! at 4an Fernando! to allo$ the testimonies of pri#ate respondents (plaintiffs belo$)! more specifically those of -atalina Ne#al 5da. de 9b"i6a! Francisco 9b"i6a and )"stina 9b"i6a 4an )"an! gi#en in Administrati#e -ase No. 1/== and all other references thereto to remain in the records of -i#il -ase No. *('' entitled O-atalina Ne#al 5da. de 9b"i6a! laintiff! #ers"s 8oman 8. 5illalon! )r.! et al.! :efendantsB -hildren of atrocinio 9b"i6a% )"stina! et al.! all s"rnamed 9b"i6a <nter#enors. O The Temporary 8estraining ;rder heretofore iss"ed is hereby lifted. DEL 'AST.LLO, J.3

The court and its premises shall be used e0clusively for court or 1udicial functions and not for any other purpose. (s temples of 1ustice! their di"nity and sanctity must be preserved at all times.

4actual "ntecedents

;n )"ly *&! *00(! 8yan 4. la6a ( la6a)! -ler2 of -o"rt << of the +"nicipal Trial -o"rt of Argao! -eb"! filed a complaint[1] against

Atty. +arcelina 8. Amamio (Amamio)! -ler2 of -o"rtB Geno#e#a 8. 5as."e6 (5as."e6)! Gegal 8esearcher! and Floramay atalingh"g ( atalingh"g)! -o"rt 4tenographer! all of the 8egional Trial -o"rt (8T-) of Argao! -eb"! Branch *?! for intentional #iolation of Administrati#e -irc"lar No. >A'* [*]! $hen they allo$ed 4ara Gee! a pri#ate company selling bea"ty and fashion prod"cts! to hold a party and raffle dra$ inside the Argao @all of )"stice on )"ly 1/! *00(.

The facts as s"mmari6ed by the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A) are as follo$s% The complainant alleges that sometime in the first $ee2 of )"ly *00(! he heard that some of the personnel of 8T- (Branch *?) $ere planning to hold a 4ara Gee party in the Argao @all of )"stice and that "pon learning of the plan! he informed the personnel of the said co"rt abo"t Administrati#e -irc"lar No. >A'* prohibiting the "se of the @alls of )"stice for residential or commercial p"rposes.

The complainant claims that in the morning of )"ly 1/! *00(! a 4at"rday! the sec"rity g"ard on d"ty! +r. 8oger ;. )imene6! telephoned him $ith the information that there $ere persons from 4ara Gee $ho $anted to enter the Argao @all of )"stice to p"t "p the decorations! so"nd system and catering e."ipment for the 4ara Gee party. The complainant states that he directed +r. )imene6 not to allo$ the persons to enter the premises. @e then called "p Atty. Amamio to inform her of the sit"ation and of the infraction that $o"ld be committed sho"ld the 4ara Gee party p"sh thro"gh. The complainant alleges that Atty. Amamio insisted that she had a"thori6ed the 4ara Gee party and raffle dra$. The complainant then reco"nts the e#ents that transpired as recorded in the sec"rity logboo2 of the Argao @all of )"stice , , ,. <n the logboo2! +r. )imene6 $rote that at aro"nd 11%0& in the morning of)"ly 1/! *00(! he recei#ed a telephone call from +s. 5as."e6 appro#ing the "se of the entrance lobby for the raffle dra$ $hich she claimed $as a"thori6ed by Atty. Amamio. According to the entries in the logboo2! the raffle dra$ started at aro"nd *%00 p.m. and ended at &%00 p.m.! $ith fiftyAone (&1) participants attending the e#ent. The complainant adds that e#en the sec"rity g"ards on d"ty $ho recorded the 4ara Gee e#ent in the logboo2 $ere later s"b1ected to , , , harassment by the respondents $ho ."estioned the g"ards [as to] $hy the said e#ent $as recorded in the logboo2. @e claims that Atty. Amamio e#en reprimanded the g"ards , , ,! castigating the latter for also 1otting do$n in the logboo2 co"rt personnel $ho $ere not in "niform. The complainant stresses that holding the party and raffle dra$ inside the Argao @all of )"stice $as a clear #iolation of Administrati#e -irc"lar >A'* and had e,posed the properties and records contained $ithin it to ris2 of damage and loss. The 1oint comment (denominated as -ompliance) dated A"g"st *1! *00( of respondents Amamio! 5as."e6 and atalingh"g C#ehemently and strongly 894<4T the charges against them for "tter lac2 of both legal and fact"al bases , , ,.D The respondents do not deny that they allo$ed the holding of the 4ara Gee raffle dra$ on )"ly 1/! *00( at the gro"nd floor lobby of the Argao @all of )"stice! b"t only after respondents Amamio and 5as."e6 had f"lly disc"ssed the matter "pon receipt of the letter dated )"ne /! *00( of +rs. 5irginia -. Tecson! b"siness manager of the F"ller Gife :irect 4elling and ersonal -ollection! re."esting permission to hold the raffle dra$ of 4ara Gee at the Argao @all of )"stice. The respondents arg"e that similar acti#ities had been held before at the Argao @all of )"stice. They said that d"ring the fiesta of Argao in 4eptember *00?! a stage for

bea"ty pageant $as p"t "p right at the entrance of the Argao @all of )"stice. The contestants and other participants "sed the gro"nd floor lobby! the stairs and the second floor lobby of the said b"ilding. ;n )an"ary *=! *00(! the +"nicipality ofArgao held a 4in"log parade $hich c"lminated in the to$n pla6a. 4ince the Argao @all of )"stice fronts the to$n pla6a! some spectators entered the b"ilding and $ent "p the second floor to $atch the performance in the pla6a. They add that on the gro"nd floor lobby! se#eral persons! incl"ding the barangay tanods! $ere ta2ing alcoholic be#erages. The respondents also claim that at the -eb" -ity @all of )"stice! raffle dra$s $ere being cond"cted reg"larly and that the latest! $hich $as held on +arch >0! *00(! $as sponsored by the #ery same people from 4ara Gee. The respondents contend that the pri6es to this raffle dra$! $hich incl"ded a m"lticab! $ere displayed on the gro"nd floor lobby of the b"ilding for one $ee2. According to the respondents! these $ere all ta2en into consideration $hen they decided to grant the re."est of +rs. Tecson. They insist that the proposed raffle dra$ $as a relati#ely minor e#ent compared to the abo#ementioned acti#ities. The respondents added that since the b"ilding $hich ho"ses the Argao @all of )"stice has been declared a c"lt"ral heritage and is the centerpiece of the said m"nicipality! then the acti#ity planned by 4ara Gee $as appropriate in promoting the to$n of Argao. 8espondents Amamio and 5as."e6 maintain that it $as their honest belief that the b"ilding $as not to be "sed e,cl"si#ely for co"rt p"rposes! b"t also to be sho$n to #isitors $ho $anted to #isit and see the historical b"ilding. Th"s! in her letter dated )"ne 11! *00(! respondent Amamio formally granted the re."est of +rs. Tecson $ith the specific instr"ctions to "se only the gro"nd floor lobby of the b"ilding! to cond"ct their acti#ity peacef"lly and orderly! to refrain from ca"sing any damage to the b"ilding and its premises and to clean the premises after the raffle dra$. 4ince respondent 5as."e6 co"ld not attend the raffle dra$! respondent Amamio claims that she re."ested respondent atalingh"g to be at the Argao @all of )"stice on the day of the raffle dra$ to ma2e s"re that her (Amamio7s) instr"ctions $o"ld be strictly obser#ed. 8espondent Amamio denies the complainant7s allegation that the latter informed the former abo"t #iolating Administrati#e -irc"lar No. >A'*. The said respondent declares that she need not be informed abo"t the iss"ance [of said circ"lar] since she had practically read and st"died caref"lly all circ"lars that had been iss"ed by the 4"preme -o"rt Cnot only as a d"tif"l -ler2 of -o"rt of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! b"t as a la$yer herself.D

The respondents deny that a party $as held! saying that only a raffle dra$ $as cond"cted and that only softdrin2s and finger foods $ere ser#ed to the participants. They also claim that there $as no danger to the b"ilding and the records since the raffle dra$ $as merely held at the gro"nd floor lobby and that those $ho attended the raffle dra$ $ere decent people! ma1ority of them being $omen. Neither $as there any commercial acti#ity or transaction $hich in#ol#ed the b"ying and selling of goods for profit. According to the respondents! +rs. Tecson7s primary reason for re."esting the "se of the gro"nd floor lobby of the Argao @all of )"stice $as for her staff to e,perience and to imbibe Argao7s rich historical past. The respondents also deny that they harassed and intimidated the sec"rity g"ards $ho recorded the raffle dra$ in the logboo2. 8espondents 5as."e6 and atalingh"g only inspected the logboo2 to find o"t $ho attended the raffle dra$ and respondent Amamio merely called the attention of the g"ards as to $hy Ce#en the tri#ial nonA$earing of the office "niform of some employees $ere entered $hen -irc"lar No. /'A*00( dated +ay 1&! *00( directed the optional $earing of "niforms.D Finally! the three respondents maintain that they had performed their d"ties to the best of their abilities! acted $ith absol"te good faith de#oid of malice! and had no intention to pre1"dice the interests of the -o"rt. They insist that they ha#e ne#er #iolated any r"le! reg"lation! or la$ in the e,ec"tion of their assigned tas2s.[>]

recommended that the respondents be sternly $arned to be more circ"mspect in complying $ith the g"idelines for the "se of the @all of )"stice.

Report and Recommendation of the -C"

<n its 8eport and 8ecommendation![(] the ;-A did not agree $ith the findings of )"dge ere6. ;n the contrary! the ;-A fo"nd that respondents #iolated Administrati#e -irc"lar No. >A'* by allo$ing the holding of a raffle dra$ in the lobby of the Argao @all of )"stice. Accordingly! the ;-A recommended thatA ,,,, *. Atty. +arcelina 8. Amamio! -ler2 of -o"rt! 8egional Trial -o"rt (Branch *?)! Argao! -eb" be 4K4 9N:9: for one month and one day for simple miscond"ct $ith a 4T98N 3A8N<NG that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt $ith more se#erely. >. +s. Geno#e#a 8. 5as."e6! Gegal 8esearcher and +s. Floramay atalingh"g! -o"rt 4tenographer! both of the 8egional Trial -o"rt (Branch *?)! Argao! -eb" be 89 8<+AN:9: for #iolation of office r"les and reg"lations $ith a 4T98N 3A8N<NG that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt $ith more se#erely.

;n )"ly *(! *00(! the matter $as indorsed to )"dge +a,imo A. ere6! 8T- of Argao! -eb"! Branch *?! for appropriate action and in#estigation.[/]

Our Ru$in# Report and Recommendation of the !nvesti0atin0 Jud0e 3e adopt the findings and recommendations of the ;-A. <n his 8eport[&] dated A"g"st >0! *00(! )"dge ere6 recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lac2 of s"bstantial e#idence to s"bstantiate the charge. @e fo"nd that respondents did not #iolate A.+ No. 01A'A0'A4- [?] $hich clarified Administrati#e -irc"lar No. >A'*! for lac2 of sho$ing that respondents ha#e "sed the Argao @all of )"stice for residential! d$elling or sleeping p"rposesB for lac2 of proof that respondents ha#e "tili6ed the Argao @all of )"stice for commercial p"rposes beca"se there $as no b"ying and selling of goods for profit on )"ly 1/! *00(B and neither $as there selling of tic2ets. Nonetheless! )"dge ere6 As a preliminary matter! $e note that on +ay **!

*00=! complainant la6a manifested before the -o"rt his intention to desist from p"rs"ing the case. @e $rote th"s% ,,,, At this point in time! < am respectf"lly informing yo"r office that it is no$ my intention not to p"rs"e the matter any more for the reason that the attention of the respecti#e respondents has also been called , , , by the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge and besides! the incident has already been heard

before the said 1"dge and < $as already satisfied $ith the o"tcomeJresol"tion of the said proceedings. , , , ,[=]

[1>]

not$ithstanding the fact that the said re."est $as addressed to the 9,ec"ti#e

)"dge. <n a letter[1/] dated )"ne 11! *00(! respondent Amamio granted the re."est of 4ara Gee. As correctly noted by the ;-A! respondent Amamioe,ceeded her

At this point! $e remind herein complainant that the discretion $hether to contin"e $ith the proceedings rests e,cl"si#ely $ith the -o"rt! not$ithstanding the complainant7s intention to desist. ;"r r"ling in *uray v. 'ud"e 2austista['] is instr"cti#e%

a"thority in ta2ing it "pon herself to grant the re."est of 4ara Gee7s representati#e! instead of referring the letter to the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge to $hom it $as addressed any$ay.[1&]

<ndeed! the holding of a raffle dra$ at the Argao @all of )"stice by the staff This -o"rt loo2s $ith disfa#or at affida#its of desistance filed by complainants! especially if done as an aftertho"ght. -ontrary to $hat the parties might ha#e belie#ed! $ithdra$al of the complaint does not ha#e the legal effect of e,onerating respondent from any administrati#e disciplinary sanction. <t does not operate to di#est this -o"rt of 1"risdiction to determine the tr"th behind the matter stated in the complaint. The -o"rt7s disciplinary a"thority cannot be dependent on or fr"strated by pri#ate arrangements bet$een parties. An administrati#e complaint against an official or employee of the 1"diciary cannot simply be $ithdra$n by a complainant $ho s"ddenly claims a change of mind. ;ther$ise! the prompt and fair administration of 1"stice! as $ell as the discipline of co"rt personnel! $o"ld be "ndermined. , , , [10] of 4ara Gee degraded the honor and dignity of the co"rt and e,posed the premises! as $ell as the 1"dicial records to danger of loss or damage. <n Administrati#e -irc"lar No. >A'*! $e ha#e already reminded all 1"dges and co"rt personnel that Cthe @alls of )"stice may be "sed only for p"rposes directly related to the f"nctioning and operation of the co"rts of 1"stice! and may not be de#oted to any other "se , , ,.D

As correctly obser#ed by the ;-A% A caref"l reading of the paragraph sho$s the -o"rt7s categorical statement that the @alls of )"stice are to be "sed only for co"rt p"rposes and for no other p"rpose! despite the "se of the $ord Cmay!D $hich the respondents and the in#estigating 1"dge arg"e as permissi#e and not mandatory. The mention of residential and commercial p"rposes are "sed as concrete e,amples since s"ch instances act"ally happened , , , and $ere in fact the s"b1ect of administrati#e cases! and are th"s en"merated! not to e,cl"de other acts (as clearly indicated by the $ord Cleast of allD prior to the en"meration) b"t rather to ill"strate the general prohibition. Th"s! the arg"ment that the raffle dra$ e#ent $as not residential nor commercial (despite the er"dite distinction made by the respondents as to $hat is commercial and $hat is not) deser#es scant consideration.[1?]

+oreo#er! that the case has been heard by the <n#estigating )"dge does not mean that he may order its termination. As clearly stated in the <ndorsement[11] of the ;-A dated )"ly *(! *00(! )"dge ere6 $as only directed to cond"ct an in#estigation and to s"bmit his report thereon to the ;-A! for f"rther e#al"ation by the latter. Gi2e$ise! it is immaterial and irrele#ant $hether complainant $as satisfied $ith the o"tcome of the case. <t is "ndisp"ted that on )"ly 1/! *00(! 4ara Gee held a raffle dra$ at the gro"nd floor lobby of the Argao @all of )"stice. +s. 5irginia -. Tecson! 4ara Gee7s B"siness +anager! $rote a letter addressed to the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge of the 8T-! Branch *?! Argao! -eb"! re."esting permission for the holding of a raffle dra$ at the Argao @all of )"stice. <n their -ompliance![1*] respondents Amamio and 5as."e6 admitted that they disc"ssed the said re."est bet$een themsel#es!

<n fact! this reminder in Administrati#e -irc"lar No. >A'* $as reiterated in Administrati#e -irc"lar No. 1A''[1(] $here $e described co"rts as Ctemples of 1"sticeD and as s"ch! Ctheir dignity and sanctity m"st! at all times! be preser#ed and enhanced.D The -o"rt th"s e,horted its officials and employees to stri#e to inspire

p"blic respect for the 1"stice system by! among others! not "sing Ctheir offices as a residence or for any other p"rpose than for co"rt or 1"dicial f"nctions.D

A''ORD.N/LY, $e ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator. Atty. +arcelina 8. Amamio! -ler2 of -o"rt! 8egional Trial -o"rt of Argao! -eb"! Branch *?! is hereby fo"nd /U.LTY of simple

;n ;ctober *>! *001! the -o"rt also iss"ed A.+. No. 01A'A0'A4-! 4ection >! art < of $hich pro#ides H 49-. >. K49 ;F @;). 49-. >.1 The @;) sha$$ be for the e,cl"si#e "se of )"dges! rosec"tors! "blic Attorneys! robation and arole ;fficers and! in the proper cases! the 8egistries of :eeds! incl"ding their s"pport personnel. 49-. >.* The @;) sha$$ be "sed only for co"rt and office p"rposes and shall not be "sed for residential! i.e.! d$elling or sleeping! or commercial p"rposes. 49-. >.> -oo2ing! e,cept for boiling $ater for coffee or similar be#erage! sha$$ not be allo$ed in the @;).

miscond"ct and is ordered SUSPENDED for one month and one day $ith a STERN WARN.N/ that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt $ith more se#erely. +s. Geno#e#a 8. 5as."e6! Gegal 8esearcher and

+s. Floramay atalingh"g! -o"rt 4tenographer! both of the 8egional Trial -o"rt of Argao! -eb"! Branch *?! are hereby fo"nd /U.LTY of #iolation of office r"les and reg"lations and are REPR.-ANDED $ith a STERN WARN.N/that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt $ith more se#erely.

N RE: SUSPENS.ON *RO- T)E PRA'T.'E O* LAW .N T)E TERR.TORY O* /UA- O* ATTY. LEON /. -A2UERA.

Finally! $e agree $ith the ;-A that the fact the Argao @all of )"stice had been "sed for similar acti#ities does not 1"stify the holding of the raffle dra$ thereat. Th"s% , , , The Argao @all of )"stice is not meant to be "sed for festi#ities! and in fact sho"ld remain closed to the p"blic d"ring s"ch occasions. The contention that there $as no danger to the b"ilding and the records since the raffle dra$ $as merely held at the gro"nd floor lobby and that those $ho attended the raffle dra$ $ere decent people! ma1ority of $hom are $omen! is "ntenable. Time and again! the -o"rt has al$ays stressed in pertinent iss"ances and decisions that co"rts are temples of 1"stice! the honor and dignity of $hich m"st be "pheld and that their "se shall not e,pose 1"dicial records to danger of loss or damage. 4o strict is the -o"rt abo"t this that it has declared that the prohibition against the "se of @alls of )"stice for p"rposes other than that for $hich they ha#e been b"ilt e,tends to their immediate #icinity incl"ding their gro"nds. <f the b"ilding ho"sing the Argao @all of )"stice is s"ch an important historical landmar2! all the more reason $hy acti#ities! s"ch as 4ara Gee raffle dra$! sho"ld not be held $ithin. At most! the said @all of )"stice co"ld ha#e been made part of a reg"lar local to"r! to be #ie$ed at designated ho"rs! $hich #ie$ing shall be confined to certain areas not intr"si#e to co"rt operations and records.[1=]

+ay a member of the hilippine Bar $ho $as disbarred or s"spended from the practice of la$ in a foreign 1"risdiction $here he has also been admitted as an attorney be meted the same sanction as a member of the hilippine Bar for the same infraction committed in the foreign 1"risdictionR There is a 8"le of -o"rt pro#ision co#ering this caseQs central iss"e. Kp to this 1"nct"re! its reach and breadth ha#e not "ndergone the test of an "nsettled case. <n a &etter dated A"g"st *0! 1''?!1 the :istrict -o"rt of G"am informed this -o"rt of the s"spension of Atty. Geon G. +a."era (+a."era) from the practice of la$ in G"am for t$o (*) years p"rs"ant to the Decision rendered by the 4"perior -o"rt of G"am on +ay (! 1''? in 4pecial roceedings -ase No. 4 00(&A'/!* a disciplinary case filed by the G"am Bar 9thics -ommittee against +a."era. The -o"rt referred the matter of +a."eraQs s"spension in G"am to the Bar -onfidant for comment in itsResolution dated No#ember 1'! 1''?.> Knder 4ection *(! 8"le 1>= of the 8e#ised 8"les of -o"rt! the disbarment or s"spension of a member of the hilippine Bar in a foreign 1"risdiction! $here he has also been admitted as an attorney! is also a gro"nd for his disbarment or s"spension in this realm! pro#ided the foreign co"rtQs action is by reason of an act or omission constit"ting deceit! malpractice or other gross miscond"ct! grossly immoral cond"ct! or a #iolation of the la$yerQs oath. <n a Memorandum dated Febr"ary *0! 1''(! then Bar -onfidant Atty. 9rlinda -. 5er6osa recommended that the -o"rt obtain copies of the record of +a."eraQs case since the doc"ments transmitted by the G"am :istrict -o"rt do not contain the fact"al and legal bases for +a."eraQs s"spension

and are th"s ins"fficient to enable her to determine $hether +a."eraQs acts or omissions $hich res"lted in his s"spension in G"am are li2e$ise #iolati#e of his oath as a member of the hilippine Bar./ "rs"ant to this -o"rtQs directi#e in its Resolution dated +arch 1=! 1''(!& the Bar -onfidant sent a letter dated No#ember 1>! 1''( to the :istrict -o"rt of G"am re."esting for certified copies of the record of the disciplinary case against +a."era and of the r"les #iolated by him. ? The -o"rt recei#ed certified copies of the record of +a."eraQs case from the :istrict -o"rt of G"am on :ecember =! 1''(.( Thereafter! +a."eraQs case $as referred by the -o"rt to the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines (<B ) for in#estigation report and recommendation $ithin si,ty (?0) days from the <B Qs receipt of the case records.= The <B sent +a."era a 3otice of /earin" re."iring him to appear before the <B Qs -ommission on Bar :iscipline on )"ly *=! 1''=.' @o$e#er! the notice $as ret"rned "nser#ed beca"se +a."era had already mo#ed from his last 2no$n address in Agana! G"am and did not lea#e any for$arding address.10 ;n ;ctober '! *00>! the <B s"bmitted to the -o"rt its Report and Recommendation and its Resolution 3o. 45-678896++8! indefinitely s"spending +a."era from the practice of la$ $ithin the hilippines "ntil and "nless he "pdates and pays his <B membership d"es in f"ll.11 The <B fo"nd that +a."era $as admitted to the hilippine Bar on Febr"ary *=! 1'&=. ;n ;ctober 1=! 1'(/! he $as admitted to the practice of la$ in the territory of G"am. @e $as s"spended from the practice of la$ in G"am for miscond"ct! as he ac."ired his clientQs property as payment for his legal ser#ices! then sold it and as a conse."ence obtained an "nreasonably high fee for handling his clientQs case.1* <n its Decision! the 4"perior -o"rt of G"am stated that on A"g"st ?! 1'=(! 9d$ard Bena#ente! the creditor of a certain -astro! obtained a 1"dgment against -astro in a ci#il case. +a."era ser#ed as -astroQs co"nsel in said case. -astroQs property s"b1ect of the case! a parcel of land! $as to be sold at a p"blic a"ction in satisfaction of his obligation to Bena#ente. -astro! ho$e#er! retained the right of redemption o#er the property for one year. The right of redemption co"ld be e,ercised by paying the amo"nt of the 1"dgment debt $ithin the aforesaid period.1> At the a"ction sale! Bena#ente p"rchased -astroQs property for Fi#e @"ndred K.4. :ollars (K4S&00.00)! the amo"nt $hich -astro $as ad1"dged to pay him.1/ ;n :ecember *1! 1'=(! -astro! in consideration of +a."eraQs legal ser#ices in the ci#il case in#ol#ing Bena#ente! entered into an oral agreement $ith +a."era and assigned his right of redemption in fa#or of the latter.1&

;n )an"ary =! 1'==! +a."era e,ercised -astroQs right of redemption by paying Bena#ente K4S&*&.00 in satisfaction of the 1"dgment debt. Thereafter! +a."era had the title to the property transferred in his name.1? ;n :ecember >1! 1'==! +a."era sold the property to -.4. -hang and -.-. -hang for Three @"ndred T$enty Tho"sand K.4. :ollars (K4S>*0!000.00).1( ;n )an"ary 1&! 1''/! the G"am Bar 9thics -ommittee (-ommittee) cond"cted hearings regarding +a."eraQs alleged miscond"ct.1= 4"bse."ently! the -ommittee filed a etition in the 4"perior -o"rt of G"am praying that +a."era be sanctioned for #iolations of 8"les 1.&1' and 1.=(a)*0 of the +odel 8"les of rofessional -ond"ct (+odel 8"les) in force in G"am. <n its etition! the -ommittee claimed that +a."era obtained an "nreasonably high fee for his ser#ices. The -ommittee f"rther alleged that +a."era himself admitted his fail"re to comply $ith the re."irement in 8"le 1.= (a) of the +odel 8"les that a la$yer shall not enter into a b"siness transaction $ith a client or 2no$ingly ac."ire a pec"niary interest ad#erse to a client "nless the transaction and the terms go#erning the la$yerQs ac."isition of s"ch interest are fair and reasonable to the client! and are f"lly disclosed to! and "nderstood by the client and red"ced in $riting. *1 The -ommittee recommended that +a."era be% (1) s"spended from the practice of la$ in G"am for a period of t$o * years! ho$e#er! $ith all b"t thirty (>0) days of the period of s"spension deferredB (*) ordered to ret"rn to -astro the difference bet$een the sale price of the property to the -hangs and the amo"nt d"e him for legal ser#ices rendered to -astroB (>) re."ired to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedingsB and (/) p"blicly reprimanded. <t also recommended that other 1"risdictions be informed that +a."era has been s"b1ect to disciplinary action by the 4"perior -o"rt of G"am.** +a."era did not deny that -astro e,ec"ted a ."itclaim deed to the property in his fa#or as compensation for past legal ser#ices and that the transaction! e,cept for the deed itself! $as oral and $as not made p"rs"ant to a prior $ritten agreement. @o$e#er! he contended that the transaction $as made three days follo$ing the alleged termination of the attorneyAclient relationship bet$een them! and that the property did not constit"te an e,orbitant fee for his legal ser#ices to -astro.*> ;n +ay (! 1''?! the 4"perior -o"rt of G"am rendered its Decision*/ s"spending +a."era from the practice of la$ in G"am for a period of t$o (*) years and ordering him to ta2e the +"ltiA4tate rofessional 8esponsibility 9,amination (+ 89) $ithin that period. The co"rt fo"nd that the attorneyAclient relationship bet$een +a."era and -astro $as not yet completely terminated $hen they entered into the oral agreement to transfer -astroQs right of redemption to +a."era on :ecember *1! 1'=(. <t also held that +a."era profited too m"ch from the e#ent"al transfer of -astroQs property to him since he $as able to sell the same to the -hangs $ith more than K4S*00!000.00 in profit! $hereas his legal fees for ser#ices rendered to -astro amo"nted only to K4S/&!000.00. The co"rt also ordered him to ta2e the + 89 "pon his admission d"ring the hearings of his case that he $as a$are of the re."irements of the +odel 8"les regarding b"siness

transactions bet$een an attorney and his client Oin a #ery general sort of $ay.O*& ;n the basis of the Decision of the 4"perior -o"rt of G"am! the <B concl"ded that altho"gh the said co"rt fo"nd +a."era liable for miscond"ct! Othere is no e#idence to establish that [+a."era] committed a breach of ethics in the hilippines.O*? @o$e#er! the <B still resol#ed to s"spend him indefinitely for his fail"re to pay his ann"al d"es as a member of the <B since 1'((! $hich fail"re is! in t"rn! a gro"nd for remo#al of the name of the delin."ent member from the 8oll of Attorneys "nder 4ection 10! 8"le 1>'AA of the 8e#ised 8"les of -o"rt.*( The po$er of the -o"rt to disbar or s"spend a la$yer for acts or omissions committed in a foreign 1"risdiction is fo"nd in 4ection *(! 8"le 1>= of the 8e#ised 8"les of -o"rt! as amended by 4"preme -o"rt Resolution dated Febr"ary 1>! 1''*! $hich states% 4ection *(. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme ourt! "rounds therefor.TA member of the bar may be disbarred or s"spended from his office as attorney by the 4"preme -o"rt for an7 6e9eit, ma$;ra9ti9e, or other #ross mis9on6u9t in su9h offi9e! grossly immoral cond"ct! or by reason of his con#iction of a crime in#ol#ing moral t"rpit"de! or for an7 ?io$ation of the oath 5hi9h he is reGuire6 to taHe =efore a6mission to ;ra9ti9e! or for a $illf"l disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case $itho"t a"thority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at la$ for the p"rpose of gain! either personally or thro"gh paid agents or bro2ers! constit"tes malpractice. The 6is=arment or sus;ension of a mem=er of the Phi$i;;ine Bar =7 a 9om;etent 9ourt or other 6is9i;$inator7 a#en97 in a forei#n Iuris6i9tion 5here he has a$so =een a6mitte6 as an attorne7 is a #roun6 for his 6is=arment or sus;ension if the =asis of su9h a9tion in9$u6es an7 of the a9ts hereina=o?e enumerate6. The Iu6#ment, reso$ution or or6er of the forei#n 9ourt or 6is9i;$inar7 a#en97 sha$$ =e ;rima fa9ie e?i6en9e of the #roun6 for 6is=arment or sus;ension (9mphasis s"pplied). The -o"rt m"st therefore determine $hether +a."eraQs acts! namely% ac."iring by assignment -astroQs right of redemption o#er the property s"b1ect of the ci#il case $here +a."era appeared as co"nsel for himB e,ercising the right of redemptionB and! s"bse."ently selling the property for a h"ge profit! #iolate hilippine la$ or the standards of ethical beha#ior for members of the hilippine Bar and th"s constit"te gro"nds for his s"spension or disbarment in this 1"risdiction. The 4"perior -o"rt of G"am fo"nd that +a."era ac."ired his clientQs property by e,ercising the right of redemption pre#io"sly assigned to him by the client in payment of his legal ser#ices. 4"ch transaction falls s."arely "nder Article 1/'* in relation to Article 1/'1! paragraph & of the -i#il -ode of the hilippines. aragraph & of Article 1/'1*= prohibits the la$yerQs ac."isition by assignment of the clientQs property $hich is the s"b1ect of the

litigation handled by the la$yer. Knder Article 1/'*!*' the prohibition e,tends to sales in legal redemption. The prohibition ordained in paragraph & of Article 1/'1 and Article 1/'* is fo"nded on p"blic policy beca"se! by #irt"e of his office! an attorney may easily ta2e ad#antage of the cred"lity and ignorance of his client>0 and "nd"ly enrich himself at the e,pense of his client. The case of -n re) Ruste>1 ill"strates the significance of the aforementioned prohibition. <n that case! the attorney ac."ired his clientsQ property s"b1ect of a case $here he $as acting as co"nsel p"rs"ant to a deed of sale e,ec"ted by his clients in his fa#or. @e contended that the sale $as made at the instance of his clients beca"se they had no money to pay him for his ser#ices. The -o"rt r"led that the la$yerQs ac."isition of the property of his clients "nder the circ"mstances obtaining therein rendered him liable for malpractice. The -o"rt held% U3hether the deed of sale in ."estion $as e,ec"ted at the instance of the spo"ses dri#en by financial necessity! as contended by the respondent! or at the latterQs behest! as contended by the complainant! is of no moment. <n either case an attorney occ"pies a #antage position to press "pon or dictate his terms to a harassed client! in breach of the Or"le so amply protecti#e of the confidential relations! $hich m"st necessarily e,ist bet$een attorney and client! and of the rights of bothO.>* The 4"perior -o"rt of G"am also hinted that +a."eraQs ac."isition of -astroQs right of redemption! his s"bse."ent e,ercise of said right! and his act of selling the redeemed property for h"ge profits $ere tainted $ith deceit and bad faith $hen it concl"ded that +a."era charged -astro an e,orbitant fee for his legal ser#ices. The co"rt held that since the assignment of the right of redemption to +a."era $as in payment for his legal ser#ices! and since the property redeemed by him had a mar2et #al"e of K4S*/=!**0.00 as of :ecember *1! 1'=( (the date $hen the right of redemption $as assigned to him)! he is liable for miscond"ct for accepting payment for his legal ser#ices $ay beyond his act"al fees $hich amo"nted only to K4S/&!000.00. +a."eraQs acts in G"am $hich res"lted in his t$o (*)Ayear s"spension from the practice of la$ in that 1"risdiction are also #alid gro"nds for his s"spension from the practice of la$ in the hilippines. 4"ch acts are #iolati#e of a la$yerQs s$orn d"ty to act $ith fidelity to$ard his clients. They are also #iolati#e of the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility! specifically! -anon 1( $hich states that O[a] la$yer o$es fidelity to the ca"se of his client and shall be mindf"l the tr"st and confidence reposed in himBO and 8"le 1.01 $hich prohibits la$yers from engaging in "nla$f"l! dishonest! immoral or deceitf"l cond"ct. The re."irement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the hilippine Bar b"t is also a contin"ing re."irement to maintain oneQs goodQs standing in the legal profession.>> <t bears stressing that the G"am 4"perior -o"rtQs 1"dgment ordering +a."eraQs s"spension from the practice of la$ in G"am does not a"tomatically res"lt in his s"spension or disbarment in the hilippines. Knder 4ection *(!>/8"le 1>= of the 8e#ised 8"les of -o"rt! the acts $hich

led to his s"spension in G"am are mere gro"nds for disbarment or s"spension in this 1"risdiction! at that only if the basis of the foreign co"rtQs action incl"des any of the gro"nds for disbarment or s"spension in this 1"risdiction.>& Gi2e$ise! the 1"dgment of the 4"perior -o"rt of G"am only constit"tes prima facie e#idence of +a."eraQs "nethical acts as a la$yer.>? +ore f"ndamentally! d"e process demands that he be gi#en the opport"nity to defend himself and to present testimonial and doc"mentary e#idence on the matter in an in#estigation to be cond"cted in accordance $ith 8"le 1>'AB of the 8e#ised 8"les of -o"rt. 4aid r"le mandates that a respondent la$yer m"st in all cases be notified of the charges against him. <t is only after reasonable notice and fail"re on the part of the respondent la$yer to appear d"ring the sched"led in#estigation that an in#estigation may be cond"cted e0 parte.>( The -o"rt notes that +a."era has not yet been able to add"ce e#idence on his behalf regarding the charges of "nethical beha#ior in G"am against him! as it is not certain that he did recei#e the 3otice of /earin" earlier sent by the <B Qs -ommission on Bar :iscipline. Th"s! there is a need to ascertain +a."eraQs c"rrent and correct address in G"am in order that another notice! this time specifically informing him of the charges against him and re."iring him to e,plain $hy he sho"ld not be s"spended or disbarred on those gro"nds (thro"gh this Resolution)! may be sent to him. Ne#ertheless! the -o"rt agrees $ith the <B that +a."era sho"ld be s"spended from the practice of la$ for nonApayment of his <B membership d"es from 1'(( "p to the present.>= Knder 4ection 10! 8"le 1>'AA of the 8e#ised 8"les of -o"rt! nonApayment of membership d"es for si, (?) months shall $arrant s"spension of membership in the <B ! and defa"lt in s"ch payment for one year shall be gro"nd for remo#al of the name of the delin."ent member from the 8oll of Attorneys.>' W)ERE*ORE! Atty. Geon G. +a."era is re."ired to 4@;3 -AK49! $ithin fifteen (1&) days from receipt of thisResolution! $hy he sho"ld not be s"spended or disbarred for his acts $hich ga#e rise to the disciplinary proceedings against him in the 4"perior -o"rt of G"am and his s"bse."ent s"spension in said 1"risdiction. The Bar -onfidant is directed to locate the c"rrent and correct address of Atty. +a."era in G"am and to ser#e "pon him a copy of this Resolution. <n the meantime! Atty. +a."era is 4K4 9N:9: from the practice of la$ for ;N9 (1) L9A8 or "ntil he shall ha#e paid his membership d"es! $hiche#er comes later. Get a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty. +a."eraQs personal record in the ;ffice of the Bar -onfidant and copies be f"rnished to all chapters of the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines and to all co"rts in the land. SO ORDERED. RULE &%J Dis=arment or Sus;ension of Attorne7s

Se9tion &. Motion or complaint. T roceedings for the remo#al or s"spension of attorneys may be ta2en by the 4"preme -o"rt on its o$n motion or "pon the complaint "nder oath of another in $riting. The complaint shall set o"t distinctly! clearly! and concisely the facts complained of! s"pported by affida#its! if any! of persons ha#ing personal 2no$ledge of the facts therein alleged and shall be accompanied $ith copies of s"ch doc"ments as may s"bstantiate said facts. Se9tion !. Service or dismissal. T <f the complaint appears to merit action! a copy thereof shall be ser#ed "pon the respondent! re."iring him to ans$er the same $ithin ten (10) days from the date of ser#ice. <f the complaint does not merit action! or if the ans$er sho$s to the satisfaction of the 4"preme -o"rt that the complaint is not meritorio"s! the same shall be dismissed. Se9tion %. -nvesti"ation by Solicitor *eneral. T Kpon the iss"es raised by the complaint and ans$er! or "pon fail"re of the respondent to ans$er! the case shall be referred to the 4olicitor General for in#estigation to determine if there is s"fficient gro"nd to proceed $ith the prosec"tion of the respondent. <n the in#estigation cond"cted by the 4olicitor General! the respondent shall be gi#en f"ll opport"nity to defend himself! to prod"ce $itnesses in his o$n behalf! and to be heard by himself and co"nsel. @o$e#er! if "pon reasonable notice! the respondent fails to appear! the in#estigation shall proceed e, parte. Se9tion D. Report of the Solicitor *eneral. T Based "pon the e#idence add"ced at the hearing! if the 4olicitor General finds no s"fficient gro"nd to proceed against the respondent! he shall s"bmit a report to the 4"preme -o"rt containing his findings of fact and concl"sion! $here"pon the respondent shall be e,onerated "nless the co"rt orders differently. Se9tion E. omplaint of the Solicitor *eneral. (nswer of respondent. T <f the 4olicitor General finds s"fficient gro"nd to proceed against the respondent! he shall file the corresponding complaint! accompanied $ith all the e#idence introd"ced in his in#estigation! $ith the 4"preme -o"rt! and the respondent shall be ser#ed by the cler2 of the 4"preme -o"rt $ith a copy of the complaint $ith direction to ans$er the same $ithin fifteen (1&) days. Se9tion F. :vidence produced before Solicitor *eneral available. T The e#idence prod"ced before the 4olicitor General in his in#estigation may be considered by the 4"preme -o"rt in the final decision of the case! if the respondent had an opport"nity to ob1ect and crossAe,amine. <f in the respondentQs ans$er no statement is made as to any intention of introd"cing additional e#idence! the case shall be set do$n for hearing! "pon the filing of s"ch ans$er or "pon the e,piration of the time to file the same. Se9tion (. ommissioner to investi"ate and recommend. 8"les of e#idence. T Kpon receipt of the respondentQs ans$er! $herein a statement is made as to his desire to introd"ce additional e#idence! the case shall be referred to a commissioner $ho! in the discretion of the co"rt! may be the cler2 of the 4"preme -o"rt! a 1"dge of first instance! or an attorneyAatAla$ for in#estigation! report! and recommendation. The 4olicitor General or his representati#e shall appear before the commissioner to cond"ct the prosec"tion. The respondent shall be gi#en f"ll opport"nity to defend

himself! to prod"ce additional e#idence in his o$n behalf! and to be heard by himself and co"nsel. @o$e#er! if "pon reasonable notice the respondent fails to appear! the in#estigation shall proceed e, parte. The r"les of e#idence shall be applicable to proceedings of this nat"re. Se9tion K. Report of commissioner and hearin". T Kpon receipt of the report of the commissioner! copies of $hich shall be f"rnished the 4olicitor General and the respondent! the case shall be set do$n for hearing before the co"rt! follo$ing $hich the case shall be considered s"bmitted to the co"rt for its final determination. Se9tion J. Procedure in ourt of (ppeals or ourts of ;irst -nstance. T As far as may be applicable! the proced"re abo#e o"tlined shall li2e$ise go#ern the filing and in#estigation of complaints against attorneys in the -o"rt of Appeals or in -o"rts of First <nstance. <n case of s"spension of the respondent! the 1"dge of the co"rt of first instance or )"stice of the -o"rt of Appeals shall forth$ith transmit to the 4"preme -o"rt a certified copy of the order of s"spension and a f"ll statement of the facts "pon $hich same is based. Se9tion &". onfidential. T roceedings against attorneys shall be pri#ate and confidential! e,cept that the final order of the co"rt shall be made p"blic as in other cases coming before the co"rt. A.-. No. "!:K:&%:S' *e=ruar7 &J, !""K 5ery tr"ly yo"rs. RE: !""D RULES ON NOTAR.AL PRA'T.'E : The -o"rt 8esol#ed! "pon the recommendation of the 4"b -ommittee on the 8e#ision of the 8"les Go#erning Notaries "blic! to A+9N: 4ec. 1* (a). 8"le << of the *00/ 8"les on Notarial ractice! to $it% 4irsJ+esdames% <uoted hereunder! for your information! is a resolution of the ourt :n 2anc dated 4e/ruary 15, 6778. OA.+. No. 0*A=A1>A4-A8e% *00/ 8"les on Notarial ractice. H The -o"rt 8esol#ed! "pon the recommendation of the 4"b -ommittee on the 8e#ision of the 8"les Go#erning Notaries "blic! to A+9N: 4ec. 1* (a). 8"le << of the *00/ 8"les on Notarial ractice! to $it% Ru$e .. :9F<N<T<;N4 ,,, O4ec. 1*. -omponent 9#idence of <dentity. The phrase Ocompetent e#idence of identityO refers to the identification of an indi#id"al based on%

(a) at least one c"rrent identification doc"ment iss"ed by an official agency bearing the photograph and signat"re of the indi#id"al! s"ch as b"t not limited to! passport! dri#er7s license! rofessional 8eg"lations -ommission <:! National B"rea" of <n#estigation clearance! police clearance! postal <:! #oter7s <:! Barangay certification! Go#ernment 4er#ice and <ns"rance 4ystem (G4<4) eAcard! 4ocial 4ec"rity 4ystem (444) card! hilhealth card! senior citi6en card! ;#erseas 3or2ers 3elfare Administration (;33A) <:! ;F3 <:! seaman7s boo2! alien certificate of registrationJimmigrant certificate of registration! go#ernment office <:! certification from the National -o"ncil for the 3elfare of :isable ersons (N-3: )! :epartment of 4ocial 3elfare and :e#elopment (:43:) certificationB or (b) ,,,,.O M"is"mbing! ).! on official lea#e. LnaresA4antiago! ).! on lea#e. (ad#1*(a)

+A. GK<4A :. 5<GGA8A+A (sgd) -ler2 of -o"rt 3.'TOR.NA BAUT.STA, -omplainant! #s. ATTY. SER/.O E. BERNABE, 8espondent. <n a -omplaint1 filed before the -ommission on Bar :iscipline of the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines (<B ) on No#ember 1?! *00/! complainant 5ictorina Ba"tista* prays for the s"spension or disbarment of respondent Atty. 4ergio 9. Bernabe for malpractice and "nethical cond"ct in the performance of his d"ties as a notary p"blic and a la$yer. -omplainant alleged that on )an"ary >! 1''=! respondent prepared and notari6ed a Ma"=asanib na Salaysay>p"rportedly e,ec"ted by :onato 4alonga and complainant7s mother! Basilia de la -r"6. / Both affiants declared that a certain parcel of land in Bigte! Nor6agaray! B"lacan! $as being occ"pied by 8odolfo G"cas and his family for more than >0 years. -omplainant claimed that her mother co"ld not ha#e e,ec"ted the 1oint affida#it on )an"ary >! 1''= beca"se she has been dead since )an"ary *=! 1'?1.& <n his Ans$er!? respondent denied that he falsified the Ma"=asanib na Salaysay. @e disclaimed any 2no$ledge abo"t Basilia7s death. @e alleged

that before he notari6ed the doc"ment! he re."ested for Basilia7s presence and in her absence! he allo$ed a certain ronebo! allegedly a sonAinAla$ of Basilia! to sign abo#e the name of the latter as sho$n by the $ord ObyO on top of the name of Basilia. 8espondent maintained that there $as no forgery since the signat"re appearing on top of Basilia7s name $as the signat"re of ronebo. ;n April /! *00&! respondent filed a manifestation( attaching thereto the affida#it of desistance= of complainant $hich reads in part% A2o na si! 5<-T;8<NA BAKT<4TA -A A! , , , matapos ma2apan"mpa ng naaayon sa batas ay malaya at 2"sang loob na nagpapahayag ng mga s"m"s"nod% 1. Na a2o ang siyang t"matayong nagrere2lamo laban 2ay Abogado! 498G<; 9FMK<59G B98NAB9! sa isang 2aso sa Tanggapan ng <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines na may Blg. -B: -A49 N;. 0/A1>(1B *. Na ang nasabing habla ay hindi 2o 2ag"st"han sapag2at iyon ay pinapirmahan lamang sa a2in ni 9G<49; ;G;8;4; at ng 2anyang Abogado na si Atty. +A8-<AG +;8F9 +AG4<N; at sa 2at"nayan hindi a2o na2aharap sa Notaryo "bli2o na si Abogado -A8G<T;4 -. 5<GGA8<NB >. Na ang pagpapapirma sa a2in ay isang panlilinlang at a2o ay gina$ang 2asang2apan para sirain ang magandang pangalan nitong si Abogado 498G<; 94MK<59G B98NAB9B /. Na dahil sa ganitong pangyayari! a2ing hinihiling sa Tanggapan ng <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines (<B ) na ang re2lamo 2o laban sa nasabing Abogado 498G<; 94MK<59G B98NAB9 ay mapa$a[la]ng bisa. <n the report dated A"g"st *'! *00&! the <n#estigating -ommissioner' recommended that% 1. Atty. 4ergio 9s."ibel Bernabe be suspended from the practice of the legal profession for one (1) monthB *. Any e,isting commission of Atty. 4ergio 9s."ibel Bernabe as notary p"blic! be re#o2edB and >. Atty. 4ergio 9s."ibel Bernabe be barred from being granted a notarial commission for a period of one (1) year.10 <n a resol"tion dated ;ctober **! *00&! the Board of Go#ernors of the <B adopted and appro#ed the recommendation of the <n#estigating -ommissioner $ith modification that respondent be s"spended from the practice of la$ for one year and his notarial commission be re#o2ed and that he be dis."alified for reappointment as notary p"blic for t$o years.

3e agree $ith the findings and recommendation of the <B . The records s"fficiently established that Basilia $as already dead $hen the 1oint affida#it $as prepared on )an"ary >! 1''=. 8espondent7s alleged lac2 of 2no$ledge of Basilia7s death does not e,c"se him. <t $as his d"ty to re."ire the personal appearance of the affiant before affi,ing his notarial seal and signat"re on the instr"ment. A notary p"blic sho"ld not notari6e a doc"ment "nless the persons $ho signed the same are the #ery same persons $ho e,ec"ted and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and tr"th of $hat are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed $ill enable the notary p"blic to #erify the gen"ineness of the signat"re of the affiant.11 8espondent7s act of notari6ing the Ma"=asanib na Salaysay in the absence of one of the affiants is in #iolation of 8"le 1.01!1* -anon 1 of the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility and the Notarial Ga$.1> By affi,ing his signat"re and notarial seal on the instr"ment! he led "s to belie#e that Basilia personally appeared before him and attested to the tr"th and #eracity of the contents of the affida#it $hen in fact it $as a certain ronebo $ho signed the doc"ment. 8espondent7s cond"ct is fra"ght $ith dangero"s possibilities considering the concl"si#eness on the d"e e,ec"tion of a doc"ment that o"r co"rts and the p"blic accord on notari6ed doc"ments. 8espondent has clearly failed to e,ercise "tmost diligence in the performance of his f"nction as a notary p"blic and to comply $ith the mandates of the la$.1/ 8espondent $as also remiss in his d"ty $hen he allo$ed ronebo to sign in behalf of Basilia. A member of the bar $ho performs an act as a notary p"blic sho"ld not notari6e a doc"ment "nless the persons $ho signed the same are the #ery same persons $ho e,ec"ted and personally appeared before him. The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for $hat are stated therein are facts of $hich they ha#e personal 2no$ledge. They sho"ld s$ear to the doc"ment personally and not thro"gh any representati#e. ;ther$ise! their representati#e7s name sho"ld appear in the said doc"ments as the one $ho e,ec"ted the same. That is the only time the representati#e can affi, his signat"re and personally appear before the notary p"blic for notari6ation of the said doc"ment. 4imply p"t! the party or parties $ho e,ec"ted the instr"ment m"st be the ones to personally appear before the notary p"blic to ac2no$ledge the doc"ment.1& -omplainant7s desistance or $ithdra$al of the complaint does not e,onerate respondent or p"t an end to the administrati#e proceedings. A case of s"spension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lac2 of interest of the complainant. 3hat matters is $hether! on the basis of the facts borne o"t by the record! the charge of deceit and grossly immoral cond"ct has been pro#en. This r"le is premised on the nat"re of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for s"spension or disbarment is not a ci#il action $here the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent la$yer is a defendant. :isciplinary proceedings in#ol#e no pri#ate interest and afford no redress for pri#ate grie#ance. They are "nderta2en and prosec"ted solely for the p"blic $elfare. They are "nderta2en for the p"rpose of preser#ing co"rts of 1"stice from the official ministration of persons "nfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to ans$er to the co"rt for his cond"ct as an officer of the co"rt. The complainant or the person $ho called the attention of the co"rt to the attorney7s alleged miscond"ct is in no sense a party! and

has generally no interest in the o"tcome e,cept as all good citi6ens may ha#e in the proper administration of 1"stice.1? 3e find the penalty recommended by the <B to be in f"ll accord $ith recent 1"rispr"dence. <n *onzales v. Ramos!1( respondent la$yer $as fo"nd g"ilty of notari6ing the doc"ment despite the nonAappearance of one of the signatories. As a res"lt! his notarial commission $as re#o2ed and he $as dis."alified from reappointment for a period of t$o years. <n addition! he $as s"spended from the practice of la$ for one year. Finally! it has not escaped o"r notice that in paragraph *1= of complainant7s affida#it of desistance! she all"ded that Atty. -arlitos -. 5illarin notari6ed her Sinumpaan" Salaysay1' dated No#ember 1*! *00/ $hich $as attached to the complaint filed $ith the -ommission on Bar :iscipline of the <B ! $itho"t re."iring her to personally appear before him in #iolation of the Notarial Ga$. This allegation m"st li2e$ise be in#estigated. W)ERE*ORE, for breach of the Notarial Ga$ and -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility! the notarial commission of respondent Atty. 4ergio 9. Bernabe! is RE3O4ED. @e is D.S2UAL.*.ED from reappointment as Notary "blic for a period of t$o years. @e is also SUSPENDED from the practice of la$ for a period of one year! effecti#e immediately. @e is f"rther WARNED that a repetition of the same or of similar acts shall be dealt $ith more se#erely. @e is D.RE'TED to report the date of receipt of this :ecision in order to determine $hen his s"spension shall ta2e effect. The -ommission on Bar :iscipline of the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines is :<89-T9: to in#estigate the allegation that Atty. -arlitos -. 5illarin notari6ed the Sinumpaan" Salaysay of 5ictorina Ba"tista dated No#ember 1*! *00/ $itho"t re."iring the latter7s personal appearance.lavvph>+.net Get copies of this :ecision be f"rnished the ;ffice of the Bar -onfidant! the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines! and all co"rts all o#er the co"ntry. Get a copy of this :ecision li2e$ise be attached to the personal records of the respondent. SO ORDERED. BEN D. -AR'ES, SR., complainant, vs. 1UD/E PAUL T. AR'AN/EL, Presi6in# 1u6#e, Bran9h &!, Re#iona$ Tria$ 'ourt Da?ao 'it7,respondent. 8espondent $as! at the time material to this case! the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch 1*! at :a#ao -ity. [1] @e is charged $ith serio"s miscond"ct! gra#e ab"se of a"thority! harassment! and immorality. The complaint alleges the follo$ing% (1) -omplainant is a ?1Ayear old retiree! married to 8"th )o#ellar! by $hom he has fi#e children! namely! Farley! Gydia! Ben )r.! Ni22i and Allan. -omplainant and the members of his family are residents of the B8- 5illage! -atal"nan e."eNo! :a#ao -ity.

<n 1'=/ the spo"ses 3ilfredo and Flordeli6a -aNas mo#ed into complainant7s neighborhood. They became the nearest neighbors of the complainant! their ho"ses being only /& meters apart. <n that year! a domestic helper of the -aNases so"ght complainant7s help for alleged maltreatment she had recei#ed from her employers. -omplainant! $ho $as the inc"mbent "ro2 leader! referred the matter to the barangay a"thorities. The disp"te $as resol#ed! b"t the relation of the +arces and the -aNas families became strained. ;n 4eptember *(! 1''0! +rs. Flordeli6a -aNas had an e,change of $ords $ith +rs. 8"th +arces and the latter7s da"ghter! Gydia! d"ring $hich they h"rled in#ecti#es at each other. The incident $as triggered by a relati#ely minor matter in#ol#ing a fight bet$een the t"r2eys o$ned by the t$o families b"t $hich! beca"se of the bad blood bet$een them! became a ma1or iss"e. The follo$ing day! 4eptember *=! +rs. -aNas! together $ith her sister and a neighbor! boarded a passenger 1eepney despite the fact that there $ere no more seats a#ailable beca"se complainant $as riding on that #ehicle. <t t"rned o"t that +rs. -aNas had intended to ca"se the complainant7s arrest! beca"se as the 1eepney neared the police station! +rs. -aNas as2ed the dri#er to stop the #ehicle. +rs. -aNas then got off and called a policeman and had the complainant Ben :. +arces arrested. The arrest $as made on the basis of alias $arrants of arrest handed to the policeman by +rs. -aNas. The $arrants had been iss"ed by +T-)"dge 9dipolo 4arabia in three criminal cases against the herein complainant for #iolations of Batas ambansa Blg. **. -omplainant $as detained for one night $itho"t the 2no$ledge of his family! a fact of $hich +rs. -aNas allegedly boasted in the neighborhood. The follo$ing day! complainant sa$ )"dge 4arabia and e,plained that the criminal cases against him! in connection $ith $hich the alias $arrants $ere iss"ed! had long been amicably settled. )"dge 4arabia told the complainant that he really did not 2no$ anything abo"t the cases and that he had only been re."ested by respondent )"dge a"l Arcangel to iss"e the $arrants. (*) As a res"lt of the 4eptember *(! 1''0 sho"ting incident! +rs. -aNas also filed a complaint $ith the Barangay -aptain against complainant7s $ife and da"ghter! Gydia. +ediation conferences bet$een the t$o families $ere cond"cted on ;ctober *(! 1''0 and on No#ember >! 1''0. Altho"gh he had not been as2ed to! respondent )"dge Arcangel attended the conferences. <t is alleged that respondent 1"dge T dist"rbed the proceedings by $al2ing in and o"t of the Barangay @all $here the conferences $ere being heldB T introd"ced himself as the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge of the 8T- of :a#ao -ity in an ob#io"s attempt to infl"ence the Barangay ;fficialsB and T accompanied +rs. -aNas and acted as the babyAsitter of the latter7s da"ghter. :"ring the ;ctober *(! 1''0 conference! respondent 1"dge allegedly confronted the complainant! acc"sing him of sending the 1"dge a death

threat by means of a letter $hich p"rported to ha#e been sent by the Ne$ eople7s Army. The barangay officials failed to amicably settle the disp"te. <t is a#erred that +rs. -aNas sho$ed Carrogance and callo"sness at all times as if to pro#e that she is protected by a hard roc2 and impregnable $hen she is $ith the 1"dge.D (>) The fe"d bet$een the +arces and -aNas families $orsened. ;n :ecember *'! 1''0! there $as a #iolent confrontation bet$een members of the t$o families. 4ome of the parties $ere in1"red as a res"lt of hac2ing. <n#estigations $ere cond"cted by the police d"ring $hich! according to complainant! he sa$ respondent )"dge Arcangel tal2ing to the policemen. (/) ;n the night of )an"ary *! 1''1! armed men in "niform arri#ed in t$o military #ehicles and arrested members of the complainant7s family and too2 them to the :a#ao +etrodiscom @ead."arters. The arrests $ere made on orders of a certain -ol. Nelson 9stares. A s"mmary in."est $as cond"cted $hich complainant laments to be irreg"lar as the arrests $ere preAarranged and the complaint sheet $as fabricated. -omplainant a#ers that the illegal iss"ance and ser#ice of the C$arrantD (i.e.! soAcalled Arrest ;rders) by the -ommander of the :a#ao +etrodiscom Ccan only be done by a person $ith a strong connection! po$er and infl"ence!D s"ch as respondent 1"dge! considering his high position in the go#ernment and close relations $ith the -aNas family. (&) <n a resol"tion dated +ay 11! 1''1 the in#estigating prosec"tor! Albert A,alan! fo"nd probable ca"se and filed charges of attempted m"rder against complainant Ben :. +arces! his $ife and his son! Farley. -omplainant7s co"ntercharges $ere dropped. Three days after! $arrants of arrest $ere iss"ed by the 8T- against complainant! his $ife 8"th and son Farley respecti#ely. -omplainant alleges that respondent )"dge Arcangel! ta2ing ad#antage of his position! infl"enced the cond"ct of the preliminary in#estigation. (?) 4"bse."ently! complainant7s son! Farley! $as arrested. @e $as handc"ffed and ta2en to the +aAa -ity )ail. <t is alleged that respondent7s Toyota car! $ith plate n"mber GBT &&&! follo$ed the car of the arresting policemen Cas if to ma2e s"re that the e#il planD allegedly Ca"thored by )"dge Arcangel is $ell follo$ed and e,ec"ted.D CTo add ins"lt to in1"ry!D it is alleged that $hile the applications for bail bond of complainant! his $ife and Farley $ere being processed at Branch = of 8Tof :a#ao -ity! respondent )"dge Arcangel arri#ed and ."estioned the #alidity of the bond posted! telling the representati#e of the bonding company! C@indi p"$ede ito! $ho ga#e yo" the a"thority to iss"eRD @e then remo#ed the receipts and arrogantly left $ith the receipts. (=) Beca"se of these e#ents! complainant started as2ing $hy a 1"dge sho"ld ha#e a special interest in his family7s fe"d $ith the -aNas family. All he 2ne$ before $as that the 1"dge7s car $as often par2ed in front of the ho"se of +rs. -aNas! especially $hen +r. -aNas $as a$ay $or2ing o#ertime. <n his -omment s"bmitted in compliance $ith the resol"tion of this -o"rt! respondent 1"dge alleges (1) that the charges against him are not only false and malicio"s b"t "tterly baselessB (*) that the same $ere filed merely to gratify complainant7s personal spite and animosity against himB and (>) that the complaint $as filed in anticipation of the cases $hich the respondent intends to file against the complainant for slander and threats.

8espondent 1"dge f"rther a#ers% Anent the charge of ca"sing the iss"ance of $arrants of arrest against the complainant and the handing of the same to +rs. -aNas for enforcement! it $as +rs. 9speran6a :eiparine and +rs. Flordeli6a -aNas $ho obtained the $arrants. @e only re."ested )"dge 4arabia of the +T-of :a#ao -ity to iss"e them. [*] 8espondent 1"dge claims the $arrants $ere #alid! ha#ing been iss"ed in connection $ith pending cases and that there $ere other $arrants against complainant $hich co"ld not be ser#ed beca"se of complainant7s close connections $ith the officers of the $arrant section.[>] As to the allegation that he dist"rbed the barangay conciliation proceedings in the case bet$een the +arces and -aNas families and allegedly acted as Can escortD of +rs. -aNas and CbabyAsitterD of her da"ghter! respondent 1"dge denies he acted as escort and babyAsitter and claims that he co"ld not ha#e dist"rbed the proceedings beca"se none $ere held on No#ember >! 1''0. @e claims that he $ent to the barangay hall beca"se he filed his o$n complaint against 8"th +arces and her da"ghter Gydia. Apparently! respondent 1"dge is referring to the incident on 4eptember *(! 1''0 d"ring $hich +rs. +arces and da"ghter Gydia allegedly called +rs. -aNas C2abit! 2abit! 2abit sa abogadoD (Cparamo"r! paramo"r! paramo"r of a la$yerD).[/] The 1"dge probably felt all"ded to. 8espondent 1"dge li2e$ise denies that he press"red the police officers and the prosec"tors to file charges in co"rt as a res"lt of the :ecember *'! 1''0 hac2ing incident. 8espondent #ehemently denies ha#ing illicit relations $ith +rs. -aNas and that he $ent to the ho"se of the -aNas family $hene#er +r. 3ilfredo -aNas $as a$ay. 8espondent claims that he has 2no$n the -aNas family since 1'=>! $hen he $as still a -ity )"dge. According to him! in 1'=' he "sed to go to the -aNas residence on re."est by +rs. -aNas to mediate in the latter7s family problem. After this $as settled! he contin"ed going there beca"se he and +r. -aNas had b"siness interests in the man"fact"re of appliance protectors. Finally! it is alleged that complainant is act"ally a f"giti#e from 1"stice! $ho has a string of criminal cases [&] and is notorio"s in the comm"nity. 8espondent f"rther disc"sses the merits of the :ecember *'! 1''0 hac2ing incident pointing to complainant! his $ife and son as the felons and the g"ilty parties. ;n Febr"ary *(! 1''*! the -o"rt referred the case to the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator for e#al"ation! report and recommendation. A 8eply $as s"bse."ently filed by the complainant! alleging harassment by respondent 1"dge! as follo$s% (a) respondent 1"dge $rote the Administrator of the 4ocial 4ec"rity 4ystem! pretending to be interested in p"rchasing an ac."ired asset consisting of a ho"se and lot! $hich happens to be the residence of the complainantB (b) the management of the hilippine Airlines $as as2ed by a fictitio"s person to re#i#e the criminal cases against the complainantB (c) the respondent 1"dge! together $ith a certain Fiscal :"mlao! had been #isiting $itnesses to the :ecember *'! 1''0 hac2ing incidentB (d) the respondent 1"dge filed an administrati#e case $ith the rofessional 8eg"lations -ommission against Ni22i +arces! da"ghter of the complainant $ho had 1"st passed the N"rsing Board 9,aminationsB and (e) respondent still #isited the ho"se of +r. and +rs. -aNas. -omplainant f"rther a#ers that the criminal cases against him are all b"sinessArelated! being cases for #iolation of Batas ambansa Blg. ** and

for estafa arising from the iss"ance of bo"ncing chec2s. @e calls attention to the fact that respondent 1"dge disc"ssed in his pleadings the merits of the :ecember *'! 1''0 hac2ing incident and contends that this is improper and "nethical. ;n +ay *?! 1''*! the -o"rt referred the case to Associate )"stice G"is )a#ellana of the -o"rt of Appeals for in#estigation! report and recommendation. Knfort"nately! Associate )"stice )a#ellana s"ddenly died on A"g"st *&! 1''>. The case $as thereafter reassigned to Associate )"stice Fidel . "risima! b"t the reception of the e#idence $as assigned to 9,ec"ti#e )"dge 8omeo :. +arasigan of Branch F5<! 8T-A:a#ao -ity. ;n 4eptember 1=! 1''>! )"dge +arasigan for$arded the records of the case! together $ith the e#idence add"ced before him! to this -o"rt. The records $ere later transmitted to )"stice "risima. <n his 8eport and 8ecommendation dated +ay >0! 1''/! Associate )"stice "risima recommends dismissal of the charges against respondent 1"dge for ins"fficiency of e#idence! e,cept the charge that respondent 1"dge attended mediation conferences bet$een the fe"ding families and tried to inter#ene. As to this charge the <n#estigating )"stice finds that the e#idence establishes the same. )"stice "risima recommends that respondent 1"dge be admonished and sternly $arned that repetition of the acts of impropriety by respondent $ill be dealt $ith more se#erely. The pertinent portions of )"stice "risima7s report states% The charge concerning the fre."ent #isits by respondent )"dge at the residence of +rs. Flordeli6a -aNas in Barangay -atal"nan e."eNo! :a#ao -ity! and all"sion that the former has illicit relation $ith the latter are "tterly de#oid of s"fficient s"bstantiation. The mere s"spicion on the part of the complainant and members of his family that the respondent )"dge has an affair $ith +rs. Flordeli6a -aNas has been completely effaced and red"ced to nothing reprehensible or cens"rable by the "ne."i#ocal and straightfor$ard testimonies of Flordeli6a7s h"sband and parents that the respondent )"dge is 1"st a family friend $hose #isits did not ha#e any immoral implication. According to these 2no$ledgeable $itnesses! the latter $as their fre."ent #isitor in 1''0! $hen respondent )"dge and 9ngr. 3ilfredo B. -aNas! $ere engaged in the man"fact"re of appliance protectors. ;b#io"sly! 9ngr. 3ilfredo B. -aNas! the lifetime partner of +rs. Flordeli6a -aNas! day and night! sho"ld be in the best position to obser#e her. 3hether or not his $ife is "nfaithf"l to him is a matter $ithin the sphere of the h"sband to detect. @ere! 9ngr. 3ilfredo B. -aNas ha#ing gi#en his $ife clean slate! 3e can do no less. A different concl"sion and r"ling co"ld r"in families! $hich society cherishes and protects (Article *1&! Ne$ -i#il -odeB Article 1/'! Family -ode). .... 4o also! respondent )"dge cannot be held administrati#ely liable for the handcapping [sic] of a son of complainant! $ho $as allegedly handcapped [sic] and bro"ght to the +aAa 1ail! $hile $or2ing at the :a#ao Gight and o$er company. Absent any admissible e#idence that the respondent )"dge $as the one $ho ca"sed s"ch malfeasance to happen! he is not ans$erable therefore

.... B"t the charge that the respondent )"dge $as present d"ring the mediation conference bet$een the +arces family and -aNas family on ;ctober *( and No#ember >! 1''0! before the G"pon Tagapayapa of -atal"nan e."eNo! :a#ao -ity! and that d"ring s"ch conference! respondent )"dge $as in and o"t of the conference room! trying to interfere $ith the proceedings! and to $ield infl"ence as 8egional Trial -o"rt )"dge! is firmly anchored on -omplainant7s e#idence! $hich has not been effecti#ely tra#ersed and negated by respondent7s e#idence. From the e#idence on hand! it is clear that on ;ctober *(! 1''0! the respondent )"dge arri#ed at the Barangay @all of -atal"nan e."eNo! :a#ao -ity! in the company of +rs. Flordeli6a -aNas! and the latter7s small child. :"ring the said mediation conference bet$een the +arces family and -aNas family! respondent )"dge entered the conference room and made it 2no$n to all and s"ndry that he is the residing )"dge of Branch 1* of the 8egional Trial -o"rt of :a#ao. 4"ch act"ation $as indiscreet and improper beca"se the disp"tes and contro#ersies bet$een the t$o $arring families co"ld de#elop into a litigation before any of the co"rts of :a#ao. All things st"diedly considered! $ith d"e regard to the testimonial and doc"mentary e#idence add"ced! pro and con! before @onorable 9,ec"ti#e )"dge 8omeo :. +arasigan of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! :a#ao -ityB the inel"ctable concl"sion is that on ;ctober *(! and No#ember >! 1''0! the respondent )"dge intr"ded into the conference room! and interfered $ith a mediation conference then being held bet$een the family of the herein complainant and the -aNas family! before the G"pon Tagapayapa of -atal"nan e."eNo! :a#ao -ity! and $hile inside said room! tried to infl"ence barangay officials thereat! by identifying himself as the residing )"dge of Branch 1* of the :a#ao 8egional Trial -o"rtB a misbeha#ior and an improper act"ation "nder the premises. 9."ally anemic of e#identiary s"pport is the charge that the respondent )"dge infl"enced the prosec"tors and police a"thorities of :a#ao -ity to harass the family of complainant. The -o"rt finds the concl"sions of the in#estigator that respondent 1"dge is g"ilty of improper cond"ct to be f"lly s"pported by the e#idence in the record. <t only needs to be added that the claim of respondent 1"dge that he $as at the mediation conference held on ;ctober *(! 1''0 beca"se he had himself filed a complaint against 8"th +arces and the latter7s da"ghter! Gydia! is belied by the fact that respondent 1"dge7s complaint $as filed only on No#ember >! 1''0. The report of the <n#estigating )"stice fails to consider other serio"s allegations in the complaint! of $hich there is also s"fficient e#idence in the record! to $it% (1) That respondent 1"dge ca"sed the iss"ance of alias $arrants of arrest by re."esting another 1"dge! before $hom the case against the complainant $as pending! to iss"e the $arrantsB and

(*) That the arrest of the members of the +arces family on )an"ary *! 1''1 $o"ld not ha#e been made $itho"t the inter#ention of respondent 1"dge. These charges ha#e not only been pro#en by s"bstantial and con#incing e#idence! b"t ha#e act"ally been admitted by respondent 1"dge. Th"s! complainant alleges that he $as informed by )"dge 4arabia that the $arrants had been iss"ed by him "pon the re."est of respondent 1"dge. This allegation is s"pported by a hand$ritten note (9,h. 9) of respondent 1"dge! $hich reads% )"dge 9dipolo 4arabia Br. >! -ity Trial -o"rt :a#ao -ity :ear 9d% <f these cases (-r. -ase Nos. 'A-A+! 10A-A+ V 11A-A+) are still pending! please iss"e another alias $arrants as the acc"sed is no$ in to$n. Than2s! (4gd.) a"l Arcangel <n addition! complainant presented a certification by the -ler2 of -o"rt [?] of the +T--A:a#ao -ity! Branch >! stating the follo$ing% T; 3@;+ <T +AL -;N-98N% T@<4 <4 T; -98T<FL! that according to the records of this -o"rt! the three (>) 9stafa -ases against +8. B9N +A8-94 "nder -riminal -ases Nos. 'A -+! 10A-+ and 11A-+ has been in archi#e since :ecember *=! 1'=> d"e to nonAarrest of the acc"sed and an alias $arrant of arrest $as iss"ed against the acc"sed. That its disco#ery and re#i#al $as made possible "pon the re."est for #erification of its stat"s and information by )"dge a"l T. Arcangel that acc"sed is bac2 in to$n and that "ltimately res"lted to the dismissal of the three (>) cases on +arch 11! 1''1! $itho"t $hich #erification the said cases $o"ld ha#e remained pending to date. <nstead of being deli#ered to the $arrant officer! the $arrants $ere act"ally gi#en to +rs. -aNas. The entry in the :aily 8ecord of 9#ents of the Klas olice 4"bstation[(] stated that C[e]lements of this "nit led by J-pl. 5A 4ecretaria arrested $ith alias $arrant of arrest one B9N +A8-94 L :;+AN<GG;. . . $ho $as charge[d] $ith #iolation of Batas ambansa Blg. ** $ith -riminal -ase No[s]. 'A-+! 11-+! d"ly signed by )"dge 9dipolo 4arabia this *=th of 4eptember 1''0 at :a#ao -ity. The $arrant $as gi#en by one FG;8:9G<IA -AWA4 L elegrino! *? years old! married! ho"se$ife. . . .D

To cap it all! respondent 1"dge himself admitted in his -omment! dated :ecember *(! 1''1! that +rs. 9speran6a :eiparine and +rs. Flordeli6a -aNas re."ested him Cto ha#e the $arrants rene$ed! th"s! he re."ested )"dge 4arabia for the iss"ance of the ne$ $arrantsD [=] against the complainant. 8espondent 1"dge 1"stifies his inter#ention on the gro"nd that complainant Ben :. +arces had been able to e#ade ser#ice of the $arrants beca"se of connections $ith the $arrant officers of :a#ao -ity. 9#en if this had been the case it $o"ld not e,c"se respondent 1"dge in "sing his o$n infl"ence. <ndeed this is the same e,c"se gi#en for respondent 1"dge7s interceding $ith the +etrodiscom a"thorities for the iss"ance of a soAcalled order of arrest as a res"lt of $hich complainant Ben :. +arces! his $ife 8"th and his children Farley! Gydia! Ni22i and Allan $ere arrested on )an"ary *! 1''1. 8espondent7s o$n $itness! 3ilfredo -aNas! stated that he $as accompanied by respondent to -ol. Nelson 9stares. <t $as -ol. 9stares $ho ordered the arrest of complainant and members of his family. Th"s! in his affida#it dated A"g"st *>! 1''1! 3ilfredo -aNas stated% 1>. That $hen my $ife and motherAinAla$ $ere attac2ed and hac2ed by Ben +arces and his family $ithin the premises of o"r ho"se on :ecember *'! 1''0! < called )"dge Arcangel for assistance beca"se Ben +arces $as trying to manip"late the case by ma2ing it appear that they $ere the #ictims.... 1/. That $hen < follo$ed "p the case at the Talomo olice 4tation and at the T"gbo2 olice 4tation! < $as gi#en a r"n aro"nd by the police a"thorities and < sensed that a ran2ing police officer $as interceding in behalf of Ben +arces and his familyB 1&. That $hen the police a"thorities co"ld not come "p $ith a report of the incident after more than three days! < so"ght the assistance of )"dge Arcangel! $ho accompanied me to +etrodiscom -hief -ol. Nelson 9stares! to $hom < e,plained the entire incident and treatment < recei#ed from the police $ho $as in#estigating the caseB <n addition! 3ilfredo -aNas testified in the in#estigation and affirmed that it $as beca"se of the help of respondent 1"dge that he $as able to tal2 $ith -ol. 9stares! th"s%['] [)K:G9 A8-ANG9G cond"cting e,amination%] M% A% M% A% M% A% <n connection $ith the hac2ing of yo"r $ife and motherAinAla$! $hat action did yo" ta2eR < tried to follo$ "p the complaint to the police station abo"t the hac2ing incident. < e#en $ent to the T"gbo2 police station. 3hat action $as ta2en at the police stationR The police station did not entertain my complaint and they tried to pass me aro"nd. 3hen no action $as ta2en in yo"r complaint by the police station! $hat did yo" doR 4ensing that there is no hope (to go to the) police! < as2ed )"dge Arcangel to accompany me to -ol. 9stares.

M% A%

3hen )"dge Arcangel accompanied yo" to the ;ffice of -ol. 9stares! $hat did yo" doR @e introd"ced me to -ol. 9stares and < told -ol. 9stares that my $ife and my motherAinAla$ $ere attac2ed by the +arces family and they $ere hac2ed and < re."ested -ol. 9stares to help me beca"se the police did not ta2e any action and < e#en sensed that somebody $as s"pporting the +arces family.

3ilfredo -aNas7 claim that he had to see2 the help of respondent 1"dge beca"se e#en after three days the police still had not made a report on the incident on :ecember *'! 1''0 cannot 1"stify respondent7s inter#ention in the ."arrel. The possibility that the incident co"ld become the s"b1ect of litigation in his co"rt sho"ld ha#e deterred him from getting in#ol#ed in the fe"d. Nothing can bring co"rts into disrep"te more than the fail"re of the occ"pants thereof to be e#er scr"p"lo"s in their cond"ct. -anon >0 of the -anons of )"dicial 9thics ca"tions 1"dges Cin pending or prospecti#e litigation before him [to] be scr"p"lo"sly caref"l to a#oid s"ch action as may reasonably tend to $a2en the s"spicion that his social or b"siness relations or friendships constit"te an element in determining his 1"dicial co"rse.D <t cannot be o#eremphasi6ed that Ca 1"dge7s official cond"ct sho"ld be free from appearance of impropriety! and his personal beha#ior! not only "pon the bench and in the performance of official d"ties b"t also in e#eryday life! sho"ld be beyond reproach.D[1?] For the foregoing reasons! $e find respondent 1"dge g"ilty of improper cond"ct. 3e do not agree $ith complainant! ho$e#er! that respondent7s miscond"ct 1"stifies his dismissal from the ser#ice. 3hile in some cases in#ol#ing similar acts the penalties imposed on the erring 1"dges $ere dismissal! there $ere in those cases other gro"nds $arranting the imposition of s"ch drastic disciplinary penalty. For e,ample! in ?barra v. Mapalad![1(] respondent! aside from press"ring complainants to drop criminal charges against the acc"sed! li2e$ise ref"sed to inhibit herself $hen she 2ne$ it $as improper to decide the case! and $as g"ilty of delay in deciding the case. ;n the other hand! in Sabitsana! 'r. v. 5illamor[1=] the respondent $as fo"nd g"ilty of attempting to infl"ence another 1"dge to ac."it the acc"sed in a criminal case and! in addition! of ma2ing "ntr"thf"l statements in the certificate of ser#ice. <n the case at bar! there is no other charge against respondent 1"dge. This is his first administrati#e case. ;n the other hand his record as -ity )"dge of :a#ao -ity! from 1'(& to 1'=>! and as 8egional Trial -o"rt )"dge in the same city since 1'=> is other$ise e,emplary. <n the circ"mstances of this case! the penalty of reprimand $ith $arning that commission of the same or similar act in the f"t"re $ill be dealt $ith more se#erely! sho"ld s"ffice to accomplish the p"rpose of disciplining an erring member of the 1"diciary $ho has not sho$n himself to be beyond correction. As the Boo2 of ro#erbs says! CA single reprimand does more for a man of intelligence than a h"ndred lashes for a fool.D (1(%10) W)ERE*ORE! respondent is hereby 89 8<+AN:9: $ith 3A8N<NG that commission of similar acts of impropriety on his part in the f"t"re $ill be dealt $ith more se#erely. All other charges are hereby :<4+<449: for ins"fficiency of e#idence. SO ORDERED. [A.-. No. &&:&J":'A:1 : A;ri$ !D, !"&! 'O-PLA.NT O* E-.L -EDEN.LLA, PEDRO ANONUE3O, 1ER.')O .NO'ENTES, 'ARL.TO SALO-ON AND ATTY. 1ESUS *. A'PAL A/A.NST 1UST.'E SO'ORRO B. .NT.N/ O* T)E 'OURT O* APPEALS. SirsL-es6ames:

3ith the abo#eAcited charges ha#ing been d"ly pro#en! in addition to the fact"al findings of )"stice "risima! it is clear that (1) respondent 1"dge inter#ened in the fe"d bet$een the complainant7s family and the -aNas family and (*) s"ch interference $as not limited to the barangay mediation proceedings b"t e,tended as $ell to the #ario"s stages of the conflict. These acts of respondent 1"dge m"st be #ie$ed not as single! isolated act"ations b"t in their totality and in the conte,t of the enmity bet$een the t$o fe"ding families. Th"s #ie$ed $e find the act"ations of respondent 1"dge improper and cens"rable. 8espondent is! as $e ha#e so often said! the #isible representation of the la$![10] the intermediary bet$een conflicting interests![11] and the embodiment of the people7s sense of 1"stice. [1*] Knless it $as a case filed $ith his co"rt! it $as improper for him to inter#ene in a disp"te or contro#ersy. The -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct pro#ides% The prestige of 1"dicial office shall not be "sed or lent to ad#ance the pri#ate interests of others! nor con#ey or permit others to con#ey the impression that they are in a special position to infl"ence the 1"dge.[1>] @e sho"ld not s"ffer his cond"ct to create the impression that any person can "nd"ly infl"ence him or en1oy his fa#or.[1/] 8espondent 1"dge allo$ed himself to be dragged into $hat $as a p"rely pri#ate matter bet$een fe"ding families. <n attending! at the re."est of +rs. -aNas! the barangay conciliation proceedings and introd"cing himself there as the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge of the 8egional Trial -o"rt in an ob#io"s demonstration of s"pport for +rs. -aNas! respondent lent the prestige of his office to a party in a case. 8espondent7s re."est to the 1"dge of a lo$er co"rt to iss"e $arrants of arrest against the complainant is no less cens"rable. As the -o"rt had occasion to state in Sabitsana! 'r. v. 5illamor%[1&] -ardinal is the r"le that a )"dge sho"ld a#oid impropriety in all acti#ities. The -anons mince no $ords in mandating that a )"dge shall refrain from infl"encing in any manner the o"tcome of litigation or disp"te pending before another -o"rt (-anon *! 8"le *.0/). <nterference by members of the bench in pending s"its $ith the end in #ie$ of infl"encing the co"rse or the res"lt of litigation does not only s"b#ert the independence of the 1"diciary b"t also "ndermines the people7s faith in its integrity and impartiality. 8espondent 1"dge also acted improperly in accompanying 3ilfredo -aNas to -ol. Nelson 9stares $ho ordered the arrest of complainant and members of the latter7s family. <t $o"ld ha#e been impossible for the -aNas family to proc"re the arrest of complainant and of members of his family by the :a#ao +etrodiscom $ere it not for the inter#ention of respondent 1"dge.

Please ta=e notice that the ourt en banc issued a Resolution dated APR.L !D, !"&!! which reads as follows) crala$ OA.-. No. &&:&J":'A:1 ( omplaint of :mil Medenilla!@AB Pedro (nonuevo! 'ericho -nocentes! arlito Salomon and (tty. 'esus ;. (cpal a"ainst 'ustice Socorro 2. -ntin" of the ourt of (ppeals). RESOLUT.ON -omplainant officers and tr"stees of Xatar"ngan 5illage @omeo$ners Association! <nc.! (the Association) of Barangay oblacion! +"ntinl"pa -ity! namely! 9mil +edenilla ( 8;)! edro Anon"e#o (tr"stee)! )ericho <nocentes (tr"stee)! -arlito 4alomon (tr"stee)! and Atty. )es"s F. Acpal (#illage administrator)! filed a complaintAaffida#it[1] dated 4eptember >0! *011 against )"stice 4ocorro B. <nting of the -o"rt of Appeals (-A) for gra#e miscond"ct! gra#e ab"se of a"thority! and cond"ct "nbecoming of a -o"rt of Appeals )"stice in #iolation of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct and -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility. The complaintAaffida#it alleges in s"bstance that t$o sets of candidates! one from the agbabago arty and the other from the Balisado erformance Team! competed in the )"ne 1'! *011 elections of their AssociationQs officers and tr"stees. The agbabago gro"p $on the positions of resident! 4ecretary! Treas"rer! A"ditor! and 8; $hile the Balisado gro"p $on only the seats of the 5iceA resident and B"siness +anager. [*] For the Board of Tr"stees! ho$e#er! eight from the Balisado gro"p! incl"ding )"stice <nting! $on the ma1ority of the 1/ positions of tr"stees. The agbabago gro"p $on the remaining si, positions.[>] -omplainants f"rther alleged that! soon after the $inners too2 their oath of office! )"stice <nting committed the follo$ing $rongf"l acts% a) :"ring the )"ly '! *011 monthly reg"lar meeting of the AssociationQs board of tr"stees and officers! someone introd"ced a resol"tion that a"thori6ed its resident! Fiscal Geoncio :. 4"are6! )r. and Treas"rer! )ose A. Ab"ndo! to transact b"siness $ith its ban2s. )"stice <nting opposed the passage of the resol"tion! ho$e#er! claiming that the ne$ly elected officers and tr"stees had not as yet properly ass"med their offices in #ie$ of the re."ired ?0Aday t"rnAo#er transition from the o"tgoing officers pro#ided in 4ection ?! 8"le 11 of the <mplementing 8"les and 8eg"lations (<88) of 8ep"blic Act ''0/ (8.A. ''0/)[/] altho"gh these r"les did not s"ppose to ta2e effect yet.[&] b) )"stice <nting 1oined some members of the association in filing complaints of gra#e ab"se of a"thority! among others! against its ne$ly elected officers before! the @o"sing and Gand Kse 8eg"latory Board (@GK8B)[?] $here her impartiality might reasonably be ."estioned sho"ld the case reach the -A $here she $or2ed.[(] c) )"stice <nting and other tr"stees of the Association prodded 9#angeline Bersabe! its acco"ntant! to disobey the residentQs order for her to s"rrender the association doc"ments and 2eys in her possession.[=]

d) )"stice <nting and others in the Board of Tr"stees s"pposedly passed 8esol"tion *011A*1! entitledStren"thenin" the -nternal ontrol and Disbursement Policies of the (ssociation!['] $hen s"ch matter did not appear in the A"g"st *(! *0 K special meeting agenda or in its min"tes. Nobody proposed s"ch a resol"tion and the board did not deliberate or #ote on it. 4ince only )"stice <nting $as the only la$yer in the gro"p! complainants concl"de that she prepared that resol"tion and manip"lated her s"pporters in the board. e) )"stice <nting "sed her title as 1"stice of the -A to 1"stify the s"pposed board action.[10] 3hen her gro"p displayed tarpa"lins anno"ncing the implementation of the challenged board resol"tion! the AssociationQs sec"rity personnel remo#ed and sei6ed the tarpa"lins. 8eacting to this! )"stice <nting $ent to the AssociationQs office and! standing on the middle of the street! ."estioned $hat the sec"rity personnel did. -omplainants alleged that she arrogantly said on that occasion that she $as a -A )"stice! con#eying the message that her action $as proper and cannot be ."estioned.[11] f) )"stice <nting and her cohorts "s"rped the general and management po$ers of the AssociationQs resident to reassign or resh"ffle its employees to other positions or to perform other d"ties and responsibilities. [1*] g) 4he #iolated 8"le &.01 (d)[1>] and 8"le &.10[1/] of -anon & of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct $hen she 1oined the political party of her gro"p and contrib"ted to its party f"nds. -omplainants point o"t that the elections for the board of tr"stees and officers of the Association had become so politici6ed that she! as a -A )"stice! o"ght not to ha#e ta2en part in them since they detracted from the dignity of that co"rt.[1&] <n her :ecember *! *011 comment![1?] )"stice <nting assails the complaint as moti#ated by ill $ill! malice! and a desire to pre#ent her from f"lfilling her d"ties as member of the AssociationQs board of tr"stees.[1(] <t $as "na#oidable! she says! that she and the others in the board had to instit"te their action against complainants e#en if there $as a chance that the matter co"ld go "p to the -A $here she $or2ed. B"t! since she $as in#ol#ed in the case in her personal capacity as a tr"stee of the Association! she simply $o"ld ha#e to inhibit herself #ol"ntarily if s"ch matter be assigned to her :i#ision.[1=] )"stice <nting claims that the action they filed $ith the @GK8B $as not altogether gro"ndless since the @GK8B e#en granted their application for a cease and desist order against complainantsQ gro"p.[1'] 4he re1ects as baseless the charge that the AssociationQs elections parta2e of political acti#ities. And! altho"gh she $as acti#e in the affairs of the Association! she e,celled in her $or2 as )"stice of the -A as borne by its records.[*0] <n their reply of )an"ary 10! *010![*1] complainants contend that )"stice <nting appeared before the @GK8B in her personal capacity since she had not been personally aggrie#ed by complainantsQ action nor had they #iolated her rights.[**] They claim that the @GK8B cease and desist order appeared ."estionable! gi#en a report that it $as iss"ed beca"se )"stice <nting "sed her infl"ence as a )"stice of the appellate co"rt and beca"se her schoolmates at that agency helped her.[*>]

The iss"e before the -o"rt is $hether or not there is s"fficient basis to $arrant f"rther administrati#e in#estigation of the complaint against )"stice <nting. @ere! the main thr"st of the complaint against )"stice <nting is that! as )"stice of the -A! she sho"ld ha#e desisted from 1oining the elections for the officers and members of the Board of Tr"stees of her homeo$ners association and gotten embroiled in the iss"es that animated the t$o gro"ps $hich shared the po$ers of the association! th"s getting dra$n into a bitter litigation. B"t 1oining the 1"diciary does not mean that a 1"dge sho"ld li#e the life of a hermit. The -ode of )"dicial 9thics does not bar him from 1oining associations or instit"tions that promote the common good. To be s"re! no social or moral considerations pre#ent him from ta2ing acti#e part in organi6ations that aim to promote the $elfare of his family or comm"nity! li2e a homeo$ners association. erchance! serio"s iss"es co"ld de#elop e#en $ithin socially desirable organi6ations b"t it cannot be on acco"nt of s"ch a ris2 that the 1"dge sho"ld stay off from all forms of h"man associations. @e does not! by becoming a 1"dge! cease to be a h"man being cast off from the society of men. 4"ch society is his nat"ral habitat. <t is membership in ."estionable organi6ations or acti#ely engaging in the operation of b"siness organi6ations $hile ser#ing as 1"dge that he is en1oined to a#oid.[*/] As a tr"stee of her #illageQs homeo$ners association! )"stice <nting has the right to stand her gro"nd on any legitimate iss"e that might arise in the co"rse of the discharge of her d"ties. 4he co"ld of co"rse be $rong on those iss"es b"t it is not for this that she can be s"b1ected to administrati#e action. None of those iss"es are related to her $or2 as )"stice of the -A. 9ssentially! complainants $ant the -o"rt to resol#e by their present action some of the #ery iss"es that they raise against her in the @GK8B case. B"t this is not a f"nction of this administrati#e case. ;nly $hen she p"rposely "ses her position as )"stice of the -A to get an ad#antage o#er or ca"se pre1"dice to others can she be administrati#ely sanctioned. As it happens! there is no clear allegation in the complaint in this case that establishes this. The allegations abo"t her "sing her 1"dicial ran2 to her ad#antage in the @GK8B case are admittedly spec"lati#e. The closest to her in#o2ing her 1"dicial ran2 $as $hen she stood on the middle of the street to confront the #illage sec"rity personnel $ho remo#ed and sei6ed the posters that the Board of Tr"stees p"t "p to anno"nce the need for the Association to comply $ith its resol"tion en1oining compliance $ith the internal controls and disb"rsement policies that it had enacted. <t is plain that those sec"rity personnel "sed ra$ force to silence the #oice of the Board of Tr"stees e,pressed thro"gh those posters. And! ass"ming that )"stice <nting mentioned the fact that she $as a )"stice of the -A $hen she confronted the sec"rity personnel! she appears to ha#e done so spontaneo"sly to sho$ that she 2ne$ $hat she $as tal2ing abo"t or to disco"rage those sec"rity personnel from "sing physical force against her that they seemed ."ite capable of.

3hile it is the -o"rtQs d"ty to in#estigate e#ery allegation of $rongAdoing against 1"dges and other co"rt personnel! it is also its d"ty to protect them from fri#olo"s charges.[*&]crala$ W)ERE*ORE! the -o"rt D.S-.SSES the present administrati#e complaint against )"stice 4ocorro B. <nting of the -o"rt of Appeals for $ant of s"bstance. SO ORDERED.O

T;B<A4 54. G<+4<A-; This administrati#e case stemmed from the complaint filed by complainant Florenda 5. Tobias against respondent )"dge +an"el M. Gimsiaco! )r.! (+-T-) of residing )"dge of the Fo"rth +"nicipal -irc"it Trial -o"rt 5alladolidA4an 9nri."eA "l"pandan! Negros

;ccidental. -omplainant charged respondent $ith corr"ption for allegedly offering Cpac2age dealsD to litigants $ho plan to file cases in his co"rt.

<n her #erified -omplaint[1] dated )"ne ?! *00(! complainant alleged that respondent )"dge Gimsiaco! )r. offers Cpac2age dealsD for cases filed in the co"rt $here he presides. 4he stated that sometime in )"ne *00?! she re."ested her sister! Gorna 5. 5ollmer! to in."ire from the Fo"rth +-T- of 5alladolidA4an 9nri."eA "l"pandan! Negros ;ccidental abo"t the re."irements needed in filing an e1ectment case. -o"rt 4tenographer 4al#acion Fegidero [*] allegedly proposed to 5ollmer that for the s"m of >0!000.00! respondent $o"ld pro#ide the la$yer! prepare the necessary pleadings! and ens"re a fa#orable decision in the e1ectment case $hich they contemplated to file against the spo"ses 8aym"ndo and Francisca Batalla. Fegidero allegedly re."ired them to pay the initial amo"nt of 10!000.00 and the remaining balance $o"ld be paid in the co"rse of the proceedings. <t $as made clear that they $o"ld not get any 1"dicial relief from their s."atter problem "nless they accepted the pac2age deal.

F"rther! complainant alleged that on )"ne *>! *00?! Gorna 5ollmer! accompanied by 4al#acion Fegidero! deli#ered the amo"nt of 10!000.00 to respondent at his residence. 4"bse."ently! an e1ectment case $as filed in respondent7s co"rt! entitled Reynold 5. Tobias! represented by his (ttorney#in6fact &orna 5. 5ollmer v. Spouses Raymundo 2atalla and ;rancisca 2atalla! doc2eted as -i#il -ase No. 0?A00(A5.
[>]

8espondent

also

attached

to

his

-omment

the

Affida#it['] dated 4eptember *'! *00( of -o"rt 4tenographer 4al#acion B. Fegidero! denying the allegation that she offered a Cpac2age dealD to complainant7s sister! Gorna 5ollmer. 4he declared that the allegations of complainant $ere malicio"s and "nfair! and that complainant and her sister co"ld ha#e been misled by some people $ho lost cases in the said co"rt.

8espondent allegedly assigned a certain Atty. 8obert G. )"anillo to

represent the complainant in the e1ectment case. -omplainant stated that respondent! ho$e#er! immediately demanded for an additional payment of 10!000.00. 4he allegedly ref"sed to gi#e the additional amo"nt and earned the ire of respondent. 4he as2ed her sister! Gorna 5ollmer! to re."est Atty. 8obert )"anillo to #ol"ntarily $ithdra$ as co"nsel! [/] $hich he did on April 1?! *00(. -omplainant also as2ed 5ollmer to $ithdra$ the case.[&] 8espondent granted the +otion to 3ithdra$ as -o"nsel on April *>! *00( and the +otion to 3ithdra$ -ase on +ay >! *00(.
[?]

+ean$hile! the

e1ectment case

$as assigned

to

)"dge

@erminigildo 4. ;cta#iano! +"nicipal Trial -o"rt in -ities! Bago -ity! Negros ;ccidental! in #ie$ of respondent7s inhibition on )"ly >0! *00(.[10]

;n Febr"ary *0! *00=! the -o"rt iss"ed a 8esol"tion! [11] $hich noted the 8eport of the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A) on the complaint against respondent. :"e to the conflicting allegations of the parties! the ;-A opined that a formal in#estigation $as necessary to afford

<n his -omment! respondent deno"nced the allegation that he offers Cpac2age dealsD to prospecti#e litigants as malicio"s! baseless and a lie. @e denied that he demanded from complainant the additional payment of 10!000.00. @e alleged that he does not 2no$ complainant and she is a total stranger to him.

[(]

the parties opport"nity to s"bstantiate their respecti#e claims and to determine the alleged participation of of the co"rt ;-A! employee the -o"rt 4al#acion referred

Fegidero. Kpon

recommendation

the complaint to 9,ec"ti#e )"dge Frances 5. G"an6on! 8egional Trial -o"rt! Bago -ity! Negros ;ccidental for in#estigation! report and

recommendation $ithin ?0 days from receipt thereof. 8espondent

[=]

attached

to

his

-omment

the ;n +ay *0! *00=! the parties $ere s"mmoned for a formal in#estigation before <n#estigating )"dge Frances 5. G"an6on. Those $ho appeared before the <n#estigating )"dge $ere complainant Florenda 5. Tobias! respondent )"dge +an"el M. Gimsiaco! )r.! -o"rt 4tenographer 4al#acion Fegidero and respondent7s $itness! Atty. 8obert )"anillo. -omplainant7s $itness! Gorna 5ollmer! did not attend the in#estigation! beca"se per information of complainant! 5ollmer $as inGermany and she $as e,pected to be bac2 in the co"ntry in :ecember *00=.

Affida#it dated 4eptember *'! *00( of Atty. 8obert G. )"anillo! $ho stated therein that he recei#ed as co"nsel of the complainant in the e1ectment case the s"m of 10!000.00 from complainant7s sister! Gorna 5ollmer. From the 10!000.00! he paid filing fees and miscellaneo"s fees in the amo"nt of >!(0(.00! $hile the remaining balance of ?!*'>.00 $as paid to him for

his ser#ices! consisting of the preparation and filing of the complaint for e1ectment! incl"ding acceptance fee.

<n his 8eport dated )"ne *! *00=! <n#estigating )"dge G"an6on stated that complainant testified that it $as her sister! Gorna 5ollmer! $ho informed her abo"t the alleged Cpac2age dealD thro"gh long distance telephone call. -omplainant testified that she met 4al#acion Fegidero only after the filing of the instant administrati#e complaint and that she did not tal2 $ith her e#en once.
[1*]

)"anillo. 8espondent denied that he recei#ed the amo"nt of from 5ollmer.[1=]

10!000.00

F"rther! respondent testified that he met $ith complainant after the e1ectment case $as filed! $hen she $ent to his co"rt and told him that she $as $ithdra$ing the ser#ices of Atty. 8obert )"anillo. 8espondent admitted that he prepared the motion for the $ithdra$al of appearance of Atty. )"anillo! since respondent $anted to help complainant as she said it $as "rgent! b"t respondent did not charge her.[1']

-omplainant f"rther claimed that she had no

personal dealings $ith respondent or $ith 4al#acion Fegidero! and that she met respondent only after the filing of the e1ectment case.
[1>]

+oreo#er!

complainant

testified

that

respondent

neither Atty. 8obert )"anillo testified that he recei#ed the amo"nt of 10!000.00 from Gorna 5ollmer at the +"nicipal -o"rt of 5alladolid! Negros ;ccidental. From the amo"nt! he paid filing fees amo"nting to >!(0(.00 to the -ler2 of -o"rt of the +"nicipal -irc"it -o"rt of 5alladolidA "l"pandan and 4an 9nri."e! $hich payment $as e#idenced by fi#e official receipts. Atty. )"anillo testified that the balance

personally recei#ed from her the initial payment of 10!000.00 for the alleged pac2age deal nor personally as2ed from her for an additional payment of 10!000.00.
[1/]

<t $as her sister! Gorna 5ollmer! $ho told her

thro"gh telephone abo"t the demand for an additional 10!000.00! b"t she (complainant) did not send the money.
[1&]

-omplainant testified that she $as the one $ho $ent to the ho"se of Atty. 8obert )"anillo! bringing $ith her the +otion to 3ithdra$ as -o"nsel prepared by respondent for Atty. )"anillo to sign. [1?]

of ?!*'>.00 $as payment for his legal ser#ices.

-o"rt 4tenographer 4al#acion Fegidero denied that she $as in#ol#ed in the alleged pac2age deal complained of by Florenda

8espondent

and

-o"rt

4tenographer

4al#acion

Fegidero

Tobias. 4he testified that she met Gorna 5ollmer for the first time $hen 5ollmer $ent to the co"rt in 5illadolid and as2ed if there $as a la$yer in 5alladolid! beca"se she $as intending to file an e1ectment s"it. 4he referred 5ollmer to respondent )"dge Gimsiaco! since there $as no la$yer in the +"nicipality of 5alladolid! Negros ;ccidental. The co"rtroom

categorically denied the acc"sation that they had a pac2age deal $ith Gorna 5ollmer. 8espondent testified that he met and tal2ed $ith 5ollmer $hen she $ent to his co"rt to in."ire abo"t the filing of an e1ectment case against the spo"ses 8aym"ndo and Francisca Batalla. 8espondent ad#ised 5ollmer that since there $as no la$yer in 5alladolid! Negros ;ccidental! she had to choose the nearest to$n la$yer as it $o"ld lessen e,penses in transportation and appearance fee! and respondent mentioned the name of Atty. 8obert )"anillo.[1(] +oreo#er! respondent testified that 5ollmer! together $ith her h"sband and 4al#acion Fegidero! $ent to his ho"se once to as2 him for the direction to the ho"se of Atty. 8obert

of5alladolid! Negros ;ccidental consists only of one room $here e#erybody holds office! incl"ding respondent. 4he sa$ respondent tal2 $ith 5ollmer for 1& min"tes! b"t she did not hear $hat they $ere tal2ing abo"t.[*0] <n#estigating )"dge G"an6on fo"nd that the complainant did not ha#e personal 2no$ledge of the alleged Cpac2age dealsD to litigants $ho file cases in the co"rt of respondent. The allegations in the -omplaint $ere all based on the information relayed to complainant tho"gh telephone by her

sister! Gorna 5ollmer. :"ring the in#estigation! complainant admitted that respondent did not personally recei#e from her the amo"nt of 10!000.00

The ;-A fo"nd respondent7s acts! consisting of (1) ad#ising Gorna 5ollmer abo"t the e1ectment case she $as abo"t to file before his co"rtB (*) recommending Atty. 8obert )"anillo as co"nsel of the complainant in the e1ectment caseB and (>) helping complainant to prepare the +otion to 3ithdra$ as -o"nsel! to be #iolati#e of the r"les on integrity! [*1] impartiality!

as payment for the alleged pac2age deal! and respondent did not as2 from her an additional 10!000.00.

According to <n#estigating )"dge G"an6on! the only person $ho co"ld ha#e shed light on the alleged offer of pac2age deals to litigants $as Gorna 5ollmer! complainant7s sister. Knfort"nately! 5ollmer $as not present d"ring the in#estigation. er manifestation of complainant! 5ollmer $as then in Germany and she $as e,pected to ret"rn to the hilippines in :ecember

[**]

and propriety[*>] contained in the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct for the

hilippine )"diciary. The ;-A recommended that the case be reAdoc2eted as a reg"lar administrati#e matter and that respondent be fo"nd g"ilty of gross miscond"ct constit"ting #iolations of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct and be fined in the amo"nt of *0!000.00.

*00=. @ence! the complaint of corr"ption $as "ns"bstantiated. <n a 8esol"tion dated Febr"ary *&! *00'! the -o"rt re."ired the Ne#ertheless! <n#estigating )"dge G"an6on stated that altho"gh the alleged offer of pac2age deals by respondent to litigants $as "ns"bstantiated! it $as improper for respondent to tal2 to prospecti#e litigants in his co"rt and to recommend la$yers to handle cases. Gi2e$ise! )"dge G"an6on fo"nd respondent7s act of preparing the +otion to 3ithdra$ as -o"nsel of Atty. 8obert )"anillo to be improper and "nethical. ;n A"g"st 1=! *010! the -o"rt iss"ed a 8esol"tion resol#ing to inform the parties that they are deemed to ha#e s"bmitted the case for resol"tion on the basis of the pleadingsJrecords already filed and s"bmitted! <n#estigating )"dge G"an6on recommended the dismissal of the administrati#e complaint against respondent as regards the alleged offer of pac2age deals to litigants $ho plan to file cases in his co"rt. @o$e#er! )"dge G"an6on recommended that respondent be reprimanded for tal2ing to a prospecti#e litigant in his co"rt! recommending the co"nsel to handle the case! and preparing the +otion to 3ithdra$ as -o"nsel of Atty. 8obert )"anillo! $hich pleading $as filed in respondent7s co"rt and $as acted "pon by him. <n a 8esol"tion dated A"g"st /! *00=! the -o"rt referred the 8eport of <n#estigating )"dge G"an6on to the ;-A for e#al"ation! report and recommendation $ithin >0 days from notice. @o$e#er! the in#estigation re#ealed that respondent committed acts "nbecoming of a 1"dge! in partic"lar! tal2ing to a prospecti#e litigant in his co"rt! recommending a la$yer to the litigant! and preparing the +otion to 3ithdra$ as -o"nsel of Atty. 8obert )"anillo! $hich pleading $as filed in his The -o"rt agrees $ith the findings of <n#estigating )"dge G"an6on that complainant failed to pro#e by s"bstantial e#idence her allegation that respondent offers Cpac2age dealsD to prospecti#e litigants in his co"rt. considering that they ha#e not s"bmitted their respecti#e manifestations re."ired in the 8esol"tion dated Febr"ary *&! *00'! despite receipt thereof on April 1! *010. parties to manifest $hether they $ere $illing to s"bmit the case for decision! on the basis of the pleadingsJrecords already filed and s"bmitted! $ithin 10 days from notice.

co"rt and $as acted "pon by him. The cond"ct of a 1"dge sho"ld be beyond reproach and reflecti#e of the integrity of his office. <ndeed! as stated by the ;-A! the said acts of respondent #iolate 4ection 1 of -anon * (<ntegrity)! 4ection * of -anon > (<mpartiality)! and 4ection 1 of -anon / ( ropriety) of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct for the hilippine )"diciary!
[*/]

The

aforementioned

acts

of

respondent

constit"te

gross

miscond"ct. C+iscond"ctD means a transgression of some established and definite r"le of action! $illf"l in character! improper or $rong beha#ior.
[*&]

CGrossD has been defined as Co"t of all meas"re! beyond allo$anceB

th"s% (3C3 7 <NT9G8<TL <ntegrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the 1"dicial office b"t also to the personal demeanor of 1"dges. 49-T<;N 1. )"dges shall ens"re that not only is their cond"ct abo#e reproach! b"t that it is percei#ed to be so in the #ie$ of a reasonable obser#er. ,,,, (3C3 9 <+ A8T<AG<TL <mpartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the 1"dicial office. <t applies not only to the decision itself b"t also to the process by $hich the decision is made. ,,,, 49-. *. )"dges shall ens"re that his or her cond"ct! both in and o"t of co"rt! maintains and enhances the confidence of the p"blic! the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the 1"dge and of the 1"diciary. (3C3 D

flagrantB shamef"lB s"ch cond"ct as is not to be e,c"sed.D [*?] 8espondent7s act of preparing the +otion to 3ithdra$ the Appearance of Atty. )"anillo as co"nsel of complainant is ine,c"sable. <n so doing! respondent e,hibited improper cond"ct that tarnished the integrity and impartiality of his co"rt! considering that the said motion $as filed in his o$n sala and $as acted "pon by him.

Gross miscond"ct constit"ting #iolations of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct is a serio"s charge "nder 4ection =! 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt.[*(] Knder 4ection 11! 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt! the sanctions against a respondent g"ilty of a serio"s charge may be any of the follo$ing% 1. :ismissal from the ser#ice! forfeit"re of all or part of the benefits as the -o"rt may determine! and dis."alification from reinstatement or appointment to any p"blic office! incl"ding go#ernmentAo$ned or controlled corporationsB Provided! however! That the forfeit"re of benefits shall in no case incl"de accr"ed lea#e creditsB

*. 8; 8<9TL ropriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the acti#ities of a 1"dge. 49-T<;N 1. )"dges shall a#oid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their acti#ities. 49-. *. As a s"b1ect of constant p"blic scr"tiny! 1"dges m"st accept personal restrictions that might be #ie$ed as b"rdensome by the ordinary citi6en and sho"ld do so freely and $illingly. <n partic"lar! 1"dges shall cond"ct themsel#es in a $ay that is consistent $ith the dignity of the 1"dicial office.

4"spension from office $itho"t salary and other benefits for more than three (>) b"t not e,ceeding si, (?) monthsB or A fine of more than *0!000.00 e,ceeding /0!000.00. b"t not

>.

<n imposing the proper sanction against respondent! the -o"rt ta2es note that respondent had been fo"nd g"ilty of gra#e miscond"ct in A.+. No. +T)A0>A1&0'[*=] and $as fined *0!000.00! $ith a $arning against

repetition of the same or similar act. +oreo#er! per #erification from co"rt records! respondent comp"lsorily retired from the ser#ice on +ay 1(! *00'. The +etropolitan Ban2 and Tr"st -ompany ( Metroban=) $as the mortgagee in good faith and for #al"e of t$entyAthree (*>) parcels of land all W)ERE*ORE! respondent )"dge +an"el M. Gimsiaco! )r.! former residing )"dge of the Fo"rth +"nicipal -irc"it Trial -o"rt of 9nri."eA "l"pandan! Negros ;ccidental! is +etroban2 foreclosed the mortgage for #iolation of the terms and conditions of the mortgage agreement. At the p"blic a"ction on A"g"st >1! 1''=! the mortgaged parcels of land $ere sold to +etroban2 as the highest bidder. +etroban2 $as iss"ed a certificate of sale $hich $as registered on 4eptember 1=! 1''= $ith the 8egister of :eeds of 4o"th -otabato. The No costs. SO ORDERED. 4L #s :<N; ;G PER C R!"#: Thereafter! 4ps. 5ictoriano and Goreta 4y! and 4printer G"mber! @ard$are and A"to arts! <nc. filed $ith the 8T-! Branch */! Xoronadal mortgagors failed to redeem the *> parcels of land $ithin the redemption period. located in Xoronadal -ity. The mortgagors $ere +ar#ella 4printer G"mber! @ard$are and A"to la6a @otel!

arts! <nc. andJor 4ps. 5ictoriano 4y

and Goreta -abaiesA4y andJor 4ps. 5icente and Antonia +andanas.

5alladolidA4an

fo"nd /U.LTY of gross miscond"ct for $hich he is *.NED in the amo"nt of T$entyAfi#e Tho"sand esos ( *&!000.00). The ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator is D.RE'TED to ded"ct the fine of *&!000.00 from the retirement benefits d"e to )"dge Gimsiaco! )r.

-ity! presided o#er by )"dge :inopol! a complaint against +etroban2 for (nnulment andEor Declaration of 3ullity of Real :state Mort"a"e! :0tra1udicial ;oreclosure Proceedin"s and ertificate of Sale! with

3e resol#e in this :ecision the 5erified -omplaint! dated +arch 11! *00=![1] filed by 5ictoriano 4y against )"dge ;scar 9. :inopol of the 8egional Trial -o"rt (RT )! Branch */! Xoronadal -ity! 4o"th -otabato! for -ond"ct Knbecoming a +ember of the )"diciary and for Gross <gnorance of the Ga$! in relation to -i#il -ase No. 1/0>A*/! entitled Sps. 5ictoriano Sy and &oreta Sy v. Metroban=! for (nnulment andEor Declaration of 3ullity of Real :state Mort"a"e! and +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/! entitled Metroban= v. Sps. 5ictoriano Sy! et al.! for -ssuance of a Frit of Possession.

Dama"es and (ttorneyGs ;ees and with prayer for the -ssuance of a Temporary Restrainin" Crder HTRCI and Preliminary -n1unction ! doc2eted as -i#il -ase No. 1/0>A*/.

Cn (pril +J! 788D! 'ud"e Dinopol inhibited himself from further actin" on the case9:; on the "round that he received a call! on (pril +7! 788D! from a ran=in" officer of the Philippine 'udicial (cademy! intercedin" in behalf of the defendant ban= and an earlier call H'uly 7889I from a ran=in" personnel of the C (! appealin" in behalf of the plaintiffs. /e claimed he wanted to avoid bein" char"ed with partiality either way he acted on the case.

The Ante9e6ents *a9ts ;n 4eptember 1&! *00&! +etroban2 filed $ith the 8T-! 4o"th The facts are set o"t in the memorand"mJreport! dated +ay *&! *00'!
[*]

-otabato! a Petition for the -ssuance of a Frit of Possession o#er the parcels of land s"b1ect of the foreclosed mortgage against +ar#ella @otel! 4printer G"mber! @ard$are and A"to la6a

of the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator ( C ()! and are s"mmari6ed

belo$.

arts! <nc.! andJor 4ps.

5ictoriano and Goreta 4y! andJor 4ps. 5icente and Antonia +andanas! doc2eted as +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/! [/] and assigned to the 8T-! Branch */! Xoronadal -ity! presided by )"dge :inopol. 4y alleged in his complaint that $hile -i#il -ase No. 1/0>A*/ (in $hich he and his $ife so"ght the declaration of n"llity of the foreclos"re proceedings against +etroban2) $as pending before )"dge :inopol7s sala! ;n )"ly 1>! *00?! )"dge :inopol iss"ed an ;rder granting the petition! and iss"ed the $rit of possession on )"ly *1! *00?.
[&] [?]

the 1"dge inhibited himself from acting on the case. This not$ithstanding! and to 4y7s s"rprise! )"dge :inopol still handled +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/! a petition for the iss"ance of a $rit of possession filed by +etroban2! a matter

+ean$hile! or on +ay **! *00?! 4printer G"mber! @ard$are and A"to arts! <nc. filed $ith the 8T-! Branch =! +ara$i -ity! a petition!

closely intert$ined $ith -i#il -ase No. 1/0>A*/. )"dge :inopol then iss"ed an order granting +etroban2 the right to possess the foreclosed properties.
[1*]

entitled -n the Matter of) Petition for the Declaration of State of Suspension of Payments with (pproval of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan ! doc2eted as -orp. -ase No. 1&=&A0?.[(]

4y f"rther alleged that despite the iss"ance by the 8T-! Branch =! +ara$i -ity! of a stay order[1>] and the appro#al of the rehabilitation plan!

;n )"ne *?! *00?! the 8T-! Branch =! +ara$i -ity! iss"ed an ;rder[=] staying the enforcement of all claims against the debtor! its g"arantors and s"reties not solidarily liable $ith the debtor. The same co"rt s"bse."ently appro#ed the rehabilitation plan.

as $ell as the pendency of +etroban27s petition before the -o"rt of Appeals ( () T$entyAThird :i#ision in -agayan :e ;ro -ity (-A G.8. 4 No.

01=*/) assailing the #alidity of the stay order! )"dge :inopol ordered that the $rit of possession be implemented.[1/]

<n the meantime! 4heriff -onrado B. :ap"lang! )r. proceeded to implement the $rit of possession iss"ed by )"dge :inopol! b"t it $as ret"rned "nsatisfied in #ie$ of the stay order iss"ed by the 8T-! Branch =! +ara$i -ity! in -orp. -ase No. 1&=&A0?.
[']

Conduct n/ecomin0 of a Jud0e

4y claimed in relation $ith his charge that $hile -i#il -ase No. 1/0>A*/ $as pending in )"dge :inopol7s sala! the 1ud"e as=ed him for commodity loans in the form of construction materials to be "sed in the

-onse."ently! the respondents in +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/ filed a +otion to 4"spend roceedings d"e to the iss"ance of the stay order and

constr"ction of the 1"dge7s ho"se. The transaction $as e#idenced by deli#ery receipt no. 1&1(= (+arch =! *00&)![1&]and charge in#oices no. '=1( (+arch =! *00&) for 1?!000.00![1?] no. '=*? (+arch '! *00&) for =&0.00!
[1(]

the appro#al of the rehabilitation plan by the 8ehabilitation -o"rt! and a motion for inhibition on gro"nds of bias and partiality on the part of )"dge :inopol. )"dge :inopol denied the motions in an ;rder dated Febr"ary 11! *00=! and directed :ep"ty 4heriff 8icardo G. $rit of e,ec"tion of )"ly >1! *00?.
[10]

and no. '=>= (+arch 10! *00&) for (=0.00.[1=]

"blico to reAimplement the

4y f"rther claimed that aside from the commodity loans! 'ud"e Dinopol obtained cash loans from him on #ario"s occasions bet$een :ecember *! *00& to )"ly 1/! *00?! in the total amo"nt of 1*1!000.00! and

4hortly
[11]

thereafter!

4y

filed

the

present

administrati#e

)"dge :inopol borro$ed from him his 4"6"2i +"ltiAcab and ret"rned it after the 1"dge $as s"spended in 4eptember *00(. 4y presented disb"rsement #o"chers! official receipts and an ac2no$ledgement to pro#e his claim.[1']

complaint charging )"dge :inopol of gross ignorance of the la$ and cond"ct "nbecoming a member of the 1"diciary.

$ross !0norance of the <aw

1u6#e Dino;o$>s 'omment

<n a 8esol"tion dated )"ly 1&! *00'! the -o"rt resol#ed to% (1) note 4y7s complaint and )"dge :inopol7s ans$erJcommentB (*) reAdoc2et

<n a 1st indorsement dated +arch 1=! *00=![*0] the ;-A re."ired )"dge :inopol to comment on the complaint! $hich he did on April *1! *00=.
[*1]

the complaint as a reg"lar administrati#e matterB and (>) re."ire the parties to manifest $hether they $ere $illing to s"bmit the matter for resol"tion on the basis of the pleadings. The -o"rt also noted the ;-A 8eport dated +ay *&! *00'![**] $hich fo"nd no basis for the charge of ignorance of the la$

)"dge :inopol denied 4y7s acc"sations. @e stressed that he inhibited himself from -i#il -ase No. 1/0>A*/ on April 1?! *00/ and had not acted on the case since thenB nobody inter#ened and pleaded in behalf of +etroban2 after +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/ $as filed. @e $as not a$are nor had he been gi#en notice that +etroban2 filed a petition before the -A (-A G.8. 4 No. 01=*/)! nor did he recei#e any order from the appellate

on the part of )"dge :inopol! b"t fo"nd him liable for cond"ct "nbecoming a 1"dge.

The 'ourt>s Ru$in#

The ;-A e#al"ation is $ellAfo"nded. )"dge :inopol cannot be disciplined for ignorance of the la$ and of proced"re in his handling of -i#il -ase No. 1/0>A*/ (for (nnulment andEor Declaration of 3ullity of Real :state Mort"a"e) filed by 4ps. 5ictoriano and Goreta 4y against +etroban2!

trib"nal en1oining him to desist from performing or acting on the incidents pending in +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/.

)"dge :inopol denied that he committed any breach of proced"ral r"les that co"ld be characteri6ed as gross ignorance of the basic r"les of ci#il proced"res. @e maintained that 4y did not allege any specific act"ations of deceit! malice or intent to ca"se in1"ry to 4y! and that he had acted fairly and ob1ecti#ely. @e added that he obser#ed the re."irements of the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility as a la$yer! relati#e to his handling of +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/.

as he inhibited himself from the case! nor in his handling of +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/ (Petition for the -ssuance of a Frit of Possession ) filed by +etroban2 against 4ps. 5ictoriano 4y! et al.! beca"se of the essential nat"re of the proceeding itself.

<n iss"ing the $rit of possession and in directing its reA implementation $hen it $as ret"rned "nsatisfied the first time it $as enforced! )"dge :inopol acted in accordance $ith the r"les and

3ith respect to the alleged accommodations he recei#ed from 4y at the time his ho"se $as "nder constr"ction! )"dge :inopol claimed that $hen he obtained the commodity loans from 4y in +arch *00&! he had already inhibited himself from handling -i#il -ase No. 1/0>A*/B he did so on April 1?! *00/. @e e,plained that +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/ $as filed only on 4eptember 1&! *00&! and $as assigned to his sala on 4eptember **! *00&. @e denied that he recei#ed from 4y cash loans in the amo"nt of 1*1!000.00. @e also denied borro$ing 4y7s 4"6"2i +"ltiAcab and claimed that it $as 8ogelio 5illan"e#a $ho borro$ed it. )"dge :inopol co"ntered that it $as 4y $ho acted $ith sinister design and employed deceit and c"nning to fr"strate the administration of 1"stice in the cases he handled.

1"rispr"dence on the matter.

As the -o"rt held in Santia"o v. Merchants Rural 2an= of Talavera! -nc.![*>] the proceeding in a petition for the iss"ance of a $rit of possession is e06parteand s"mmary in nat"re. <t is bro"ght for the benefit of one party only and may be granted e#en $itho"t notice to the mortgagor! in this case! complainant 4y. +oreo#er! the d"ty of the co"rt to grant a $rit of possession is a ministerial f"nction. The co"rt does not e,ercise its official discretion or 1"dgment.[*/] )"dge :inopol! before $hom the petition for the iss"ance of a $rit of possession $as filed! had no discretion on $hether to iss"e the $rit of possession or not. <t cannot be said! therefore! that )"dge :inopol e,posed himself or e,hibited bias in fa#or of +etroban2 $hen he iss"ed the $rit of possession.

$rote 4y! on +arch /! *00&! regarding the p"rchase of materials for his F"rther! regardless of $hether there is a pending s"it for the ann"lment of the mortgage or the foreclos"re itself! the p"rchaser is entitled to a $rit of possession! $itho"t pre1"dice of co"rse to the e#ent"al o"tcome of the ann"lment case. ;nce the $rit of possession is iss"ed! the trial co"rt has no alternati#e b"t to enforce the $rit $itho"t delay.
[*&]

ho"se $hich $as then "nder constr"ction! altho"gh he claimed that it $as his $ife $ho transacted $ith 4y and it $as 4y himself $ho offered to deli#er the materials to his residence.[>1] )"dge :inopol pleaded innocence regarding the commodity loans or e#en the cash loans saying that the transaction $ith 4y regarding the constr"ction materials occ"rred $hen there $as no case pending in his sala $here 4y $as a party.

From another perspecti#e! a stay order only affects claims filed against the assets and properties belonging to a debtor. roperties that The abo#e disclaimer not$ithstanding! $e find )"dge :inopol to ha#e committed a serio"s impropriety in his or his family7s financial or b"siness dealings $ith 4y.

ha#e already been foreclosed! and those $hose titles ha#e already passed on to the $inning bidder are no longer considered properties of the debtor.
[*?]

<n s"ch case! it is a ministerial d"ty on the part of the trial co"rt to grant a -anon > of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct in relation to a 1"dge7s impartiality pro#ides! inter alia! as follo$s% -learly! )"dge :inopol $as $ell $ithin his a"thority and 4ec. *. H )"dges shall ens"re that his or her cond"ct! both in and o"t of co"rt! maintains and enhances the confidence of the p"blic! the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the 1"dge and the 1"diciary. 4ec. >. H )"dges shall! so far as is reasonable! so cond"ct themsel#es as to minimi6e the occasions on $hich it $ill be necessary for them to be dis."alified from hearing or deciding cases.

possessory $rit o#er the foreclosed properties.[*(]

committed no impropriety in directing the reAimplementation of the $rit of e,ec"tion in +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/.

;n the other hand! $e cannot say the same thing $ith regard to 4y7s charge of conduct unbecomin" against )"dge :inopol. The latter7s denial of ha#ing committed the acts complained of flies in the face of indications in the records and doc"mentary e#idence that he obtained commodity loans from 4y in the form of b"ilding materials for the constr"ction of his ho"se in Xoronadal -ity. There $as also 4y7s claim of cash loans to )"dge :inopol on #ario"s occasions! bet$een :ecember *! *00& and )"ly 1/! *00?! amo"nting to 1*1!000.00! as $ell as the loan of 4y7s 4"6"2i +"ltiAcab to the )"dge.

)"dge :inopol #iolated the abo#e pro#isions $hen he recei#ed accommodations from 4y for the b"ilding materials he needed for the constr"ction of his ho"se. @e compromised his position as a

1"dge. Altho"gh at the time he and his family had b"siness dealings $ith 4y there $as no pending case in#ol#ing the b"sinessman! he sho"ld ha#e been more circ"mspect in sec"ring the constr"ction materials. The sphere

The commodity loans $ere e#idenced by receipts [*=] indicating deli#ery of constr"ction materials to )"dge :inopol7s residence. The cash loans appear to ha#e been co#ered by disb"rsement #o"chers! [*'] and the borro$ed m"lticab is the s"b1ect of an Cac2no$ledgementD [>0] from )"dge :inopol7s dri#er 8ogelio 5illan"e#a.

of 4y7s b"siness operations $as $ithin his territorial 1"risdiction. As the ;-A aptly noted! Cit is neither impossible nor remote that a case might be filed in his co"rt $ith complainant as a party. <n s"ch a case! his (respondent) b"siness and financial dealings $ith complainant $o"ld create a do"bt abo"t his fairness and impartiality in deciding the case and $o"ld tend to corrode the respect and dignity of the co"rt.D [>*]

There is s"bstantial e#idence sho$ing that )"dge :inopol obtained the commodity loans from 4y. The 1"dge himself admitted that he

<n addition! $e find that )"dge :inopol also #iolated 4ection 1 of -anon 1! -anon * and -anon / of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct.

actions no do"bt created the inference that at some point! he acceded to 4y7s re."ests to delay the proceedings. This concl"sion! is in fact! bolstered by )"dge :inopol7s 2no$ledge that the co"nsel for +etroban2 $as

4ection 1 of -anon 1 highlights the independence of a 1"dge in performing his official d"ties! th"s% 49-. 1. )"dges shall e,ercise the 1"dicial f"nction independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance $ith a conscientio"s "nderstanding of the la$! free of any e,traneo"s infl"ence! ind"cement! press"re! threat or interference! direct or indirect! from any ."arter or for any reason.

instr"cted to immediately sec"re the order for the iss"ance of the $rit of possession.[>&] 8egardless of the representations allegedly made to him by 4y! )"dge :inopol sho"ld ha#e immediately iss"ed the $rit of possession in +etroban27s fa#or.

From these inappropriate actions! $e find that )"dge :inopol compromised not only his impartiality in handling +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/ b"t also his independence and integrity as a 1"dge. @is actions no do"bt

-anon * re."ires a 1"dge to promote integrity in the discharge of his official f"nctions% <ntegrity is essential not only in the proper discharge of the 1"dicial office b"t also to the personal demeanor of 1"dges. 49-. 1. )"dges shall ens"re that not only is their cond"ct abo#e reproach! b"t that it is percei#ed to be so in #ie$ of a reasonable obser#er. 49-. *. The beha#ior and cond"ct of 1"dges m"st reaffirm the people7s faith in the integrity of the 1"diciary. )"stice m"st not merely be done b"t m"st also be seen to be done.

diminished p"blic confidence and p"blic tr"st in him as a 1"dge. @is actions ga#e the p"blic the impression and the appearance that he can be infl"enced by e,traneo"s factors A other than the legal arg"ments and the co"rt e#idence H in discharging his 1"dicial f"nctions.

<n addition! $e find that )"dge :inopol committed impropriety in tal2ing $ith litigants o"tside co"rt proceedings. @is improper cond"ct $as f"rther aggra#ated by the fact that these con#ersations too2 place in the absence of the opposing litigants andJor the opposing co"nsel. <n ("ustin v. Mercado![>?] $e declared thatemployees of the or their co"rt ha#e no "nder any

b"siness meeting +oreo#er! -anon / mandates a 1"dge to obser#e and maintain proper decor"m and its appearance in his p"blic office% ropriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the acti#ities of a 1"dge. 49-. 1. )"dges shall a#oid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their acti#ities.

$ith

litigants

representati#es

circ"mstance. <n Re) (ffidavit of ;ran=ie 3.

alabines ![>(] the -o"rt minced

no $ords in e,plaining that s"ch "nethical cond"ct constit"tes Ca bra6en and o"trageo"s betrayal of p"blic tr"st.D[>=] The -o"rt f"rther declared in the said case% , , , The -o"rt cannot o#eremphasi6e the need for honesty and integrity on the part of all those $ho are in the ser#ice of the 1"diciary. , , , The image of a co"rt as a bastion of 1"stice depends to a large e,tent on the personal and official cond"ct of its employees. Th"s! from the 1"dge to the lo$est cler2! 1"dicial personnel ha#e the sacred d"ty to maintain the good name of the )"diciary. All employees in the 1"diciary sho"ld be e,amples of responsibility! competence and efficiency. As officers of the co"rt and agents of the la$! they m"st discharge their d"ties $ith d"e care and

By his o$n admissions! )"dge :inopol failed to obser#e these ethical standards. <n his Ans$erJ-omment! )"dge :inopol admitted that he tal2ed $ith 4y on se#eral occasions to disc"ss +isc. -ase No. 1//0A*/.
[>>]

)"dge :inopol also admitted that 4y! in at least t$o instances! re."ested

him to delay the resol"tion of the $rit of possession.[>/] )"dge :inopol7s

"tmost diligence. Any cond"ct they e,hibit tending to diminish the faith of the people in the 1"diciary $ill not be condoned.[>']

p"rs"ing the complaint against the 1"dge for gross ignorance of the la$! gra#e ab"se of a"thority and discretion.[/?]

-ertainly! these responsibilities become more e,acting $hen one occ"pies the position of a 1"dge. Time and again! $e ha#e emphasi6ed that 1"dges are e,pected to cond"ct themsel#es in a manner that $o"ld enhance respect and confidence of the people in the 1"dicial system. Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct for the
[/0]

(nd more recently! in A.+. No. 8T)A0(A*0&* decided on +arch >0! *00'! )"dge :inopol had been reminded and $arned against entertaining litigants o"tside co"rt premises.[/(]

The 4ection =! 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt classifies gross miscond"ct constit"ting a #iolation of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct as a serio"s charge. Knder 4ection 11 of the same 8"le! the respondent fo"nd g"ilty of a serio"s charge may be meted any of the follo$ing sanctions%

hilippine )"diciary mandates that

1"dges m"st not only maintain their independence! integrity and impartialityB they m"st also a#oid any appearance of impropriety or partiality! $hich may erode the people7s faith in the )"diciary. [/1] These stan6ar6s a;;$7 not on$7 to the 6e9ision itse$f, =ut a$so to the ;ro9ess =7 5hi9h the 6e9ision is ma6e.[/*]

1. :ismissal from the ser#ice! forfeit"re of all or part of the benefits as the -o"rt may determine! and dis."alification from

3itho"t a do"bt! )"dge :inopol is liable for gross miscond"ct in office and deser#es to be sanctioned "nder the abo#e findings. @is trac2 record as a 1"dge! in this regard! is far from e,emplary. )e is a re;eat offen6er! as demonstrated by the follo$ing cases $here $e penali6ed him for ."estionable cond"ct%

reinstatement or reappointment to any p"blic officeB

*. 4"spension from office $itho"t salary and other benefits for more than three (>) months b"t not e,ceeding si, (?) monthsB or

>. A fine of more than *0!000.00 b"t not e,ceeding /0!000.00. ;irst! in A.+. No. 8T)A0?A1'?' decided on )"ne 1&! *00?! )"dge :inopol $as fo"nd g"ilty of gross ignorance of the la$ and $as fined *0!000.00. [/>] -onsidering his repeated infractions and n"mero"s breaches of the standard ethical cond"ct demanded of 1"dges! $e find )"dge :inopol "nfit to discharge the f"nctions of a 1"dge. 3e impose "pon him the Second! in A.+. No. 8T)A0?A*0*0 decided on 4eptember *0! *00?! he $as fo"nd g"ilty of gross ignorance of the la$ and ab"se of a"thority! and $as fined *0!000.00. [//] se#erest penalty of dismissal from the ser#ice! $ith forfeit"re of all retirement benefits! e,cl"ding accr"ed lea#e benefits! and dis."alification from reinstatement or reappointment to any p"blic office! incl"ding go#ernmentAo$ned or controlled corporations.[/=] Third! in A.+. No. 8T)A0?A*00> decided on A"g"st *>! *00(! he $as fo"nd liable for "nd"e delay in rendering a decision or order and for #iolating the clear pro#isions of A.+. No. 01A1A0(A4-! and $as fined 11!000.00.[/&] Gastly! as $e sanction )"dge :inopol! $e remind the members of the bench that% [a]ltho"gh e#ery office in the go#ernment ser#ice is a p"blic tr"st! no position e,acts a greater demand on moral righteo"sness and "prightness of an indi#id"al than a seat in the [)]"diciary. A magistrate of the la$ m"st compose himself at all times in s"ch a manner that his cond"ct! official and other$ise! can

;ourth! in A.+. ;-A < < No. 0&A*1(>A8T) decided on A"g"st *=! *00?! he $as strongly admonished! e#en as the complainant desisted from

bear the most searching scr"tiny of the p"blic that loo2s "p to him as the epitome of integrity and 1"stice.[/']

Act No. >=1&[11] or the 8e#ised &(a)!

[1*]

enal -odeB and (>) #iolation of 4ections

(d)!

[1>]

and (e)

[1/]

of 8A ?(1>.

W)ERE*ORE! premises considered! )"dge ;scar 9. :inopol! 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch */! Xoronadal -ity! is declared /U.LTY O* /ROSS -.S'ONDU'T and is hereby D.S-.SSED from the ser#ice! $ith *OR*E.TURE of all benefits! e,cept accr"ed lea#e credits! if any! $ith pre1"dice to his reAemployment in any branch or ser#ice of the go#ernment! incl"ding go#ernmentAo$ned and controlled corporations. <n her Affida#itA-omplaint dated 1( ;ctober *00? s"bmitted to the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A)! Tabis"la stated that she $as the plaintiff in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 entitled C aridad S. Tabisula v. Ran"6ay 'ARP.O, J.: The 'ase Rural 2an=! -nc.D for specific performance $ith acco"nting and The *a9ts

SO ORDERED.

damages. This case $as raffled to the 8T- of 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! Branch *? presided by )"dge Tabora. Tabis"la narrated that d"e to the prolonged absence of )"dge Tabora ca"sed by a serio"s illness! )"dge

This administrati#e case arose from an Affida#itA-omplaint dated 1( ;ctober *00? filed by -aridad 4. Tabis"la (Tabis"la) against )"dge +ona Gisa T. Tabora ()"dge Tabora)! residing )"dge! 8egional Trial -o"rt

Antonio A. -arbonell ()"dge -arbonell)! no$ retired b"t then pairingJ#iceA e,ec"ti#e 1"dge of the 8T- of 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! Branch *(! too2 o#er and heard the case from the beginning "p to its termination.

(8T-)! 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! Branch *?! and Alfredo 5. Gacsamana! )r. (Gacsamana)! ;fficerAinA-harge! Branch -ler2 of -o"rt (;<-AB-;-) of the same co"rt. Tabis"la charged )"dge Tabora $ith (1) #iolation of 4ection >(e)[1] of 8ep"blic Act No. >01'[*](8A >01') Gater! Tabis"la fo"nd o"t that a decision had already been rendered by )"dge -arbonell so she re."ested from Gacsamana a copy of the decision. @o$e#er! despite se#eral re."ests! Gacsamana allegedly ref"sed to f"rnish Tabis"la $ith a copy of the decision "pon the instr"ction of )"dge Tabora! $ho at that time had already reported bac2 to $or2. Tabis"la sent a GetterA8e."est dated */ A"g"st *00? addressed to the 8T- as2ing )"dge Tabora to direct Gacsamana to gi#e a copy of the decision rendered by )"dge -arbonell. @o$e#er! instead of granting the re."est! )"dge Tabora iss"ed an ;rder dated >0 A"g"st *00?! informing Tabis"la that an ;rder dated = A"g"st *00? $as iss"ed by the 8T- re."iring the parties to s"bmit their respecti#e memorand"m $ithin 1& days from receipt of the ;rder. Also! )"dge Tabora informed Tabis"la that e#en if the pairing 1"dge

or the AntiAGraft and -orr"pt ractices ActB (*) #iolation of 4ection 1! -anon >[>] and 4ection *! -anon &[/] of A.+. No. 0>A0&A01A4-[&] or the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ctB (>) #iolation of 8ep"blic Act No. ?(1> [?] (8A ?(1>) or the -ode of -ond"ct and 9thical 4tandards for "blic ;fficials and 9mployeesB and (/) gross ignorance of the la$! gra#e ab"se of a"thority! oppression! serio"s neglect of d"ty and cond"ct pre1"dicial to the best interest of the ser#ice. F"rther! Tabis"la charged Gacsamana $ith (1) #iolation of 4ections >(e)[(] and (f)[=] of 8A >01'B (*) #iolation of Articles **? ['] and >1&(>)(c)[10] of

$as the one $ho heard the case from beginning to end! the prerogati#e of rendering the decision still rests entirely on the presiding 1"dge. Gacsamana added that he $as the one $ho recei#ed Tabis"la7s Getter dated */ A"g"st *00? addressed to )"dge Tabora. Gacsamana ;n 1= 4eptember *00?! )"dge Tabora rendered a decision in the case ad#erse to Tabis"la. Tabis"la then $rote a Getter dated * ;ctober *00? to )"dge -arbonell re."esting for a copy of his decision. ;n ' ;ctober *00?! )"dge -arbonell replied to Tabis"la7s letter and attached a copy of his decision $hich fa#ored Tabis"la. )"dge Tabora then filed her -omment dated *? Febr"ary *00( $ith Tabis"la then filed this case against )"dge Tabora for malicio"sly and deliberately changing! altering and re#ersing a #alidly rendered decision of a co"rt of e."al and conc"rrent 1"risdiction. Tabis"la added that this has ca"sed her "nd"e in1"ry since the defendant in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0! 8angA Ay 8"ral Ban2 <nc.! represented by its resident! <#es M. Nisce! $as the ;-A. )"dge Tabora indicated that she "nder$ent s"rgery on 1& +ay *00? and $as later diagnosed $ith a serio"s illness. rior to her s"rgery! reasoned that he $as not the person in charge of releasing decisions! orders! and other doc"ments relati#e to a pending case and it $as not $ithin his f"nctions to release a decision $itho"t the presiding 1"dge7s a"thority.

she cond"cted a hearing in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 on *1 April *00?. @o$e#er! the same had been reset d"e to the absence of Tabis"la7s co"nsel.

allegedly a relati#e of )"dge Tabora7s h"sband. ;n 1= +ay *00?! Tabis"la filed a +otion for the pairing 1"dge to hear Tabis"la also charged Gacsamana for alleged manifest partiality! e#ident bad faith! and gross ine,c"sable negligence for ref"sing to f"rnish a copy of the decision rendered by )"dge -arbonell despite se#eral #erbal and $ritten demands. -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 on the basis of )"dge Tabora7s absence. ;n *? +ay *00?! $hile )"dge Tabora $as on lea#e! )"dge -arbonell proceeded to hear the testimony of the lone $itness for the defendant in the case $itho"t first iss"ing an order granting the motion filed by Tabis"la.

<n an "ndated -omment s"bmitted to the ;-A! Gacsamana clarified that his official designation is 4heriff <5 and he $as only designated as ;<-A B-;- by )"dge Tabora on 1 A"g"st *00?. Gacsamana e,plained that )"dge -arbonell handed him a copy of his decision in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 on 11 A"g"st *00?. @o$e#er! that day being a Friday! Gacsamana $as able to s"bmit the decision to )"dge Tabora only on the ne,t $or2ing day! 1/ A"g"st *00?. )"dge Tabora informed him to 1"st lea#e a copy of the decision at her table. From then on! Gacsamana had no more 2no$ledge of $hat happened to the decision.

;n 1> )"ne *00?! )"dge Tabora reported bac2 to $or2. @o$e#er! on 1' )"ne *00?! )"dge -arbonell still acted on the formal offer of e#idence by the defendants and iss"ed an ;rder s"bmitting the case for resol"tion.

;n = A"g"st *00?! in the co"rse of her in#entory of co"rt records! )"dge Tabora noticed that -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 had been s"bmitted for decision on 1' )"ne *00? by )"dge -arbonell. 4ince the '0Aday period for rendering a decision $as soon to e,pire! she immediately iss"ed an ;rder

dated = A"g"st *00? directing the parties to s"bmit their respecti#e memorand"m.

)"dge Tabora also clarified that the defendant in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 $as a ban2! a corporate entity $ith a distinct personality. 4he $as not dis."alified from sitting in the case since "nder 4ection 1! 8"le 1>( [1&] of the

Three days later! on 11 A"g"st *00?! )"dge -arbonell iss"ed in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 a decision $hich $as recei#ed by Gacsamana. ;n 1/ A"g"st *00?! Gacsamana t"rned o#er a copy of the decision to )"dge Tabora.

8"les of -o"rt her h"sband7s relation $ith the ban27s representati#e $as remote or $ay beyond the ?thdegree. Th"s! the relationship has absol"tely no bearing on the o"tcome of the case. )"dge Tabora prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lac2 of merit.

After receipt of the decision! )"dge Tabora immediately $ent to )"dge -arbonell and informed him that she iss"ed an ;rder dated = A"g"st *00? re."iring the parties to s"bmit their respecti#e memorand"m. )"dge -arbonell immediately c"t her off and told her to 1"st recall her earlier order.

;n 1/ A"g"st *00(! the ;-A s"bmitted its 8eport finding no s"fficient and fact"al legal basis to hold )"dge Tabora and Gacsamana liable for any of the charges filed by Tabis"la. The ;-A stated that )"dge Tabora! in rendering her o$n decision in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0! $as $ell $ithin her po$er to decide the case since she had f"ll a"thority o#er all

)"dge Tabora then caref"lly st"died the entire records of the case and fo"nd o"t that )"dge -arbonell7s decision $as not in accordance $ith the facts of the case and the applicable la$ and appeared to ha#e "n1"stly fa#ored Tabis"la.

cases pending in her official station. As for Gacsamana! the ;-A fo"nd that he co"ld not be fa"lted for his fail"re to comply $ith Tabis"la7s re."est since he $as only obeying the la$f"l order of )"dge Tabora! his s"perior. Also! )"dge -arbonell7s decision in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 $as not e#en prom"lgated and did not form part of the official records of the case. Th"s!

)"dge Tabora also $ondered ho$ Tabis"la came to 2no$ of the "nprom"lgated decision of )"dge -arbonell. )"dge -arbonell7s decision $as ne#er officially released to any of the parties and did not form part of the records of the case.

there $as no Cprior e,isting #alid decision.D

The ;-A also fo"nd that there is a need to scr"tini6e the act"ations of )"dge -arbonell since he o#erstepped the bo"nds of his a"thority as pairing 1"dge for Branch *? and has sho$n "n"s"al interest in the

)"dge Tabora pointed o"t that it $as )"dge -arbonell $ho directly f"rnished Tabis"la $ith a copy of his decision a month after the decision of )"dge Tabora had already been released to the parties. Also! Tabis"la7s insistence for the release of )"dge -arbonell7s decision made her determined to e,ercise her 1"dicial independence since s"ch decision $o"ld res"lt in a miscarriage of 1"stice.

disposition of -i#il -ase No. ?=/0.

The ;-A recommended that% (1) that the instant complaint be :<4+<449: as against respondents )"dge +ona Gisa T. Tabora and ;<- Branch -ler2 of -o"rt Alfredo 5. Gacsamana for lac2 of meritB

(*) that the -;++9NT of respondent )"dge be considered as a complaint against )"dge Antonio A. -arbonell! and that )"dge -arbonell be f"rnished $ith a copy of s"ch comment and! be in t"rn 89MK<89: to -;++9NT thereon.

Thereafter! Tabis"la filed a +otion for 8econsideration dated *( No#ember *00( on the -o"rt7s 8esol"tion dated 1 ;ctober *00(. Tabis"la stated that the -o"rt erred in dismissing the complaint she filed against )"dge Tabora and Gacsamana.

<n a 8esol"tion dated 1 ;ctober *00(! the -o"rt resol#ed to (1) dismiss the administrati#e complaint against )"dge Tabora and Gacsamana for lac2 of meritB and (*) consider the -omment dated *? Febr"ary *00( of )"dge Tabora as a complaint against )"dge -arbonell and re."ire )"dge -arbonell to file his -omment $ithin 10 days from notice. <n a Getter dated & +arch *00=! Gacsamana and se#en other employees of the 8T- of 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! Branch *?! $rote the ;-A and narrated their negati#e e,perience to$ard a coA

employee! ;lympia 9lena ;. :acanayAM"eddeng (M"eddeng)! Gegal 8esearcher << of the same co"rt. <n the same letter! they also ga#e their

<n his -omment dated *' ;ctober *00(! )"dge -arbonell admitted the facts of the case as stated by )"dge Tabora in her -omment dated *? Febr"ary *00( from the time he too2 o#er -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 "ntil he s"bmitted his decision to ;<-AB-;- Gacsamana. @o$e#er! he disagreed $ith )"dge Tabora7s contention that the decision he rendered in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 $as not #alidly prom"lgated and released to the parties. )"dge -arbonell maintained that the act of filing the decision $ith the cler2 of co"rt already constit"ted a rendition of 1"dgment or prom"lgation and not its prono"ncement in open co"rt or release to the parties.

s"pport in an "nrelated administrati#e complaint filed by )"dge Tabora against M"eddeng.

<n a 8esol"tion dated *& )"ne *00=! the -o"rt referred the case to the ;-A for e#al"ation! report and recommendation.

The O'A>s Re;ort an6 Re9ommen6ation

;n 1= 4eptember *00=! the ;-A s"bmitted its 8eport finding )"dge -arbonell g"ilty of simple miscond"ct for #iolating 4ection *! -anon > of the

)"dge -arbonell added that he $as not a$are of $hat s"bse."ently transpired after he t"rned o#er the records of the case b"t admitted that after receipt of the letterAre."est of Tabis"la as2ing for a copy of his decision! he immediately responded by f"rnishing Tabis"la $ith a copy. )"dge -arbonell f"rther stated that the instant administrati#e matter does not in#ol#e him. The disp"te $as originally bet$een Tabis"la against )"dge Tabora and Gacsamana. The only iss"e bet$een him and )"dge Tabora $as a di#ergence of legal opinion.

Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct. The ;-A reiterated that )"dge -arbonell o#erstepped the bo"nds of his a"thority as pairing 1"dge of Branch *? $hen he prepared the decision in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 and f"rnished Tabis"la $ith a copy of s"ch decision. As a res"lt! )"dge -arbonell created the impression that he had ta2en a special interest in the case. The ;-A recommended that% (1) the +otion for 8econsideration dated No#ember *(! *00( of +rs. -aridad 4. Tabis"la on the 8esol"tion dated ;ctober 1! *00(! be :9N<9: for lac2 of meritB

(*) this case be 89A:;-X9T9: as a reg"lar administrati#e matter and )"dge Antonio A. -arbonell be F<N9: in the amo"nt of Ten Tho"sand esos ( 10!000.00) to be ded"cted from the retirement benefits that he may recei#eB and (>) the Getter dated +arch &! *00= of Alfredo Gacsamana! )r.! -o"rt 4heriff! and se#en (() other employees of 8T-! Branch *?! 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! against +rs. ;lympia :acanayAM"eddeng! Gegal 8esearcher! same co"rt! be :9TA-@9: from the records of this administrati#e matter and the same be incl"ded in A.+. No. A0(A*>(1 (Cffice of the ourt (dministrator vs. Ms. Clympia :lena D. <uedden"! ourt &e"al Researcher --! RT ! 2ranch 7J! San ;ernando! &a ?nion).

-learly! )"dge -arbonell fell short of the e,acting standards set in 4ection *! -anon >[1=] of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct $hich states% -AN;N > <+ A8T<AG<TL <mpartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the 1"dicial office. .t a;;$ies not on$7 to the 6e9ision itse$f =ut a$so to the ;ro9ess =7 5hi9h the 6e9ision is ma6e. ,,,, 49-. *. )"dges shall ens"re that his or her cond"ct! both in and o"t of co"rt! maintains and enhances the confidence of the p"blic! the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the 1"dge and of the 1"diciary. (9mphasis s"pplied)

The 'ourt>s Ru$in#

The -o"rt finds the report of the ;-A $ellAta2en.

Go$er co"rt 1"dges play a pi#otal role in the promotion of the people7s faith in the 1"diciary. They are frontAliners $ho gi#e h"man face to the

The a"thority of a pairing 1"dge to ta2e cogni6ance of matters of another branch in case the presiding 1"dge is absent can be fo"nd in t$o circ"lars iss"ed by the -o"rt% (1) -irc"lar No. ([1?] effecti#e *> 4eptember 1'(/ and (*) -irc"lar No. 1'A'=[1(] effecti#e 1= Febr"ary 1''=. )"dge -arbonell! as the pairing 1"dge of the 8T- of 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! Branch *?! ass"med cogni6ance of -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 "pon )"dge Tabora7s lea#e of absence in +ay *00? d"e to a serio"s illness. )"dge -arbonell f"lfilled his d"ties by cond"cting hearings in the said case from +ay "ntil )"ne *00?. ;n 1> )"ne *00?! )"dge Tabora reported bac2 to $or2 as presiding 1"dge of Branch *?. @o$e#er! e#en tho"gh )"dge -arbonell 2ne$ that )"dge Tabora had already reAass"med her d"ties! he still iss"ed an ;rder s"bmitting the case for resol"tion on 1' )"ne *00? and e#en s"bmitted a $ritten decision to ;<-AB-;- Gacsamana on 11 A"g"st *00?.

1"dicial branch at the grassroots le#el in their interaction $ith litigants and those $ho do b"siness $ith the co"rts. Th"s! the admonition that 1"dges m"st a#oid not only impropriety b"t also the appearance of impropriety is more sternly applied to them.[1']

As correctly obser#ed by the ;-A! )"dge -arbonell sho"ld ha#e so"ght the conformity of )"dge Tabora in rendering his o$n decision to the case as a matter of 1"dicial co"rtesy and respect. )"dge -arbonell tried 1"stifying his act by reasoning that the act of filing a decision $ith the cler2 of co"rt already constit"ted a rendition of 1"dgment or prom"lgation. 3e find this e,planation "nsatisfactory. )"dge -arbonell had no a"thority to render a decision on the s"b1ect ci#il case. As clearly laid do$n in -irc"lar No. 1'A '=! the pairing 1"dge shall ta2e cogni6ance of all cases "ntil the ass"mption to d"ty of the reg"lar 1"dge. 4ince )"dge Tabora $as already present and performing her f"nctions in co"rt! it $as improper for )"dge -arbonell to

ha#e rendered a decision in -i#il -ase No. ?=/0 $itho"t the appro#al of the reg"lar presiding 1"dge.

CCffice of the

ourt (dministrator v. Ms. Clympia :lena D. <uedden"! ourt

&e"al Researcher --! RT ! 2ranch 7J! San ;ernando! &a ?nion.D

Also! )"dge -arbonell sho"ld ha#e e,tended the same 1"dicial deference in referring the letter of Tabis"la re."esting for a copy of his decision to Branch *? for appropriate action. <nstead! )"dge -arbonell directly f"rnished Tabis"la $ith a copy 2no$ing f"lly $ell that she $as the plaintiff in the s"b1ect case. )"dge -arbonell not only disregarded the f"nctions of the cler2 of co"rt as c"stodian of co"rt records b"t also "ndermined the integrity and confidentiality of the co"rt.

W)ERE*ORE! $e deny the +otion for 8econsideration dated *( No#ember *00( filed by -aridad 4. Tabis"la for lac2 of merit. 3e find respondent )"dge Antonio A. -arbonell! former residing )"dge! 8egional

Trial -o"rt! 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! Branch *(! /U.LTY of simple miscond"ct and *.NE him 10!000.00! to be ded"cted from his retirement benefits $hich ha#e been $ithheld p"rs"ant to the -o"rt7s 8esol"tion dated */ 4eptember *00=.

For #iolating 4ection *! -anon > of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! $e find )"dge -arbonell g"ilty of simple

3e D.RE'T the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator to detach from the records of this administrati#e matter the Getter dated & +arch *00= of Alfredo Gacsamana! )r. and se#en other employees of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! Branch *?! against ;lympia :acanayA M"eddeng! Gegal 8esearcher of the same co"rt and incl"de the Getter in A.+. No. A0(A*>(1 entitled C Cffice of the ourt (dministrator v. Ms.

miscond"ct. 4imple miscond"ct has been defined as an "nacceptable beha#ior that transgresses the established r"les of cond"ct for p"blic officers.
[*0]

3e adhere to the ;-A7s recommendation of a fine of 10!000.00

to be ded"cted from )"dge -arbonell7s retirement benefits $hich ha#e been $ithheld p"rs"ant to the -o"rt7s 8esol"tion dated */ 4eptember *00=! $hich granted the payment of his disability retirement benefits s"b1ect to the $ithholding of *00!000.00 pending final resol"tion of the administrati#e cases against him.

Clympia :lena D. <uedden"! San ;ernando! &a ?nion.D

ourt &e"al Researcher --! RT ! 2ranch 7J!

SO ORDERED. BR.ON, J.:

F"rther! $e adopt the other recommendations of the ;-A in its 8eport dated 1= 4eptember *00=. 3e deny for lac2 of merit the +otion for 8econsideration dated *( No#ember *00( filed by Tabis"la on this -o"rt7s 8esol"tion dated 1 ;ctober *00(. 3e also direct the ;-A to detach from the records of this administrati#e matter the Getter dated & +arch *00= of Gacsamana and se#en other employees of the 8T- of 4an Fernando -ity! Ga Knion! Branch *?! against M"eddeng! Gegal 8esearcher of the same co"rt. The Getter is to be incl"ded in A.+. No. A0(A*>(1 entitled

<n a #erified complaint! dated )"ne 1/! *00>![1] filed before the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (C ()! +ans"eta T. 8"bin (complainant) charged )"dge )ose L. Ag"irre! )r. [*] of Graft and -orr"ption! Betrayal of "blic Tr"st! Gra#e Ab"se of A"thority of a )"dge! +anifest Bias and

artiality! and 5iolation of )"dicial -ond"ct. <n her #erified complaint! the complainant alleged%

<< That -omplainant is the $ido$ of the late Feliciano 8"bin $ho $as appointed as the )"dicial Administrator of the 9state of the 4po"ses :ioscoro 8"bin and 9mperatri6 8"binB <<< That -omplainant! d"ring the lifetime of her h"sband! Feliciano 8"bin! $ho is the aforesaid )"dicial Administrator! had $itnessed and e,perienced that her h"sband and their family $ere #ictims of Graft and -orr"ption! Gra#e <n1"stice amo"nting to 5iolation of the -onstit"tion! Betrayal of "blic Tr"st! Gra#e +iscond"ct! Gra#e Ab"se of A"thority! Gross <gnorance of Ga$! -ond"ct Knbecoming of a )"dge or )"dicial +agistrate! +anifest Bias and artiality! and 5iolation of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! on the part of the respondent )"dge committed d"ring the cond"ct of the proceedings in 4pecial roceeding No. *=! <ntestate 9state of the 4po"ses :ioscoro 8"bin and 9mperatri6 8"bin! and in -i#il -ase No. 1=/! an Ann"lment of Adoption pending before him! as follo$s% A The respondent )"dge! by $ay of de#io"s schemes and cle#er machinations e,torted money from the aforesaid 9state by lending e,pertise in conni#ance $ith other la$yer in p"rs"ing an alleged claim against the 9state allegedly intended for $or2ers7 $ages as money claims against the 9state! in a labor case entitled C-onstancia Amar! et.(sic) al. #ers"s @acienda Fanny and :ioscoro 8"bin!D 8AB -ase Nos. 10'*A=1 and AA&'>A=1! both consolidated and n"mbered as 010/A=*! $hich $as then pending and decided by Gabor Arbiter 8icardo T. ;cta#ioB B That the aforesaid consolidated labor cases $ere decided and became final and e,ec"tory and the 1"dgment $as already satisfied and paid for personally by :ioscoro 8"bin $hen he $as still ali#e in the amo"nt of //!000.00 in the form of chec2 $hich $as gi#en to Atty. -orral! co"nsel for the claimants! thro"gh Atty. 8ogelio Necessario! co"nsel for @acienda Fanny and :ioscoro 8"bin , , ,. -

That respondent )"dge acted $ith gra#e ab"se of discretion and gra#e ab"se of a"thority by ordering the aforesaid 9state to pay *0&!1*&.00 "pon a +otion based on a nonAe,isting final or e,ec"tory decision! $hich order $as illegal and improper and $itho"t any notice andJor hearing accorded to the 9state thro"gh its then )"dicial [Administrator] Feliciano 8"bin. , , , , : The labor case decided by Gabor Arbiter ;scar Ky a$arded the claimants in the amo"nt of *0&!1*&.00! $hich decision $as appealed by )"dicial Administrator Feliciano 8"bin and $as ordered rema[n]ded and decided by Gabor Arbiter ;cta#io in the consolidated cases $ith the red"ction of the a$ard in the amo"nt of ?*!/>(.&0. The 1"dgment amo"nt $as f"rther red"ced after an a"dit in the amo"nt of //!000.00. , , , , 9 That respondent )"dge had threatened the )"dicial Administrator and threatened to be cited for contempt if he $ill not pay the said labor claims! f"rther threatened to sell the properties if he $ill not pay the said labor claims! and li2e$ise threatened that he $o"ld order the , , , properties of the 9state to be sold at p"blic a"ction if the said claim $ill not be paid. , , , , The e#ident p"rpose of the respondent )"dge $as to ca"se harassment and an,iety against the then )"dicial Administrator $hich made his health condition deteriorate so fast that facilitated his death. F That -omplainant7s deceased h"sband $ho $as the Administrator of the said 9state $as forced to pay the amo"nt ordered by the respondent )"dge $hich $as deposited in co"rt b"t $hich $as ordered released by the same respondent )"dge [b]eca"se the money claim ordered to be paid by respondent )"dge had already been paid and satisfied by Administrator Feliciano 8"bin! nat"rally no recipient $o"ld claim the amo"nt nor anybody can be fo"nd from the records of the case or that no laborer came for$ard to claim that he had not been paid of his money claimB G The respondent )"dge $as grossly ignorant of the la$ $hen he ordered the change of Administrator after the then )"dicial Administrator Feliciano 8"bin ref"sed to follo$ the in#alid and "nla$f"l orders of the respondent )"dge! as he ordered his -ler2 of -o"rt!

Atty. Gregorio A. Ganaria to act as 4pecial Administrator of the 9state $ith orders to sell the properties of the 9state to satisfy the o"tstanding claim or obligations of the 9state! $hich $as part of the cle#er scheme of respondent )"dge to e,tort money from the 9state , , ,. @ That respondent )"dge had e,tended "n$arranted benefit! ad#antage and preference to the ne$ly appointed )"dicial Administratri, of the 9state! Aileen 8"bin! thro"gh his manifest bias and partiality and e#ident bad faith to$ards the late Administrator7s $ife! complainant herein! and the s"r#i#ing heirs! especially in his cond"ct of the proceedings in#ol#ing the 9state and the Ann"lment of Adoption case. 8espondent )"dge e#en appointed Aileen 8"bin as Administratri, of the 9state $hose legal personality is still the s"b1ect of the Ann"lment of Adoption case! and e#en prono"nced that "nder the eyes of the la$ Aileen 8"bin is the sole and legal heir of the aforesaid 9state H th"s pre1"dging the cases before him e#en if the proceedings are still pendingB

appointment of Aileen 8"bin as 4pecial Administratri, $as affirmed by the -o"rt of Appeals[&] ( () and by the 4"preme -o"rt.[?]

@e also asserted that the complainant had conf"sed t$o labor cases.
[(]

;nly the amo"nt of //!000.00 $as paid as separation pay in 8AB -ase

No. 5<A010/A=*. <n 8AB -ase No. AA&'>A=1! )"dge Ag"irre iss"ed orders to compel +r. Feliciano 8"bin! the former Administrator of the 9state of the late 4po"ses :ioscoro and 9mperatri6 8"bin! to pay la$f"l and #alid claims against the estate. )"dge Ag"irre emphasi6ed that he had already been penali6ed by the 4"preme -o"rt for delaying the enforcement of the final and e,ec"tory decision of the National Gabor 8elations -ommission (3&R )

< That respondent )"dge ordered his appointed Administratri,! Aileen 8"bin! to enter into the 9state! and ha#ing entered therein! she and her cohorts ransac2ed the premises! too2 o"t records! personal belongings of the deceased Feliciano 8"bin! then Administrator of the 9state! and his $ife! the complainant herein , , ,.[>]

against the estate of the late spo"ses :ioscoro and 9mperatri6 8"bin.

)"dge Ag"irre s"bmitted his o$n doc"mentary e#idence to corroborate his allegations.[=]

<n its report! the ;-A recommended that the case be doc2eted as a The complainant s"bmitted doc"mentary e#idence to s"pport the abo#e allegations.[/] reg"lar administrati#e case considering the #arying positions ta2en by the parties! and considering! too! the fail"re of )"dge Ag"irre to e,plain in his -omment $hy he in#ited +r. Feliciano 8"bin to see him personally in co"rt. <n his -omment! )"dge Ag"irre claimed that the complaint contained malicio"s and sc"rrilo"s allegations that smac2ed of harassment. The complaint $as filed by the disgr"ntled complainant $ho mista2enly belie#ed that she sho"ld be appointed as the )"dicial Administratri, of the 9state of the late 4po"ses :ioscoro and 9mperatri6 8"bin! instead of Aileen 8"bin! the adopted child of the deceased spo"ses. )"dge Ag"irre asserted that his <n the 8esol"tion dated +arch 1(! *00/!['] the -o"rt referred the case to )"stice )osefina G"e#arraA4alonga ( -nvesti"atin" 'ustice) for in#estigation! report and recommendation.

The <n#estigating )"stice fo"nd that e,cept for the charge of -ond"ct Knbecoming of a )"dge and 5iolation of )"dicial -ond"ct! the other charges against )"dge Ag"irre $ere Cbereft of fact"al and legal basis.D[10] The <n#estigating )"stice fo"nd that )"dge Ag"irre committed an impropriety $hen he sent a letter to +r. Feliciano 8"bin Cto disc"ss and to e,pedite a possible e,traA1"dicial settlement of the estate of the deceased 4po"ses 8"bin.D[11] The <n#estigating )"stice e,plained% [@]is act of sending a letter to a party litigant for a personal conference! ho$e#er moti#ated! does not #alidate his action and the damning implications it may generate to the [)]"diciary this is especially so since the content of said letter can constit"te as an act of fraterni6ing $ith partyAlitigants. <t m"st be emphasi6ed that inAchambers sessions $itho"t the presence of the other party and his co"nsel m"st be a#oided. The prohibition is to maintain impartiality. Being a 1"dicial frontAliner $ho has a direct contact $ith the litigating parties! the respondent 1"dge sho"ld cond"ct himself beyond reproach.[1*]

*irst! the complainant7s claims of alleged de#io"s schemes! cle#er machinations! and conni#ance employed by )"dge Ag"irre to e,tort money from the 9state of the 4po"ses :ioscoro and 9mperatri6 8"bin are "ns"pported by e#idence. A per"sal of the doc"ments s"bmitted by both parties sho$s that the orders iss"ed by )"dge Ag"irre to compel +r. Feliciano 8"bin to settle the money claims filed against the 9state of the 4po"ses :ioscoro and 9mperatri6 8"bin in 8AB -ase No. AA&'>A=1 $ere la$f"l. The orders $ere iss"ed to enforce a final and e,ec"tory decision of the NG8- in the caseB $e e#en pre#io"sly penali6ed )"dge Ag"irre for his fail"re to promptly act on the motions filed by the laborers in 8AB -ase No. AA&'>A=1! for the enforcement of the final NG8- decision. [1>]

<n addition! the e#idence on record also ref"tes the complainant7s The <n#estigating )"stice r"led that )"dge Ag"irre #iolated -anon * of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct $hich states that a 1"dge sho"ld a#oid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all acti#ities. The <n#estigating )"stice recommended that )"dge Ag"irre be reprimanded $ith a stern $arning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt more se#erely. Se9on6! $e find no e#idence s"pporting the allegation of bias and The 'ourt>s Ru$in# partiality $hen )"dge Ag"irre appointed +s. Aileen 8"bin as )"dicial Administratri, of the estate of her adopting parents. Notably! the propriety of 3e find the findings of the <n#estigating )"stice to be $ellAta2en. the order of her appointment by )"dge Ag"irre $as "pheld! on appeal! by the -A in its :ecision dated )"ly 1'! *00*[1/] and its 8esol"tion claim that the money claims in 8AB -ase No. AA&'>A=1 had been pre#io"sly settled. The records sho$ that $hat +r. Feliciano 8"bin act"ally paid $as a claim for separation pay in 8AB -ase No. 5<A010/A=* H an illegal dismissal caseB the money claims in 8AB -ase No. AA&'>A=1 pertained to the payment of $age differentials.

dated 4eptember *?! *00*![1&] and by this -o"rt in its 8esol"tion of :ecember 11! *00*.[1?]

against )"dge Ag"irre for his fail"re to r"le on the laborers7 motion in 8AB -ase No. AA&'>A=1.

Thir6! in *uerrero v. 5illamor![1(] $e held that a 1"dge cannot be held liable for an erroneo"s decision in the absence of malice or $rongf"l cond"ct in rendering it. 3e also held that for liability to attach for ignorance of the la$! the assailed order! decision or act"ation of the 1"dge in the performance of official d"ties m"st not only be erroneo"s b"t m"st be established to ha#e been moti#ated by bad faith! dishonesty! hatred! or some other li2e moti#e.[1=] The complainant failed to pro#e any of these circ"mstances in this case. 3e find no e#idence of corr"ption or "nla$f"l moti#e on the part of )"dge Ag"irre $hen he made the said appointment.

:espite these findings! $e find that )"dge Ag"irre committed an impropriety $hen he sent a letter! in his official letterhead! to +r. Feliciano 8"bin to disc"ss a matter pending before his o$n co"rt.

<n ("ustin v. Mercado![*1] $e declared that employees of the co"rt ha#e no b"siness meeting $ith litigants or their representati#es "nder

any circ"mstance. This prohibition is more compelling $hen it in#ol#es a 1"dge $ho! beca"se of his position! m"st strictly adhere to the highest tenets of 1"dicial cond"ctB[**] a 1"dge m"st be the embodiment of competence! integrity and independence.[*>] As $e e,plained in Yu6(sensi

Altho"gh the appointment by )"dge Ag"irre of his branch cler2 of co"rt as 4pecial Administrator for the 9state of the 4po"ses :ioscoro and 9mperatri6 8"bin $as erroneo"s for ha#ing #iolated a standing -o"rt circ"lar and for being contrary to e,isting 1"rispr"dence! [1'] $e find that the appointment $as made in good faith. Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from ta2ing "nconscientio"s ad#antage of another. [*0] <n this regard! )"dge Ag"irre7s good faith is strengthened by e#idence sho$ing that the appointment of his branch cler2 of co"rt $as prompted by the contin"ed ref"sal of +r. Feliciano 8"bin to settle the money claims filed against the estate in 8AB -ase No. AA&'>A=1. The records sho$ that +r. Feliciano 8"bin did not obey the se#eral orders iss"ed by )"dge Ag"irre to settle the money claims! and that an administrati#e case $as e#en filed

v. 5illanueva%[*/]

...[3]ithin the hierarchy of co"rts! trial co"rts stand as an important and #isible symbol of go#ernment especially considering that as opposed to appellate co"rts! trial 1"dges are those directly in contact $ith the parties! their co"nsel and the comm"nities $hich the )"diciary is bo"nd to ser#e. ;cc"pying as he does an e,alted position in the administration of 1"stice! a 1"dge m"st pay a high price for the honor besto$ed "pon him. Th"s! a 1"dge m"st comport himself at all times in s"ch manner that his cond"ct! official or other$ise! can bear the most searching scr"tiny of the p"blic that loo2s "p to him as the epitome of integrity and 1"stice. , , , it is essential that 1"dges! li2e aesar.s $ife! sho"ld be abo#e s"spicion.

Knder the circ"mstances! )"dge Ag"irre7s act $as improper considering that he opened himself to s"spicions in handling the case. @is

action also raised do"bts abo"t his impartiality and abo"t his integrity in performing his 1"dicial f"nction.

impose a fine of &!000.00 instead. )"rispr"dence holds that the death of the respondent in an administrati#e case! as a r"le! does not precl"de a finding of administrati#e liability! sa#e for recogni6ed e,ceptions. [*=] None of

3e ta2e note that the complained act $as committed before the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct too2 effect on )"ne 1! *00/. Knder the circ"mstances! )"dge Ag"irre is liable "nder the pro#isions of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct and the -anons of )"dicial 9thics. [*&] -anon * of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct pro#ides that C[a] 1"dge sho"ld a#oid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all acti#ities.D -arrying the same g"iding principle is -anon > of the -anons of )"dicial 9thics $hich states! C[a] 1"dge7s official cond"ct sho"ld be free from the appearance of impropriety! and his personal beha#ior! not only "pon the bench and in the performance of 1"dicial d"ties! b"t also in his e#ery day life! sho"ld be beyond reproach.D

the e,ceptions applies to the present case.[*']

The &!000.00 fine shall be ta2en from the amo"nt of &0!000.00 $hich $e pre#io"sly retainedJ$ithheld from )"dge Ag"irre7s retirement benefits d"e to the administrati#e cases filed against him.[>0]

W)ERE*ORE! $e find )"dge )ose L. Ag"irre! )r. g"ilty of impropriety! in #iolation of -anon * of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct and -anon > of the -anons of )"dicial 9thics. 3e hereby impose a fine of &!000.00 $hich shall be ded"cted from the &0!000.00 $ithheld from his retirement benefits.

<n Rosauro v. Kallos![*?] $e r"led that impropriety constit"tes a light charge. 4ection 11(-) of 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt [*(] pro#ides the

SO ORDERED.

'ARP.O, J.: follo$ing sanctions if the respondent is fo"nd g"ilty of a light charge% -. <f the respondent is g"ilty of a light charge! any of the follo$ing sanctions shall be imposed% 1. A fine of not less than 1!000.00 b"t not e,ceeding 10!000.00 andJorB *. -ens"reB >. 8eprimandB /. Admonition $ith $arning. The *a9ts

<n her 5erified -omplaint! 4"san ;. 8eyes (8eyes) charged respondent )"dge +an"el N. :"."e ()"dge :"."e) of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch 1'(! Gas iNas -ity (8T-ABranch 1'()! $ith <mpropriety!

-orr"ption and Gross +iscond"ct. 8eyes alleged that she $as a partyAinA The <n#estigating )"stice recommended the penalty of reprimand $ith stern $arning. <n light of )"dge Ag"irre7s death! ho$e#er! $e resol#e to inter#ention in Gand 8egistration -ase No. 0?A00& entitled C -n re) Petition of Philippine Savin"s 2an= for -ssuance of a Frit of Possession under (ct 3o.

9+9% over Properties covered by T T 3os. T6L%+M7 and T6LDLDM D filed by the hilippine 4a#ings Ban2 (ban2) against the spo"ses -arolyn -hoi and

$ith 1=!000 on hand. )"dge :"."e allegedly scolded her for not bringing the $hole amo"nt of =0!000. 8eyes e,plained that she had diffic"lty raising the amo"nt. )"dge :"."e loc2ed the main door of his ho"se and as2ed 8eyes to step into his office. )"dge :"."e pointed to a calendar posted on the $all and pointed to :ecember *? as the date $hen she sho"ld complete the amo"nt. All of a s"dden! )"dge :"."e held the $aist of 8eyes! embraced and 2issed her. 8eyes tried to str"ggle and free herself. )"dge :"."e raised her s2irt! opened her blo"se and s"c2ed her breasts. @e to"ched her pri#ate parts and attempted to ha#e se,"al interco"rse $ith 8eyes. 8eyes sho"ted for help b"t the T5 $as too lo"d. As a desperate mo#e! 8eyes appealed to )"dge :"."e saying% C =un" "usto mo! huwa" dito. Sa hotel! sasama a=o sayo.D )"dge :"."e s"ddenly stopped his se,"al ad#ances and ordered 8eyes to fi, her hair.

Na2 4an -hoi (spo"ses -hoi). <n a :ecision dated ? No#ember *00?! )"dge :"."e granted the motion for the iss"ance of a $rit of possession in fa#or of the ban2 and ordered the spo"ses -hoi and all those claiming rights "nder them to #acate the properties co#ered by T-T Nos. TA=&1(*! TA=/=/=! and TA=/=/( sit"ated in BF 8esort 5illage! Talon *! Gas iNas. ;n 1> A"g"st *00(! 8eyes filed an CKrgent etition for Gifting and 4etting

Aside of 3rit of ossession and M"ashal of Notice to 5acateD claiming that she bo"ght the s"b1ect property co#ered by T-T No. TA=&1(* from the spo"ses -hoi and that she $as in act"al possession of the property $ith f"ll 2no$ledge of the ban2.

At the hearing of 8eyes7 petition! Atty. @erminio Kbana! 4r.! (Atty. Kbana) the la$yer of 8eyes! introd"ced her to )"dge :"."e $ho allegedly ga#e 8eyes >0 days to settle matters $ith the ban2. 8eyes $as "nable to reAnegotiate $ith the ban2. ;n the first $ee2 of :ecember *00(! 8eyes allegedly recei#ed a phone call from )"dge :"."e and the latter instr"cted 8eyes to go Cto his ho"se and bring some money in order that he can deny the pending motion to brea2 open.D As she did not ha#e the money yet! 8eyes allegedly told )"dge :"."e that she $o"ld see him the follo$ing day as her allotment might arri#e by that time. The follo$ing day! $hen her allotment arri#ed! 8eyes $ent to the NB -"bao Branch in M"e6on -ity to <n its 8eport dated *? )"ne *00=! [*] the ;-A fo"nd that 8eyes act"ally filed fo"r identical complaints. First! 8eyes filed a complaint dated 1? )an"ary *00= d"ly s"bscribed on *> )an"ary *00=. 8eyes $as directed to comply $ith the re."irement of #erification and she complied by filing on *0 Febr"ary *00= #erified complaints $ith the ;ffice of the -hief )"stice and the ;-A. ;n 1* +arch *00=! 8eyes filed for the third time another #erified complaint $ith the ;-A $hich $as a mere reiteration of her pre#io"s complaints. The ;-A opined that the 1"risdiction of the -o"rt at the time of the filing of the complaint $as not lost by the mere fact that )"dge :"."e had ceased to be in office d"ring the pendency of the case. <n his -omment![1] )"dge :"."e a#erred that since the complaint of 8eyes $as filed after he retired on *1 Febr"ary *00=! he $as no longer "nder the 1"risdiction of the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A). @e denied the charges h"rled against him and claimed the allegations $ere Cfabricated! false and malicio"s.D

$ithdra$ *0!000. 4he! her secretary! and dri#er $ent to the ho"se of )"dge :"."e at No. ' -8+ -ora6on! BF Alman6a! Gas )"dge :"."e opened the gate. At his ho"se! iNas. The son of )"dge :"."e

demanded 100!000. 8eyes ga#e him *0!000 and she as2ed for time to gi#e him the balance. After a $ee2! Atty. Kbana called 8eyes telling her that )"dge :"."e $as as2ing for her and $aiting for the balance he demanded. ;n *1 :ecember *00(! 8eyes $ent to the ho"se of )"dge :"."e

Th"s! as recommended by the ;-A! the case $as referred to a -o"rt of Appeals7 )"stice for in#estigation! report and
[>]

opined that the cond"ct of )"dge :"."e bore the mar2s of impropriety and immorality. The actions of )"dge :"."e fell short of the e,acting standards for members of the 1"diciary. )"dge :"."e failed to beha#e in a manner that $o"ld promote confidence in the 1"diciary. The -o"rt Administrator

recommendation

per

8esol"tion dated ? A"g"st *00=.[/]

Re;ort an6 Re9ommen6ation of the .n?esti#atin# 1usti9e

recommended that a /0!000 fine be imposed on )"dge :"."e $hich sho"ld be ded"cted from his retirement benefits.

;n the charge of graft and corr"ption! 8eyes presented photocopies of 1!000 bills to pro#e that )"dge :"."e demanded and recei#ed money from her in consideration of a fa#orable r"ling. The <n#estigating )"stice! ho$e#er! fo"nd no compelling e#idence to corroborate 8eyes7 acc"sation as it $as do"btf"l $hether these $ere the same bills "sed to pay off )"dge :"."e.
[&]

The 'ourt>s Ru$in#

3e agree $ith the recommendation of both the <n#estigating )"stice and the ;-A for the imposition of a fine of /0!000 on )"dge :"."e.

First! on the ."estion of 1"risdiction as )"dge :"."e is no longer a ;n the charge of impropriety and gross miscond"ct! the <n#estigating )"stice opined that the act of )"dge :"."e in embracing and 2issing 8eyes! s"c2ing her breasts and to"ching her most intimate parts $ere certainly acts of le$dness that $ere do$nright obscene! detestable! and "n$elcome. These acts $ere established by s"bstantial e#idence. The <n#estigating )"stice! ho$e#er! stated that 8eyes7 description of the se,"al assa"lt co"ld not be deemed as attempted rape.[?] member of the 1"diciary ha#ing retired from the ser#ice on *1 Febr"ary *00=! the records sho$ that 8eyes filed fo"r similar complaints against )"dge :"."e. A complaint dated 1= )an"ary *00= addressed to then -hief )"stice 8eynato 4. "no and s"bscribed on 1' Febr"ary *00= $as recei#ed by the ;-A on *0 Febr"ary *00= ['] and by the ;ffice of the -hief )"stice also on *0 Febr"ary *00=![10] or one day before the date of retirement of )"dge :"."e. A similar complaint s"bscribed on 1' Febr"ary *00= $as recei#ed by the ;-A on 1* +arch *00=. [11] An identical complaint The <n#estigating )"stice fo"nd )"dge :"."e g"ilty of impropriety and gross miscond"ct constit"ting #iolations of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct and recommended the imposition of fine of /0!000 $hich sho"ld be ded"cted from the retirement benefits of )"dge :"."e. addressed to the ;-A and s"bscribed on *> )an"ary *00= $as filed and recei#ed by the ;-A on *& )an"ary *00=.[1*] As pointed o"t by the ;-A! )"dge :"."e $as Cinad#ertently sentD a copy of the complaint that $as filed and recei#ed on 1* +arch *00=.[1>] The filing of similar and identical complaints on different dates $as d"e to the directi#e of the ;-A re."iring Re;ort of the 'ourt A6ministrator that the complaint be C#erifiedD or that the Coriginal copy of the #erified complaintD be filed.[1/] Nonetheless! it is clear from the records that 8eyes <n his +emorand"m![(] the -o"rt Administrator[=] confirmed that )"dge :"."e comp"lsorily retired from the 1"diciary on *1 Febr"ary *00=. @e filed her intended complaint before )"dge :"."e retired. -onse."ently! the -o"rt no do"bt has 1"risdiction o#er this administrati#e case.

moral integrity for the people loo2 "p to him as a #irt"o"s and "pright man. ;n the charge of graft and corr"ption! the <n#estigating )"stice and the ;-A fo"nd ins"fficient e#idence to s"stain 8eyes7 allegation that )"dge :"."e demanded and recei#ed money from her in consideration of a fa#orable r"ling. Th"s! this charge sho"ld be dismissed for being "ns"bstantiated. )"dges sho"ld a#oid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their acti#ities.[1'] )"dges sho"ld cond"ct themsel#es in a $ay that is consistent $ith the dignity of the 1"dicial office. [*0] )"dges! li2e any other citi6en! are entitled to freedom of e,pression! belief! association and ;n the charge of impropriety and gross miscond"ct! and after a thoro"gh in#estigation cond"cted by the <n#estigating )"stice! it $as established! and )"dge :"."e admitted! that 8eyes $ent to his ho"se.
[1&]

assembly! b"t in e,ercising s"ch rights! they sho"ld al$ays cond"ct themsel#es in s"ch a manner as to preser#e the dignity of the 1"dicial office and the impartiality and independence of the 1"diciary.[*1]

4"bstantial e#idence also pointed to )"dge :"."e7s liability for The cond"ct of )"dge :"."e fell short of the e,acting standards for members of the 1"diciary. @e failed to beha#e in a manner that $o"ld promote confidence in the 1"diciary. -onsidering that a 1"dge is a #isible representation of the la$ and of 1"stice![**] he is nat"rally e,pected to be the epitome of integrity and sho"ld be beyond reproach. )"dge :"."e7s cond"ct ind"bitably bore the mar2s of impropriety and immorality. @e failed to li#e "p to the high moral standards of the 1"diciary and e#en transgressed the ordinary norms of decency of society. @ad )"dge :"."e not retired! his miscond"ct $o"ld ha#e merited his dismissal from the ser#ice.

impropriety and gross miscond"ct $hen he se,"ally assa"lted 8eyes.

[1?]

There is no need to detail again the le$d acts of )"dge :"."e. The

<n#estigating )"stice7s narration $as s"fficient and thoro"gh. The <n#estigating )"stice li2e$ise obser#ed that )"dge :"."e merely attempted to destroy the credibility of 8eyes $hen he insin"ated that she co"ld be a C$oman of ill rep"te or a high class prostit"teD or one $hose Cmoral #al"e is at its lo$est le#el.D @o$e#er! no 1"dge has a right to solicit se,"al fa#ors from a party litigant e#en from a $oman of loose morals. [1(] <n Tan v. Pacuribot![1=] this -o"rt f"rther stressed% 3e ha#e repeatedly reminded members of the )"diciary to so cond"ct themsel#es as to be beyond reproach and s"spicion! and to be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal beha#ior! not only in the discharge of their official d"ties b"t also in their e#eryday li#es. For no position e,acts a greater demand on the moral righteo"sness and "prightness of an indi#id"al than a seat in the )"diciary. )"dges are mandated to maintain good moral character and are at all times e,pected to obser#e irreproachable beha#ior so as not to o"trage p"blic decency. 3e ha#e adhered to and set forth the e,acting standards of morality and decency! $hich e#ery member of the 1"diciary m"st obser#e. A magistrate is 1"dged not only by his official acts b"t also by his pri#ate morals! to the e,tent that s"ch pri#ate morals are e,ternali6ed. @e sho"ld not only possess proficiency in la$ b"t sho"ld li2e$ise possess

W)ERE*ORE!

$e

find

respondent

)"dge

+an"el

N.

:"."e /U.LTY of .-PROPR.ETY and /ROSS

-.S'ONDU'T.

3e *.NE him /0!000 to be ded"cted from his retirement benefits.

SO ORDERED.

'ARP.O -ORALES, J.: By -omplaintAAffida#it of April *&! *00([1] filed $ith the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A)! )"dge 8i6alina -apcoAKmali ()"dge -apcoA

Kmali) charged )"dge

a"lita AcostaA5illarante [*] ()"dge AcostaA5illarante) hilippine

$ith #iolation of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct for the

<t is therefore mo#ed that the holding of monthly meeting of 1"dges be s"spended. (Knderscoring s"pplied)

)"diciary[>] (Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct)! -anon *! 4ection * [/] and -anon /! 4ections 1 and *.[&] ;n acco"nt of the "nderlined statements of )"dge AcostaA5illarante The facts $hich spa$ned the filing of )"dge -apcoAKmali7s complaint are not disp"ted. in her abo#eA."oted +emorand"m! )"dge -apcoAKmali filed a complaint for libel doc2eted as <.4. No. 0(A((>*A:![(] before the ;ffice of the -ity rosec"tor of +andal"yong -ity. )"dge AcostaA5illarante $rote a +emorand"m of +arch *(! )"dge AcostaA5illarante co"ntered by also filing an Administrati#e -omplaint of April *?! *00( charging )"dge -apcoAKmali $ith #iolation of -anon /! 4ections 1 and *[=] of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! and a complaint for Gra#e ;ral :efamation and Gra#e Threats! doc2eted as <.4. No. 0(A(1=/?A9!['] before the ;ffice of the -ity

*00([?] addressed to 9,ec"ti#e )"dge +aria -ancinoA9r"m of the 8egional Trial -o"rt (8T-) of+andal"yong -ity. The +emorand"m! copies of $hich $ere f"rnished the ;ffices of the -hief )"stice and the Associate )"stices of the 4"preme -o"rt! the )"dicial and Bar -o"ncil! 8epresentati#e Benh"r Abalos! +ayor Neptali Gon6ales <<! the -ity rosec"tor of +andal"yong! the -ler2 of -o"rt of +andal"yong 8T-s! and the other 1"dges

rosec"tor! +andal"yong -ity.

of +andal"yong -ity! reads% This refers to that "nfort"nate incident $hich occ"rred d"ring the first meeting of 8T- )"dges e#er [sic] held on +arch *>! *00( (Friday) "nder yo"r e,ec"ti#e 1"dgeship $here the ne$ly appointed #ice e,ec"ti#e )"dge 8i6alina -apcoAKmali marred the e#ent by cond"ct #ery "nbecoming of a 1"dge by "ttering "nsa#ory remar2s and epithets or $ords of the same import designed to h"miliate the "ndersigned in the presence of fello$ 1"dges and assistant cler2 of co"rt Atty. Geynard :"mlao! co"pled $ith her attempt to inflict physical harm to the "ndersigned$hich yo"! as the ne$ly appointed e,ec"ti#e )"dge! miserably failed to control and dominate and opted to ta2e a passi#e stance. The cond"ct of the ne$ly appointed #ice e,ec"ti#e 1"dge does not spea2 $ell of her being a 1"dge $ho is e,pected to cond"ct herself in a $ay that is consistent $ith the dignity of the 1"dicial office. 3hile the meeting of the 1"dges is an ideal for"m for the e,change of ideals and information! and to promote camaraderie among 1"dges in the interest of p"blic ser#ice! there is no ass"rance that the "ncalled for incident on +arch *>! *00( $ill not be repeated. By 1st <ndorsement of A"g"st 1! *00(![10] the administrati#e complaints $ere referred to the ;-A.

The details of )"dge -apcoAKmali7s complaint are contained in her -omplaintAAffida#it for Gibel as follo$s% After ha#ing been designated by the 4"preme -o"rt a[s] the ne$ 9,ec"ti#e )"dge and 5iceA9,ec"ti#e )"dge! 8egional Trial -o"rt! +andal"yong -ity! )"dge +aria A. -ancinoA9r"m and the 5ice 9,ec"ti#e )"dge (complainant) together $ith 9,ec"ti#e )"dge ;felia -olo of the +etropolitant [sic] Trial -o"rt Br. &' agreed to pay a co"rtesy callJ#isit to +ay[o]r Neptali CBoyetD Gon6ales <<! -ity +ayor of +andal"yong -ity. The #isit too2 place at noontime of +arch 1&! *00( (Th"rsday). After briefing the +ayor [abo"t] the p"rpose of o"r #isit! he $armly and gracio"sly entertained "s. Kntil the con#ersation $as shifted to the topic of local allo$ance. 4"ch being the topic! )"dge +aria A. -ancinoA9r"m sho$ed to the +ayor the payroll for the month of April *00( for early appro#al considering that most 1"dges $o"ld ta2e their #acation. er"sing intently the

payroll +ayor Gon6ales noticed the disparity in fig"res (amo"nt) as to the allo$ance recei#ed by each )"dges. @e noticed that respondent 5illarante $as recei#ing additional three tho"sand pesos ( >!000) on top of her reg"lar allo$ance as 9,ec"ti#e )"dgeB and additional fi#e tho"sand pesos ( hp&!000) on top of her allo$ance as Acting )"dge of Br. *0'. @e also noticed that < [)"dge -apcoAKmali] and 9,ec"ti#e )"dge +aria A. -ancinoA9r"m recei#ed additional t$o tho"sand pesos ( *!000) each on top of o"r reg"lar allo$ances. As2ing "s as to $hy and as to $here those additional allo$ances come from! complainant told the mayor that T9889! the one preparing the payroll told "s (< and 9,ec"ti#e )"dge 9r"m)[ abo"t the *!000 allo$ance.] ,,,, 9,ec"ti#e )"dge +aria A. -ancinoA9r"m for her part informed the +ayor! th"s% C4abi po ni )"dge 5illarante nire."est da$ niya po iyon sa inyo appro#ed n7yo! at pinirmahan niya ang payroll. Tinanggap naman po naming [sic] nitong Febr"ary.D B"t as regards the additional >!000 (as 9,ec"ti#e )"dge) and &!000 (as Acting )"dge) of )"dge 5illarante! $e told the +ayor that $e ha#e no 2no$ledge as to ho$ they come abo"tU C3ala a2ong alam na re."est! $ala a2ong inapro#e! at lalong $ala a2ong pangdagdag. 3alang pondo. <yon ngang mga tao 2o! hindi 2o maincreasan. 9! 2ayo mga 1"dges 2ayo! syempre pirma na lang a2o pag prisinta sa a2in an[g] payroll.D The +ayor s"mmoned G;<:A! her staff and directed the latter to retrie#e the pre#io"s payrolls incl"ding the *00? payrolls. @e also said that Cang la2i naman ng increase ng 9,ec"ti#e )"dge! lalo na ang sa Acting! hindi naman ganyan yan ah. ero in case na naapro#e 2o yan! ibibigay na natin yan sa bagong 9,ec"ti#e )"dge at iyong dating 9,ec"ti#e )"dge! bali2 sa dati niyang tinatanggap.D

-ome! +arch *>! *00( (Friday) +onthly )"dges +eeting hosted by the ne$ly designated 9,ec"ti#e )"dge +aria A. -ancinoA9r"m. The meeting $as going smoothly "ntil the topic of local allo$ance had been to"ched. 8eporting to the body $hat transpired d"ring the co"rtesy call at the +ayor7s ;ffice on +arch 1&! *00(! $hen the matter of gi#ing to the ne$ e,ec"ti#e 1"dge the increased allo$ances of 9,ec"ti#e )"dge a"lita B. AcostaA5illarante and that the latter $o"ld re#ert bac2 [sic] to the a"thori6ed amo"nt for 9,ec"ti#e )"dges $as disc"ssed! respondent 5illarante $as angered and bl"rted o"t addressing the ne$ 9,ec"ti#e )"dge! th"s% CXayo! sim"la ng ma"po sa p$esto! $ala ng gina$a 2"ndi 2"t2"tin at maghanap ng e#idencia para a2o masira! nags"s"mbong! nagmamanman. 3ala naman pa2ialaman sa allo$ance 2anya 2anya yan dapat.[D] @a#ing personal 2no$ledge of the con#ersation that transpired at the +ayor7s ;ffice on +arch 1&! *00(! and m"ch a$are that respondent7s acc"sations $ere baseless! complainant felt obliged to come to the resc"e of the embattled )"dge +aria A. -ancinoA9r"m and to ref"te respondent7s misplaced tirade by stating matter of fact the tr"th and $hat < sa$ and heard. For his part! )"dge -arlos A. 5alen6"ela $ho admitted his presence d"ring the co"rtesy call confirmed the tr"thf"lness of complainant7s report and also confirmed the transfer of 9,ec"ti#e )"dge7s allo$ance to the ne$ 9,ec"ti#e )"dge th"s% CTotoo ang sinabi ni )"dge Kmali nandoon a2o! ililipat nga allo$ance sa bagong 9,ec"ti#e )"dge at ang dating 9,ec"ti#e )"dge $ill recei#e former amo"nt.D 3hile complainant is still enlightening her fello$ )"dges of the real facts that transpired at the +ayor7s ;ffice! the respondent 2ept tal2ing too and e#en sho"ting at the top [of] her #oice to$ards complainant #isibly ir2ed by complainant7s re#elation on the matter. 8espondent e#en called complainant a liar (sinun0alin0) repeatedly[B] $hen complainant demanded from respondent her basis for saying that complainant is a liar! respondent $as not able to ans$er it b"t contin"ed calling her =sinun0alin0>. 9#en telling her to stop tal2ing beca"se her (complainant) #oice is so sharp to her ear (Cna2a2ahi$a boses moD). 8espondent contin"ed #erbally attac2ing complainant $ith $ords connoting malicio"s imp"tations of being an incorrigible liar and of being in cahoots $ith )"dge +aria A. -ancinoA9r"m in peddling lies [that] the complainant got "pset by the #erbal aggression made by )"dge 5illarante that she told the latter! th"s%M-atan6a Ha na, ha$os ma$a;it Ha

,,,,

na sa Hamata7an #uma#a5a Ha ;a n# #an7an, ma6a6ama7 ;a Hami.N )"dge 5illarante fo"ght bac2% CBog! sana mangyari sa iyo! bogYD. -omplainant $elcomed the challenge! th"s% Chanda a2ong mamatay 2ahit anong oras dahil $ala a2ong ginaga$ang masamaD. At said instance complainant once more prompted )"dge 5illarante as to her a"thority or basis in the increase in the payroll! and )"dge 5illarante ans$ered% C+ay nagAoofer ngaYD. +ore heated e,changes ens"ed beca"se )"dge 5illarante 2ept o[n] saying sinun"alin" to the complainant. Thereafter! cooler heads inter#ened. )"dge 9d$in 4orongonU bro"ght respondent o"t of the room $hile Atty. Geynard :"mlao [$as] pacifying the complainant.[11] (9mphasis partly in the original and partly s"ppliedB "nderscoring s"ppliedB italics in the original)

n" allowances! maari ban" ipaabot =o sa =aalaman n" lahat na may tumawa" n" a=in" =aalaman at pansin na mayroon di6umanon" /u=om n" RT na na"pahiwati" sa Tan""apan n" ity Mayor na di6 umano hindi =o hini6hearin" o dinidini" an" m"a asunto n" RT ! 2r. 78N! na sa=up n" a=in" desi"nasyon bilan" (ctin" Presidin" 'ud"e! na may =au"nayan sa atin" pa"6uusapan na allowances. Pinatunayan =o na hindi tutoo at pawan" =asinun"alin"an an" bintan" sa pamama"itan n" $Minutes of ourt /earin"sO at $ ertificationO n" 2ranch ler= of ourt n" RT ! 2r.78N. M"a =asama sa 'udiciary! na=i=iusap a=o na iwasan natin an" na=a=asiran" ba"ay na hindi totoo 0 0 0O[.] $0 0 0 ?"nay sa representation sa pa"taas n" allowance n" 'ud"es sa local *overnment ay napa"bi"yan naman. Pa=iusap =o! huwa" naman siraan an" =apwa 0 0 0!O at iba pa. ;n the matter! a )"dge in the gro"p made a comment H to $it% $0 0 0 upan" maiwasan an" hindi pa"=a=aunawaan n" isaGt isa sa atin! hinihilin" =o sa bawaGt isa sa atin na =un" ano an" tinatan""ap n" sino man sa atin! huwa" n" Puestionin 0 0 0O at iba pa. at that 1"nct"re )"dge -apcoAKmali stood "p and in a mode of anger pointing a finger against herein -omplainant! she repeatedly said in a lo"d #oice% $Matanda =a naQ> Mamamatay =a na>...O at iba pa na may =ahalintulad. ;n the impropriety of the "nr"ly and disrespect beha#ior and cond"ct of )"dge -apcoAKmali in the presence of fello$A1"dges and others! a )"dge tried to say something in an effort to appease her "nr"liness! b"t she 2ept on "n2indly berating herein -omplainant $ho $as then speechless o"t of her shoc2 on her "ne,pected beha#ior.

By -omment of +ay *=! *00(![1*] )"dge AcostaA5illarante denied that she $rote the +emorand"m to malicio"sly imp"te a crime! #ice or defect on )"dge -apcoAKmali as she merely re."ested for the s"spension of the holding of the monthly meeting of 1"dges to a#oid a repetition of the incident and to afford the parties an opport"nity to Ccool off.D

<n ca"sing the circ"lation of the +emorand"m! )"dge AcostaA 5illarante e,plained that she had an Cobligation to bring to the attention of concerned officials the personal demeanor of another member that $o"ld p"t the )"diciary in constant p"blic scr"tiny and disrespect.D @er #ersion of the incident goes% After ta2ing "p the first agenda of the meeting , , ,! the agenda on allo$ances of )"dges $as called to be ta2en "p. 3here"pon! -omplainant re."ested to ta2e the floor and manifested as follo$s% )"dge .A. 5illarante% $m"a =apwa =on" /u=om! ba"o natin tala=ayin an" a"enda

8egaining a bit of compos"re and $it! -omplainant appealed to the respondent in this manner% $0 0 0 'ud"e ?mali ma"pa=atao at ma=ini" =a naman para ma=apa"unawaan tayo! na=a=ahiya na ito 0 0 0O to $hich she became more angry and sho"ted H $0 0 0 'ud"e a=o> 'ud"e a=o 0 0 0>O. as she $as po"nding her breast contin"o"sly $ith her fistB beca"se of the shoc2 and fright generated by the "nr"ly beha#ior of respondent! complainant did not clearly comprehend the rest of her berating statements made against her in the process. 3hen respondent )"dge Kmali already appeared to be more "ncontrollable in her decor"m! complainant then in fear too2 steps to get o"t of the place $ith )"dge 4orongon then tending her on her sho"lder assisted her in haste to$ards the e,it doorB and $hen abo"t to step o"t of the e,it door! complainant t"rning her face on the then commotion at her bac2 she sa$ 8espondent )"dge Kmali still berating her and in the act of catching her at the bac2 b"t on the then timely inter#ention of Atty. Geynard :"mlao $ho then $as close at complainant7s bac2! pre#ented respondent to reach her $ho then hastily mo#ed to the safety of her co"rtroom still $ith the assistance of )"dge 4orongon! th"s complainant got o"t of the $rath of respondent )"dge Kmali.[1>] (<talics and "nderscoring in the original)

<n

her

)"ne

=!

*00(

8eply! [1&] )"dge

AcostaA

5illarante! a6mittin# calling )"dge -apcoAKmali Csinun"alin"!D e,plained that she $as only CconstrainedD by the sit"ation! adding that )"dge -apcoA Kmali is a Cpathological liar.D

<n its +arch &! *00= 8eport and 8ecommendation![1?] the ;-A made the follo$ing e#al"ation% ,,,, The a6missions made by the concerned )"dges anent the allegations they h"rled against each other pro#ide for the strongest e#idence to esta=$ish their in6i?i6ua$ $ia=i$it7. Time and again! the -o"rt has constantly reminded )"dges that as magistrates of the la$! they m"st comport themsel#es at all times in s"ch a manner that their cond"ct! official or other$ise! can bear the most searching scr"tiny of the p"blic that loo2s "p to them as epitome of integrity and 1"stice. They m"st be the first to abide by the la$ and $ea#e an e,ample for others to follo$. They m"st st"dio"sly a#oid e#en the slightest infraction of the la$ ( (lumbres vs. aoibes! (.M. 3o. RT'6NN6+D9+! 'anuary 79! 7887). The actions of the respondent )"dges fell short of this e,acting ethical standard demanded from the members of the )"diciary. 4ection 1! -anon / of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct for the hilippine )"diciary (A.+. [No.] 0>A0&A 01A4-! [effecti#e] 01 )"ne *00/) en"nciates the r"le that $@'Bud"es shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.O 1u6#e 'a;9o:Uma$i failed to li#e "p to the standard of propriety entrenched in the afore."oted code of cond"ct. 3hile! she might ha#e been pro#o2ed by )"dge AcostaA5illarante7s referral to her as a liar! she shou$6 ha?e maintaine6 her 9om;osure instea6 of shoutin# =a9H at a fe$$o5 Iu6#e. 4he sho"ld ha#e e,ercised selfArestraint instead of reacting in s"ch a #ery inappropriate manner considering that she is in the presence of fello$ )"dges and other employees of 8T-! +andal"yong -ity. 4he sho"ld ha#e p"t more consideration and effort on preser#ing the solemnity of the said meeting! and on gi#ing those $ho are present the co"rtesy and respect they deser#ed. <t $as held in <uiroz vs. Crfila H7M7 S R( 97D @+NNMBI that C[f]ighting bet$een co"rt employees d"ring office ho"rs is disgracef"l beha#ior reflecting ad#ersely on the good image of the 1"diciary. <t

<n

her +ay

**!

*00( -omment![1/] )"dge

-apcoA

Kmali! a6mittin# ha#ing "ttered the remar2s $matanda =a na! halos malapit =a na sa =amatayan "uma"awa =a pa n" "anyan! madadamay pa =amiO to )"dge AcostaA5illarante! e,plained that it $as Cd"e to e,asperationD as )"dge AcostaA5illarante called her Can incorrigible liarD or Csinun"alin".D Also a6mittin# ha#ing "ttered $'ud"e a=o> 'ud"e a=o>!O she e,plained that it $as to remind )"dge AcostaA5illarante that she deser#ed respect and co"rtesy! for $hile she $as spea2ing on the topic of allo$ances! )"dge AcostaA5illarante 2ept interr"pting her by Cma2ing inter1ections and "nnecessary comments.D

displays a ca#alier attit"de to$ards the serio"sness and dignity $ith $hich co"rt b"siness sho"ld be treated. 4ho"ting at one another in the $or2place and d"ring office ho"rs is arrant disco"rtesy and disrespect not only to$ards coA$or2ers! b"t to the co"rt as $ell. The beha#ior of the parties $as totally "nbecoming members of the 1"dicial ser#ice.D )"dge -apcoAKmali! ho$e#er! does not bear this responsibility alone. 1u6#e A9osta: 3i$$arante sho"ld also be re."ired to ans$er for her fail"re to obser#e the basic norm of propriety demanded from a 1"dge in relation $ith the aforementioned *> +arch *00( incident. At the o"tset! it $as )"dge AcostaA5illarante7s "nseemly beha#ior! calling )"dge -apcoAKmali Csinun"alin"D in front of their fello$ )"dges that initiated the altercation bet$een the t$o )"dges. 1u6#e A9osta:3i$$arante shou$6 ha?e =een more 9autious in 9hoosin# the 5or6s to address the already #olatile sit"ation $ith )"dge -apcoA Kmali. )"dge AcostaA5illarante also repeated the "ncalled for cond"ct $hen she $rote the memorand"m dated *( +arch *00( and ca"sed its circ"lation. <f indeed the memorand"m $as prod"ced strictly to allo$ the parties to cool off and a#oid a repetition of the incident! on this gro"nd alone! there $as no need to mention the alleged misbeha#ior of )"dge -apcoAKmali d"ring the meeting. The memoran6um 5as thus 5ritten as a me6ium for reta$iation a#ainst 1u6#e 'a;9o:Uma$i. )"dge AcostaA5illarante cannot also "se as 1"stification in $riting and circ"lating of the memorand"m the claim that Cshe has an obligation to bring to the attention of concerned officials the personal demeanor of another member that $o"ld p"t the )"diciary in constant p"blic scr"tiny and disrespectD p"rs"ant to her oath of office. As a )"dge! respondent AcostaA5illarante is a$are that there are proper a#en"es for #entilation of grie#ance against anyone in go#ernment ser#iceU. +oreo#er! the termination of the conflict bet$een her and )"dge -apcoAKmali (thro"gh the s"ggestion of gi#ing the parties opport"nity for Ccooling offD) is clearly not $hat she is "p to for $hat she did only $orsened the sit"ation ($ith the filing of se#eral complaints and co"nterAcomplaints). An act complained of anchored on a #iolation of -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! may only constit"te a serio"s charge "nder 4ection = of 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt if the same amo"nts to gross miscond"ct. The respecti#e acts for $hich the herein respondents ha#e been charged do not amo"nt to gross miscond"ct. Th"s! the 9har#es a#ainst them 9annot =e 9onsi6ere6 serious. Ne#ertheless! respondents sho"ld be held a6ministrati?e$7 $ia=$e for ?io$ation of

Se9tion &, 'anon D of the Ne5 'o6e of 1u6i9ia$ 'on6u9t for the Phi$i;;ine 1u6i9iar7. Knder 4ection 11(B) in relation to 4ection ' (A) of 8"le 1/0! as amended by A.+. No. 01A=A10A4-! #iolation of 4"preme -o"rt r"les constit"tes a $ess serious 9har#e. 8espondents! therefore! may be sanctioned $ith% [1] s"spension from office $itho"t salary and other benefits for not less than (1) nor more than three (>) monthsB or [*] a fine of more than 10!000.00 b"t not e,ceeding *0!000.00. <n the case of )"dge -apcoAKmali! ho$e#er! the imposable penalty sho"ld be tem;ere6 beca"se it is clear from the record that she $as dragged into the tiff by an act of pro#ocation.[1(] (<talics in the originalB emphasis and "nderscoring s"pplied)

Th"s! for #iolating 4ection 1! -anon / of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct $hich is a less serio"s charge "nder 4ection 11(B) in relation to 4ection ' (A) of 8"le 1/0! as amended by A.+. No. 01A=A10A4-! the ;-A recommended that )"dges -apcoAKmali and AcostaA5illarante be fined in the amo"nt of 11!000 and 1?!000! respecti#ely.

The -o"rt finds the e#al"ation of the complaints by the ;-A $ellAta2en.

-o"rts

are

loo2ed

"pon

by

the

people

$ith

high

respect. +isbeha#ior by 1"dges and employees necessarily diminishes their dignity. Any fighting or mis"nderstanding is a disgracef"l occ"rrence reflecting ad#ersely on the good image of the )"diciary.
[1=]

By fighting $ithin the co"rt premises! respondent 1"dges failed to the proper decor"m e,pected of members of the

obser#e

)"diciary. +ore detestable is the fact that their s."abble arose o"t of a mere allo$ance coming from the local go#ernment.

Knder

8"le

1/0!

as

amended

by

A.+.

No.

01A=A10A

4-[1'] (4eptember 11! *001)! a #iolation of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct is

classified as a serio"s charge only if it amo"nts to gross miscond"ct. 4ince! as correctly fo"nd by the ;-A! the same does not constit"te gross miscond"ct! it sho"ld be considered only as a#iolation of 4"preme -o"rt r"les! directi#es and circ"lars! $hich is classified as a less serious char"e! in $hich case! any of the follo$ing sanctions may be imposed% (1) s"spension from office $itho"t salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three monthsB or (*) a fine of more than 10!000 b"t not e,ceeding *0!000.

SO ORDERED.

NA')URA, J.: Before "s is a 5erifiedA-omplaint dated Febr"ary *0! *00' filed by complainant Atty. 8a"l G. -orrea charging respondent )"dge +edel Arnaldo B. Belen of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch >?! -alamba -ity! Gag"na of +iscond"ct.

The -o"rt finds! ho$e#er! that )"dges -apcoAKmali and AcostaA 5illarante sho"ld each be fined 11!000.

-omplainant narrated that he $as one of the -oAAdministrators appointed by the co"rt in 4pecial roceedings No. ??0A01-!

entitled $-ntestate :state of /ector Tan.O @e re#ealed that d"ring the W)ERE*ORE! the -o"rt finds )"dges 8i6alina T. -apcoAKmali and a"lita B. AcostaA5illarante GK<GTL of #iolation of 4ection 1! -anon / of the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct for the hilippine )"diciary! for $hich they hearing of the case! respondent )"dge Belen disagreed $ith #ario"s items in the Administrator7s 8eport! incl"ding the a"dited Financial 8eport co#ering the said estate! and immediately r"led that they sho"ld be disallo$ed. -omplainant added that respondent )"dge Belen scolded their acco"ntant! branded her as an incompetent! and threatened to s"e her <n #ie$ of the retirement of )"dge a"lita B. AcostaA5illarante! the before the reg"latory body o#erseeing all certified p"blic acco"ntants.

are each *.NED in the amo"nt of 9le#en Tho"sand ( 11!000) esos.

Fiscal +anagement and B"dget ;ffice! ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator is ordered to :9:K-T the amo"nt of 9le#en Tho"sand esos ( 11!000) from her retirement benefits. -omplainant f"rther claimed that! in the co"rse of the proceedings! he $as as2ed by respondent )"dge Belen to stand "p $hile the latter dictated his order on their Administrator7s 8eport. 8espondent )"dge Belen e#en reb"2ed him for some mista2es in managing the affairs of the estate! adding that it is regrettable M=e9ause Att7. Rau$ 'orrea is a U.P. La5 /ra6uate an6 a Bar To;not9her at that.N -omplainant regrets the act"ations and )"dge 8i6alina T. -apcoAKmali! $ho is still in the ser#ice! is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of similar acts $ill be dealt $ith more se#erely. The same stern $arning applies to retired )"dge a"lita B. AcostaA5illarante in her capacity as a member of the Bar. statements of respondent )"dge Belen! especially beca"se the remar2 $as "ncalled for! a leftAhanded compliment! and a gra#e ins"lt to his Alma +ater. 3orse! respondent )"dge Belen o"sted complainant as coA administrator of the estate of @ector Tan.

;n )"ne 1=! *00=! respondent )"dge Belen iss"ed an ;rder citing complainant for indirect contempt! allegedly $ith administrator 8ose Ang Tee! for s"rreptitio"sly and "nla$f"lly $ithdra$ing from and emptying the acco"nt of the estate of @ector Tan. The )"ne 1=! *00= ;rder contained snide remar2s! vizR , , ,. The action of 8ose Tee and Atty. 8a"l -orrea is cont"macio"s and direct challenge to la$f"l orders! and 1"dicial process of this [c]o"rt and malicio"s assa"lt to the orderly administration of 1"stice! more specifically abhorrent the act and deed of Att7. Rau$ 'orrea, a U.P. La5 a$umnus an6 Bar To;not9her ! $ho as a la$yer 2no$s #ery $ell and f"lly "nderstands that s"ch action #iolates his oath of office $hich the -o"rt cannot co"ntenance. , , ,

the ;ng2i2o Ga$ ;ffice! the co"nsel of the opposing party in the settlement proceedings.

8espondent )"dge Belen f"rther alleged that complainant! in conni#ance $ith 8ose Ang Tee! s"rreptitio"sly released millions of pesos for the no$ deceased "rification Tee Tan and to themsel#es! in clear #iolation of complainant7s legal and fid"ciary relationship and responsibilities as co"rtAappointed coAadministrator.

Both the 5erifiedA-omplaint and the -omment $ere referred to the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A) for e#al"ation! report! and recommendation.

Gastly! complainant insisted that he sho"ld not ha#e been cited for indirect contempt beca"se he had f"lly e,plained to the co"rt that he had done his part as coAadministrator in good faith! and that! thro"gh his efforts! the estate $as able to meet the deadline for the latest Ta, Amnesty rogram of the go#ernment! conse."ently sa#ing the estate the amo"nt of no less than >& +illion. <n its 8eport dated +arch 10! *010! the ;-A fo"nd respondent )"dge Belen g"ilty of cond"ct "nbecoming of a 1"dge for his "se of intemperate lang"age and inappropriate actions in dealing $ith co"nsels! s"ch as complainant! appearing in his sala. The ;-A said that respondent )"dge Belen sho"ld ha#e 1"st r"led on the motion filed by complainant instead of opting for a conceited display of arrogance. The ;-A also noted that the <n his -omment dated A"g"st 1=! *00'! respondent )"dge Belen arg"ed that a 1"dge! ha#ing the hea#y b"rden to al$ays cond"ct himself in accordance $ith the ethical tenets of honesty! probity and integrity! is d"ty bo"nd to remind co"nsel of their d"ties to the co"rt! to their clients! to the ad#erse party! and to the opposing co"nsel. incidents s"b1ect of this administrati#e matter $ere not the first time that respondent )"dge Belen had "ttered intemperate remar2s to$ards la$yers appearing before him. <t noted that in Mane v. 2elen![1] the -o"rt fo"nd respondent )"dge Belen g"ilty of cond"ct "nbecoming of a 1"dge and $as reprimanded for engaging in a s"percilio"s legal and personal disco"rse.

8espondent )"dge Belen claimed that the cond"ct of complainant in handling the settlement of the estate of @ector Tan #iolated and breached the tenets and standards of the legal profession and of the Ga$yer7s ;ath. @e alleged that! despite the clear tenor of a la$yerAclient relationship! complainant associated himself as corresponding co"nsel and member of

Based on its e#al"ation! the ;-A recommended that (a) the administrati#e case against respondent )"dge Belen be reAdoc2eted as a reg"lar administrati#e matterB and (b) respondent )"dge Belen be fined in the amo"nt of 10!000.00 for cond"ct "nbecoming of a 1"dge! $ith a stern

$arning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt $ith more se#erely.

3e 1oin the ;-A in noting that the incidents narrated by complainant $ere ne#er denied by respondent )"dge Belen! $ho merely offered his 1"stification and asserted co"nter acc"sations against complainant.

The findings and the recommendations of the ;-A are $ell ta2en and! th"s! sho"ld be "pheld. 5erily! $e hold that respondent )"dge Belen sho"ld be more circ"mspect in his lang"age in the discharge of his d"ties. A 1"dge is the <ndeed! the Ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct for the hilippine )"diciary e,horts members of the 1"diciary! in the discharge of their d"ties! to be models of propriety at all times. -anon / mandates H (3C3 D PROPR.ETY ropriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the acti#ities of a 1"dge. 49-T<;N 1. )"dges shall a#oid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their acti#ities. ,,, 49-. ?. )"dges! li2e any other citi6en! are entitled to freedom of e,pression! belief! association and assembly! b"t in e,ercising s"ch rights! they shall al$ays cond"ct themsel#es in s"ch a manner as to preser#e the dignity of the 1"dicial office and the impartiality and independence of the 1"diciary. #isible representation of the la$. Th"s! he m"st beha#e! at all times! in s"ch a manner that his cond"ct! official or other$ise! can $ithstand the most searching p"blic scr"tiny. The ethical principles and sense of propriety of a 1"dge are essential to the preser#ation of the people7s faith in the 1"dicial system.[*]

A 1"dge m"st consistently be temperate in $ords and in actions. 8espondent )"dge Belen7s ins"lting statements! tending to pro1ect complainant7s ignorance of the la$s and proced"re! coming from his inconsiderate belief that the latter mishandled the ca"se of his client is ob#io"sly and clearly insensiti#e! distastef"l! and ine,c"sable. 4"ch ab"se of po$er and a"thority co"ld only in#ite disrespect from co"nsels and from the p"blic. atience is one #irt"e that members of the bench sho"ld

practice at all times! and co"rtesy to e#eryone is al$ays called for.

The -ode also calls "pon 1"dges to ens"re e."ality of treatment to all before the co"rts. +ore specifically! 4ection >! -anon & on 9."ality pro#ides H 49-. >. )"dges shall carry o"t 1"dicial d"ties $ith appropriate consideration for all persons! s"ch as the parties! $itnesses! la$yers! co"rt staff and 1"dicial colleag"es! $itho"t differentiation on any irrele#ant gro"nd! immaterial to the proper performance of s"ch d"ties.

-ond"ct "nbecoming of a 1"dge is classified as a light offense "nder 4ection 10! 8"le 1/0 of the 8e#ised 8"les of -o"rt! penali6ed "nder 4ection 11 (c) thereof by any of the follo$ing% (1) a Fine of not less than 1!000.00 b"t not e,ceeding 10!000.00B (*) -ens"reB (>) 8eprimandB and (/) Admonition $ith $arning. <nasm"ch as this is not respondent )"dge Belen7s first offense! the penalty of fine of appropriate. 10!000.00 is deemed

W)ERE*ORE, $e find )"dge +edel Arnaldo B. Belen!

residing By :ecision[>] of A"g"st =! *00>! respondent dismissed the election protest and declared +ancio as the d"ly elected m"nicipal mayor of +adride1os! -eb" $ith total #otes of &!*1/.[/]

)"dge of the 8egional Trial -o"rt of -alamba -ity! Branch >?! /U.LTY of -ond"ct Knbecoming of a )"dge! and *.NE him 10!000.00! $ith a stern $arning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt $ith more se#erely.

;n appeal! the -;+9G9- First :i#ision! by 8esol"tion [&]of +arch SO ORDERED. 'ARP.O -ORALES, J.: *&! *00/! re#ersed and set aside the A"g"st =! *00> :ecision of respondent and declared complainant7s $ife Ienaida 4ala6ar as the d"ly elected mayor.[?]

By -omplaint[1] dated No#ember 10! *00/! :oroteo +. 4ala6ar (complainant) charged )"dge Antonio :. +arigomen (respondent)!

Th"s! spa$ned the filing of the complaint at bar.

residing )"dge of Branch ?1! 8egional Trial -o"rt! Bogo! -eb"! $ith gross ignorance of the la$! bias! cond"ct pre1"dicial to the interest of the ser#ice and rendering a decision #iolati#e of the -ommission on 9lections (-;+9G9-) 8"les of roced"re and the -onstit"tion in connection $ith

By complainant7s claim! respondent admitted in e#idence "ncertified photocopies of the contested ballots! [(] the original copies of $hich $ere in the c"stody of the @89T! contrary to 4ection (! 8"le 1>0 of the 8"les of -o"rt[=] $hich pro#ides% 49-. (. :vidence admissible when ori"inal document is a public record. H 3hen the original of a doc"ment is in the c"stody of a p"blic officer or is recorded in a p"blic office! its contents may be pro#ed by a 9ertifie6 copy iss"ed by the p"blic officer in c"stody thereof. (<talics in the originalB emphasis and "nderscoring s"pplied)B

9lection 4 - -ase No. B;G;A00(='.

Ienaida F. 4ala6ar! $ife of complainant! and a mayoralty candidate in the +"nicipality of +adride1os! -eb" in the +ay *001 elections! filed on )"ly /! *001 an election protest against the proclaimed $inner Gety[*] +ancio (+ancio) before the 8egional Trial -o"rt! Bogo! -eb" $here it $as doc2eted as 9lection 4 - -ase No. B;G;A00(='.

and respondent considered the "ncertified photocopiesAe,hibits for +ancio The election case $as first heard by then Acting residing )"dge )es"s 4. dela eNa $ho! on April 1! *00*! iss"ed an order directing the 8espondent7s partiality $as! by complainant7s claim! sho$n in se#eral instances! viz% 3hen protestant Ienaida 4ala6ar ob1ected to the presentation of the plain photocopies of the contested ballots! respondent ordered his -ler2 of -o"rt to coordinate $ith co"nsel for protestee and to in deciding the case. @ence! the charge of gross ignorance of the la$.[']

re#ision of the contested ballots in the premises of the @o"se of 8epresentati#es 9lectoral Trib"nal (@89T) $here the ballot bo,es $ere being 2ept. 8espondent too2 o#er and started presiding o#er the election case on )"ne >! *00*.

testify for herB and respondent allo$ed Atty. 8einerio 8oeles! the coA co"nsel for the protestee! to testify despite the protestant7s ob1ection on the gro"nd that his testifying $o"ld be a #iolation of professional ethics [10] and despite respondent7s citation of a"thorities on the matter.
[11]

<n his -omment![1(] respondent proffers that complainant is not the real party in interest and! in any e#ent! the complaint is moot and academic as the election protest had been decided on appeal by the -;+9G9-B and if errors $ere committed! Cthey pertain to the e,ercise of his ad1"dicati#e f"nctions [$hich]
[1=]

cannot

be

corrected

thro"gh

administrati#e

-omplainant f"rther claims that respondent $as acting as if he $ere the co"nsel for the protestee! demonstrated d"ring the testimony of the -ler2 of -o"rt $hen protestee7s co"nsel had diffic"lty e,plaining the nat"re of the cler27s testimony and respondent laid the basis thereof.[1*]

proceedings.D

As to the charge of gross ignorance of the la$! respondent cites 4ection &![1'] 8"le 1>0 of the 8"les of -o"rt as his legal basis for the admission of the "ncertified photocopies.

-omplainant additionally claims that respondent $as Ctoo liberal and tolerant of the mane"#erings and manip"lations of the :enying complainant7s claim that he $as biased in fa#or of the protestee relati#e to the presentation of her co"nsel Atty. 8oeles as a $itness! respondent claims that despite the co"nsel for the protestant7s commitment to s"bmit a memorand"m of a"thorities to s"pport his ob1ection to Atty. 8oeles7 presentation! no memorand"m $as s"bmitted.[*0] F"rthermore! complainant claims that despite the parties7 agreement to follo$ the +emorand"m on olicy G"idelines dated +arch 1*! *00* e,ec"ted bet$een the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A) and the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines (<B )
[1/]

protestee!D[1>] thereby dragging the proceedings $hich started on )"ly /! *001 ($hen it $as filed) "p to A"g"st =! *00> ($hen it $as decided)! in #iolation of the period pro#ided by the ;mnib"s 9lection -ode.

8especting his ha#ing propo"nded ."estions in the co"rse of the testimony of the $itnesses! respondent claims that he did so in good faith Cin order to ascertain the falsity or tr"th of the s"b1ect matter.D[*1]

allo$ing the s"bmission of

affida#its of $itnesses in lie" of their testifying in co"rt! s"b1ect to cross e,amination! respondent allo$ed protestee to present $itnesses to gi#e oral testimonies.[1&] ;n the charge of cond"ct pre1"dicial to the interest of the ser#ice! respondent disclaims any intentional delay of the proceedings on his part. As for the nonAobser#ance of the +emorand"m on Finally! complainant claims that respondent #iolated the olicy G"idelines!

he arg"es that if the protestant had agreed to obser#e the memorand"m! he co"ld not compel the protestee to also obser#e the same as the policy g"idelines are merely recommendatory and not comp"lsory. [**]

-;+9G9- 8"les of

roced"re as $ell as the -onstit"tion for not clearly

and distinctly stating the facts and the la$ on $hich his decision $as based.
[1?]

Finally! respondent maintains that his decision clearly stated the facts and the la$ on $hich it $as based! and if there are errors therein! they

are correctible by 1"dicial remedies and not by administrati#e proceedings.

[*>]

The ;-A! by 8eport[*/] of April /! *00?! fo"nd the complaint meritorio"s in light of the follo$ing e#al"ation% . . . Administrati#e matter in#ol#es the e,ercise of the -o"rt7s po$er to discipline 1"dges. <t is "nderta2en and prosec"ted solely for the p"blic $elfare! that is! to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the go#ernment. Th"s! "nli2e in ordinary cases! there is no pri#ate offended party in administrati#e proceedings $ho may be entitled to 1"dicial relief. The complainant need not be a real party in interest! as anyone may file an administrati#e complaint against a 1"dge! the only re."irement being that the complaint be #erified and it Cbe in $riting and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constit"ting #iolations of standards of cond"ct prescribed for )"dges by la$! the 8"les of -o"rt! or the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct.D The admission of the "ncertified or plain photocopies of the contested ballots by respondent )"dge in fa#or of +ancio betrays his ignorance of 4ection (! 8"le 1>0 of the 8"les of -o"rt. The 8"le! other$ise 2no$n as the Best 9#idence 8"le! simply pro#ides that as long as the original e#idence can be had! the co"rt sho"ld not recei#e in e#idence that $hich is s"bstit"tionary in nat"re! s"ch as photocopies! in the absence of any clear sho$ing that the original $riting has been lost or destroyed or cannot be prod"ced in co"rt. <n this case! the original copies of the contested ballots ha#e neither been lost nor destroyed. They are in the c"stody of the @89T! and had respondent 1"dge $anted to e,amine them! he co"ld ha#e easily ordered the transfer of their c"stody to the co"rt. @is in#ocation of 4ection &! 8"le 1>0 of the 8"les of -o"rt to 1"stify his admission of the plain copies of the contested ballots is misplaced. The 8"le allo$s the admission of secondary e#idence $hen the original doc"ment has been lost or destroyed! or cannot be fo"nd. @o$e#er! the offeror is b"rdened to pro#e the predicates thereof% (a) the loss or destr"ction of the original $as $itho"t bad faith on the part of the proponentJofferor $hich can be sho$n by circ"mstantial e#idence of ro"tine practices of destr"ction of doc"mentsB (b) the proponent m"st pro#e by a fair preponderance of e#idence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destr"ction of the original copyB and (c) it m"st be sho$n that a diligent and bona

fide b"t "ns"ccessf"l search has been made for the doc"ment in the proper place or places. 5erily! as the original copies of the contested ballots are in the c"stody of the @89T! $hich fact $as 2no$n to respondent 1"dge! there $as no occasion to apply 4ection &! 8"le 1>0 of the 8"les of -o"rt. 3hen the la$ is so elementary! not to 2no$ it constit"tes gross ignorance of the la$. 8espondent 1"dge too2 special interest in the presentation of Atty. -aayon as a $itness for +ancio. The p"rpose of Atty. -aayon7s testimony $as to sho$ that the photocopies of the ballots $ere the same as the original ballots in the c"stody of the @89T. 3hen the co"nsel for 4ala6ar! Atty. +an"el 4. aradela! ref"sed to stip"late on the faithf"l reprod"ction of the original ballots! the co"nsel for +ancio declared that they co"ld re."est @89T to bring the original ballots to the co"rt for comparison. 8espondent 1"dge! ho$e#er! ignored the manifestation! and proceeded to as2 Atty. aradela if the latter $as represented d"ring the photocopying of the original ballots. Nonetheless! the co"nsel for +ancio! Atty. Nathaniel -lar"s! re."ested for the iss"ance of a s"bpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to bring the original ballots to the co"rt. :espite that manifestation! respondent 1"dge allo$ed Atty. -aayon to affirm the #eracity of the photocopies in his possession! th"s% ,,,, [)"dge +arigomen]% 3e $ill present the -ler2 of -o"rt (Atty. -aayon) to affirm the #eracity of those ballots in his possession of the trib"nal copy and no$ e,istence (sic) in the possession of the -ler2 of -o"rt. , , , -learly! respondent 1"dge $as more interested in presenting Atty. -aayon as a $itness than the party (+ancio) $ho $o"ld ha#e benefited from the testimony. @is act"ations did not spea2 $ell of the cold ne"trality re."ired of an impartial 1"dge! as he sho$ed his manifest bias for one party o#er the other. The bias of respondent 1"dge for +ancio $as f"rther demonstrated $hen Atty. -aayon $as being ."alified as a $itness. After e#ery ob1ection raised by Atty. aradela to the ."estions propo"nded by Atty. -lar"s to Atty. -aayon! respondent 1"dge $o"ld al$ays propo"nd ."estions himself to Atty. -aayon! instead of r"ling on the ob1ections . . . ,,,, 8espondent 1"dge7s bias for +ancio $as f"rther sho$n by respondent 1"dge $hen he allo$ed one of the co"nsels for +ancio! Atty. 8einerio 8oiles! to testify

despite the #igoro"s ob1ection of 4ala6ar thro"gh his co"nsel! as the testimony $as in #iolation of 8"le 1*.0=! -anon 1* of the -anons of rofessional 8esponsibility. The 8"le prohibits a la$yer from testifying in behalf of his client! e,cept on formal matters s"ch as the mailing! a"thentication or c"stody of an instr"ment! or on s"bstantial matters! in cases $here his testimony is essential to the ends of 1"stice. <n this case! Atty. 8oeles $as allo$ed to testify on matters not contemplated by the e,ceptions. As admitted by respondent 1"dge! he allo$ed Atty. 8oeles to testify Cto pro#e that he is one of the legal panel (sic) of the protesteeB that he $as at the +"nicipality of +adride1os last +ay 1*! *001 to +ay [1]&! *001B and that there $as (sic) no goons! terrorism and other election acti#ities as alleged by the protestant.D 4"rely! the matters testified to by Atty. 8oeles are neither formal matters nor essential to the ends of 1"sticeB rather! they $ere selfAser#ing declarations intended to strengthen +ancio7s ca"se. <n his attempt at 1"stifying his act in allo$ing Atty. 8oeles to testify! respondent 1"dge committed falsehood $hen he declared in his comment that he allo$ed Atty. 8oeles to testify o#er the ob1ection of 4ala6ar after the latter! thro"gh co"nsel! failed to s"bmit a memorand"m in s"pport of her ob1ection. @o$e#er! the records of this case belie that claim. <t appears that 4ala6ar thro"gh Atty. aradela filed a +anifestation dated Febr"ary */! *00>! calling attention to the "nethical presentation of Atty. 8oeles as a $itness for his o$n client! +ancio. The manifestation $as filed $ith! and recei#ed by! the co"rt on the same day! as e#idenced by the stamp C89-9<59:D appearing on the "pper right hand corner of the first page of the +anifestation. There is also merit in the complaint that respondent 1"dge failed to abide by the e,press mandate of the -;+9G9- 8"les and roced"re and the -onstit"tion to state clearly and distinctly in e#ery decision the facts and the la$ on $hich it is based. The ."estioned decision dismissing for lac2 of merit the election protest filed by 4ala6ar against +ancio! and declaring the latter to be the d"ly elected m"nicipal mayor of +adride1os! -eb"! $ith a total #otes of &!*1/ as against the &!1// #otes garnered by 4ala6ar! or a difference of (0 #otes. The final tab"lation of #otes came abo"t after the respondent 1"dge declared on the pen"ltimate page of the **Apage decision! th"s% After re#ie$ing or reA appreciating the ballots of the contested precincts! the -o"rt in#alidated ninety ('0) #otes of the protestant and has not #alidated

stray #otes in her fa#or as she has not formally offered the claimed stray #otes or ballots. The co"rt shall only consider ballots $hich are presented and formally offered. After a thoro"gh e,amination of the ."estioned decision! it became ob#io"s that the in#alidation of the '0 #otes against 4ala6ar $as made $itho"t indicating in the decision the fact"al and legal bases therefor. 9,pectedly! the -;+9G9- First :i#ision! in its 8esol"tion prom"lgated on +arch *&! *00/! re#ersed and set aside the A"g"st =! *00> :ecision of respondent 1"dge! and declared 4ala6ar as the d"ly elected mayor of +adride1os! -eb". Time and again! the -o"rt had instr"cted 1"dges to e,ert effort to ens"re the decisions $o"ld present a comprehensi#e analysis or acco"nt of the fact"al and legal findings that $o"ld s"bstantially address the iss"es raised by the parties. 8espondent failed in this respect. ,,,, <n fine! respondent 1"dge is #ui$t7 of #ross i#noran9e of the $a5, manifest =ias an6 6e$i=erate fa$sehoo6 or 6ishonest7. Knder 4ection =! 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt! gross ignorance of the la$ is considered a serio"s charge. 4imilarly! bias and deliberate falsehood! $hich are tantamo"nt to gra#e miscond"ct! are considered serio"s charges "nder the same 8"le. The ;ena$t7 im;osa=$e for serious 9har#es ran#es from fine to 6ismissa$. [*&] (<talics in the original! emphasis s"ppliedB and "nderscoring partly in the original and partly s"pplied)

The ;-A recommended that respondent be fo"nd g"ilty of (a) gross ignorance of the la$ and fined in the amo"nt of *0!000! and (b) bias and

dishonesty! amo"nting to gra#e miscond"ct and s"spended for si, months $itho"t pay.[*?]

<n

compliance

$ith

this

-o"rt7s

8esol"tion[*(] of )"ne

1'!

*00? re."iring them to manifest $hether they are $illing to s"bmit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadingsJrecords already filed and s"bmitted! complainant and respondent manifested in the affirmati#e.

<n Re) The -o"rt finds the e#al"ation of the case by the ;-A in order. 8espondent7s ."estioned acts do not conform to the follo$ing pertinent canons of the 3ew ode of 'udicial onduct for the Philippine ourt in ities HMT

ompliance of 'ud"e Ma0wel S. Rosete! Municipal Trial I! Santia"o ity! -sabela![*=] this -o"rt obser#ed%

'udiciary $hich too2 effect on )"ne 1! *00/. -AN;N > <+ A8T<AG<TL <mpartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the 1"dicial office. .t a;;$ies not only to the decision itself b"t also to the ;ro9ess by $hich the decision is made. 49-T<;N 1. )"dges shall perform their 1"dicial d"ties $itho"t fa#or! =ias or pre1"dice. 49-. *. )"dges shall ens"re that his or her cond"ct! both in and o"t of co"rt! maintains and enhances the confidence of the p"blic! the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the 1"dge and of the 1"diciary. ,,,, -AN;N & 9MKAG<TL ,,,, 49-. *. )"dges shall not! in the performance of 1"dicial d"ties! =7 5or6s or 9on6u9t, manifest =ias or ;reIu6i9e to$ards any person or gro"p on irrele#ant gro"nds. , , , , (9mphasis s"pplied)

. . . [T]he lac2 of candor he has sho$n by the misrepresentation $hich he made before the -o"rt is incongr"ent $ith the primordial character $hich a magistrate m"st possess! especially so in this case $here the act of dishonesty $as committed against the -o"rt. A member of the bar o$es candor! fairness! and good faith to the -o"rt. @e m"st not do any falsehood or consent to the doing of any in co"rtB neither shall he mislead or allo$ the -o"rt to be misled by any artifice. The mora$ stan6ar6 of honest7 is eGua$$7, if not mu9h more, eB;e9te6 from mem=ers of the 1u6i9iar7, as the7 are the a#ents throu#h 5hi9h the 'ourt ensures that the en6 of Iusti9e is ser?e6. Dishonest7 is anathema to the ?er7 nature of fun9tions 5hi9h a ma#istrate ;erforms. [*'] (9mphasis and "nderscoring s"pplied) 8espondent also indeed failed to state in his decision $hy he in#alidated '0 ballots in fa#or of the protestant and to specify the ballots being set aside! thereby #iolating the -onstit"tion.[>0]

This -o"rt modifies the recommendation of the ;-A! ho$e#er! gi#en the n"mber of infractions committed by respondent. <nstead of s"spension! it imposes on respondent a fine of T$enty Fi#e Tho"sand ( *&!000) esos for manifest bias and dishonesty. And it increases the esos for gross

recommended fine of T$enty Tho"sand ( *0!000)

ignorance of la$ or proced"re to T$enty Fi#e Tho"sand ( *&!000) esos.

W)ERE*ORE! this -o"rt finds respondent! )K:G9 ANT;N<; :. And respondent indeed committed falsehood! as fo"nd by the ;-A. 8espondent7s claim that he allo$ed the protestee7s co"nsel! Atty. 8oeles! to testify o#er the ob1ection of the protestant7s co"nsel beca"se the latter failed to s"bmit a memorand"m in s"pport of the ob1ection! is belied by the records of the case. Th"s! in a pleading captioned C+anifestation!D the protestant7s co"nsel s"bmitted a memorand"m of a"thorities on the matter. 4; ;8:989:. +A8<G;+9N! /U.LTY of 1) gross ignorance of the la$ or proced"re and is F<N9: in the amo"nt of T$enty Fi#e Tho"sand ( *&!000) esos! and *)

manifest bias and dishonesty amo"nting to gra#e miscond"ct and is F<N9: in the amo"nt of T$enty Fi#e Tho"sand ( *&!000) esos.

<n the meantime! complainant filed a letter before the ;-A on 4eptember =! *010! re."esting action on her administrati#e complaint gi#en that respondent has still not decided -i#il -ase No. *01'1. G9;NA8:;A:9 -A4T8;! ).% This is an administrati#e complaint filed by complainant Fe :. 5alde6 against respondent )"dge Gi6abeth G"tierre6ATorres of the +etropolitan Trial -o"rt (+eT-)! Branch ?0! +andal"yong -ity! for delay in the disposition of -i#il -ase No. *01'1. -i#il -ase No. *01'1 $as an action for damages and attorney7s fees instit"ted on ;ctober *&! *00& by complainant against r"dential G"arantee V Ass"rance! <nc. ( GA<) and -harlie Tan (Tan)! $hich $as raffled to the +andal"yong +eT-ABranch ?0! presided o#er by respondent.[1] -omplainant alleged that she bo"ght comprehensi#e ins"rance policy for her motor #ehicle from GA<! thro"gh bro2er TanB that she had f"lly paid her premi"mB that d"ring the #alidity of her ins"rance! the ins"red motor #ehicle $as damagedB that the repair of the motor #ehicle cost 1?(!*(=.&?B and that GA< and Tan ref"sed to pay her claim despite se#eral demands. -omplainant prayed for 1"dgment a$arding in her fa#or 1?(!*(=.&? as act"al damages! &0!000.00 as moral damages! &0!000.00 as e,emplary damages! &0!000.00 attorney7s fees! pl"s *!000.00 appearance fees. 8espondent proceeded to hear -i#il -ase No. *01'1 in accordance $ith the 8e#ised 8"le on 4"mmary roced"re. After the parties had filed their respecti#e position papers! respondent s"bmitted -i#il -ase No. *01'1 for decision on )"ly 1'! *00?.[*] Almost a year had passed b"t -i#il -ase No. *01'1 remained "nresol#ed! prompting complainant to file a motion for immediate resol"tion of -i#il -ase No. *01'1 on )"ne *(! *00(.[>] -omplainant follo$edA"p $ith a second motion for immediate resol"tion filed on ;ctober 1'! *00(![/] third motion for immediate resol"tion filed on :ecember 11! *00(![&] fo"rth motion for immediate resol"tion filed on April 1&! *00=![?] fifth motion for immediate resol"tion filed on )"ne 11! *00=![(] si,th motion for immediate resol"tion filed on )"ly (! *00=![=] se#enth motion to resol#e filed on April *1! *00'!['] and eighth motion to resol#e filed on )an"ary 1(! *010.[10] Fr"strated by the long $ait for the resol"tion of -i#il -ase No. *01'1! complainant filed the present administrati#e complaint on )"ne /! *010 against respondent! alleging "nreasonable delay by the latter in the disposition of said case to the damage and pre1"dice of the former. Thro"gh a 1st <ndorsement dated )"ne 10! *010! the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A) informed respondent of the administrati#e complaint against her and re."ired her to s"bmit her comment thereon $ithin 10 days from receipt of said indorsement.[11] The 8egistry 8et"rn 8eceipt sho$ed that respondent recei#ed the 1st <ndorsement on )"ly &! *010 b"t she failed to file her comment $ithin the period prescribed. The ;-A sent a 1st Tracer dated 4eptember 1&! *010 reiterating the order for respondent to s"bmit her comment to the administrati#e complaint against her $ithin 10 days from receipt of said tracer! other$ise! the complaint shall be s"bmitted for resol"tion $itho"t her comment.[1*] The 8egistry 8et"rn 8eceipt established that respondent recei#ed the 1st Tracer on ;ctober **! *010! yet she still did not comply $ith the same. ;n No#ember *>! *010! this -o"rt prom"lgated its :ecision in three other consolidated administrati#e cases against respondent! G"gares #. G"tierre6A Torres![1>] already dismissing her from ser#ice. <n its report[1/] dated A"g"st *&! *011! the ;-A made the follo$ing recommendations% 89-;++9N:AT<;N% remises considered! it is most respectf"lly recommended for the consideration of the @onorable -o"rt that% 1. The instant administrati#e complaint be 89A:;-X9T9: as a reg"lar administrati#e matter against respondent Gi6abeth G"tierre6ATorres! former presiding 1"dge of the +etropolitan Trial -o"rt! Branch ?0! +andal"yong -ityB *. 8espondent Gi6abeth G"tierre6ATorres be fo"nd GK<GTL of <N4KB;8:<NAT<;N! G8;44 <N9FF<-<9N-L! and G8A59 and 498<;K4 +<4-;N:K-TB >. <n #ie$ of her pre#io"s dismissal from the ser#ice! a F<N9 ;F *0!000.00 instead be imposed "pon her! to be ded"cted from her accr"ed lea#e creditsB /. To effect the same! the 9mployee7s Gea#e :i#ision! ;ffice of Administrati#e 4er#icesA;-A be :<89-T9: to comp"te respondent Gi6abeth G"tierre6ATorres7 earned lea#e creditsB and &. The Gea#e :i#ision! thereafter! be :<89-T9: to for$ard respondent Gi6abeth G"tierre6ATorres7 total accr"ed lea#e credits to the Finance :i#ision! Fiscal +anagement ;fficeA;-A! for the latter to comp"te the monetary #al"e of the said lea#e credits and ded"ct therefrom the amo"nt of the fine herein imposed! $itho"t pre1"dice to $hate#er penalty the -o"rt may impose on other remaining andJor pending administrati#e cases! if any.[1&] The -o"rt then iss"ed a 8esol"tion[1?] dated ;ctober >! *011 reA doc2eting the administrati#e complaint against respondent as a reg"lar administrati#e matter and re."iring the parties to manifest $ithin 10 days from notice if they $ere $illing to s"bmit the matter for resol"tion based on the pleadings filed. Follo$ing the fail"re of both parties to s"bmit their respecti#e manifestations despite notice! the -o"rt deemed the instant case s"bmitted for decision. At the o"tset! the -o"rt notes that respondent had been gi#en ample opport"nity to address the complaint against her. The ;-A had sent and respondent recei#ed the 1st <ndorsement dated )"ne 10! *010 and 1st Tracer dated 4eptember 1&! *010! both of $hich e,plicitly re."ired her to file her comment on the complaint. @o$e#er! "p "ntil the resol"tion of the present case! respondent has not complied $ith the ;-A directi#es. +oreo#er! respondent had also failed to comply! despite d"e notice! $ith the 8esol"tion dated ;ctober >! *011 of the -o"rt itself re."iring the parties

to manifest $hether they $ere $illing to s"bmit the present administrati#e matter for resol"tion based on the pleadings filed. <t is tr"e that respondent7s fail"re to s"bmit her comment and manifestation as re."ired by the ;-A and this -o"rt! respecti#ely! may be tantamo"nt to ins"bordination![1(] gross inefficiency! and neglect of d"ty.[1=] <t is respondent7s d"ty! not only to obey the la$f"l orders of her s"periors! b"t also to defend herself against complainant7s charges and pro#e her fitness to remain on the Bench.[1'] As a res"lt of her nonAcompliance $ith the directi#es of the ;-A and the resol"tion of this -o"rt! respondent had completely lost the opport"nity to defend herself against complainant7s charges. As for the merits of the instant administrati#e complaint! the pleadings and e#idence on record satisfactorily establish respondent7s g"ilt for the "nd"e delay in resol#ing -i#il -ase No. *01'1. 4ection 1&(1)! Article 5<<< of the -onstit"tion! mandates that cases or matters filed $ith the lo$er co"rts m"st be decided or resol#ed $ithin three months from the date they are s"bmitted for decision or resol"tion. 3ith respect to cases falling "nder the 8"le on 4"mmary roced"re! first le#el co"rts are only allo$ed >0 days follo$ing the receipt of the last affida#it and position paper! or the e,piration of the period for filing the same! $ithin $hich to render 1"dgment. As a general principle! r"les prescribing the time $ithin $hich certain acts m"st be done! or certain proceedings ta2en! are considered absol"tely indispensable to the pre#ention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of 1"dicial b"siness. By their #ery nat"re! these r"les are regarded as mandatory.[*0] )"dges are oftAreminded of their d"ty to promptly act "pon cases and matters pending before their co"rts. 8"le >.0&! -anon > of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! directs 1"dges to Cdispose of the co"rt7s b"siness promptly and decide cases $ithin the re."ired periods.D -anons ? and ( of the -anons of )"dicial 9thics f"rther e,hort 1"dges to be prompt and p"nct"al in the disposition and resol"tion of cases and matters pending before their co"rts! to $it% ?. 8;+ TN944 @e sho"ld be prompt in disposing of all matters s"bmitted to him! remembering that 1"stice delayed is often 1"stice denied. (. KN-TKAG<TL @e sho"ld be p"nct"al in the performance of his 1"dicial d"ties! recogni6ing that the time of litigants! $itnesses! and attorneys is of #al"e and that if the 1"dge is "np"nct"al in his habits! he sets a bad e,ample to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction $ith the administration of 1"stice. Administrati#e -irc"lar No. 1 dated )an"ary *=! 1'== once more reminds all magistrates to obser#e scr"p"lo"sly the periods prescribed in 4ection 1&! Article 5<<< of the -onstit"tion! and to act promptly on all motions and interloc"tory matters pending before their co"rts.

rompt disposition of cases is attained basically thro"gh the efficiency and dedication to d"ty of 1"dges. <f they do not possess those traits! delay in the disposition of cases is ine#itable to the pre1"dice of litigants. Accordingly! 1"dges sho"ld be imb"ed $ith a high sense of d"ty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly administer 1"stice.[*1] Knfort"nately! respondent failed to li#e "p to the e,acting standards of d"ty and responsibility that her position re."ires. -i#il -ase No. *01'1 $as s"bmitted for resol"tion on )"ly 1'! *00?! yet it $as still pending $hen complainant filed the present administrati#e complaint on )"ne /! *010! and remained "nresol#ed per complainant7s manifestation filed on 4eptember =! *010. +ore than fo"r years after being s"bmitted for resol"tion! -i#il -ase No. *01'1 $as still a$aiting decision by respondent. 8espondent irrefragably failed to decide -i#il -ase No. *01'1 $ithin the >0A day period prescribed by the 8e#ised 8"le on 4"mmary roced"re. @er inaction in -i#il -ase No. *01'1 is contrary to the rationale behind the 8"le on 4"mmary roced"re! $hich $as precisely adopted to promote a more e,peditio"s and ine,pensi#e determination of cases! and to enforce the constit"tional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.[**] <ndeed! respondent e#en failed to decide -i#il -ase No. *01'1 $ithin the threeAmonth period mandated in general by the -onstit"tion for lo$er co"rts to decide or resol#e cases. 8ecords do not sho$ that respondent made any pre#io"s attempt to report and re."est for e,tension of time to resol#e -i#il -ase No. *01'1. 4ection '! 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt! as amended by A.+. No. 01A=A 10A4-! classifies "nd"e delay in rendering a decision as a less serio"s charge for $hich the penalty is s"spension from office $itho"t salary and other benefits for one month to three months! or a fine of 10!000.00 to *0!000.00. The -o"rt is $ellAa$are of the pre#io"s administrati#e cases against respondent for fail"re to act $ith dispatch on cases and incidents pending before her. <n :el +"ndo #. G"tierre6ATorres![*>] respondent $as fo"nd g"ilty of gross inefficiency for "nd"e delay in resol#ing the motion to dismiss -i#il -ase No. 1=(&?! for $hich she $as fined *0!000.00. <n Gon6ale6 #. Torres![*/] respondent $as sanctioned for "nreasonable delay in resol#ing the :em"rrer to 9#idence in -riminal -ase No. (1'=/ and meted the penalty of a fine in the amo"nt of *0!000.00. <n lata #. Torres![*&] respondent $as fined 10!000.00 for "nd"e delay in resol#ing the +otion to 3ithdra$ <nformation in -riminal -ase No. ??('! and another 10!000.00 for her repeated fail"re to comply $ith -o"rt directi#es to file her comment on the administrati#e complaint against her. <n 3internit6 #. G"tierre6A Torres![*?] the -o"rt held respondent g"ilty of "nd"e delay in acting "pon the +otion to 3ithdra$ <nformations in -riminal -ase Nos. =/>=*! =/>=>! and =/>=/! and s"spended her from office $itho"t salary and other benefits for one month. <n 4ol"ren #. Torres![*(] respondent $as once again ad1"dged g"ilty of "nd"e delay in acting "pon repeated motions to $ithdra$ the information in -riminal -ase No. 100=>> for $hich she $as fined *0!000.00. <n G"gares #. G"tierre6ATorres![*=] prom"lgated on No#ember *>! *010! the -o"rt already dismissed respondent from the ser#ice for gross inefficiency! gross ignorance of the la$! dereliction of d"ty! and #iolation of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! in relation to -i#il -ase Nos. 1'==(! 1'0?>! 1((?&! and 1=/*&B as $ell as for ins"bordination beca"se she defied -o"rt orders by failing to file her comment on the charges against her. Finally! in anc"bila #. Torres![*'] the -o"rt imposed another fine of *0!000.00 "pon respondent for "nd"e delay in rendering a decision and #iolation of a

directi#e in connection $ith -i#il -ase No. *0(00. <n all the foregoing administrati#e cases! respondent $as sternly $arned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt $ith more se#erely. Gi#en that respondent had been pre#io"sly dismissed from the ser#ice! the penalty of s"spension is already inapplicable herein. <nstead! the -o"rt imposes "pon respondent! for her "nd"e delay in resol#ing -i#il -ase No. *01'1! a fine in the ma,im"m amo"nt of *0!000.00! to be ded"cted from her accr"ed lea#e credits. 3@989F;89! respondent Gi6abeth G"tierre6ATorres is fo"nd GK<GTL of the less serio"s charge of "nd"e delay in resol#ing -i#il -ase No. *01'1! for $hich she is F<N9: the amo"nt of *0!000.00! to be ded"cted from her accr"ed lea#e credits! since she had already been dismissed from the ser#ice. To effect the penalty imposed! the 9mployee7s Gea#e :i#ision! ;ffice of Administrati#e 4er#icesA;-A! is :<89-T9: to ascertain respondent Gi6abeth G"tierre6ATorres7s total earned lea#e credits. Thereafter! the Finance :i#ision! Fiscal +anagement ;fficeA;-A! is :<89-T9: to comp"te the monetary #al"e of respondent Gi6abeth G"tierre6ATorres7s total accr"ed lea#e credits and ded"ct therefrom the amo"nt of fine herein imposed $itho"t pre1"dice to $hate#er penalty the -o"rt may impose on other remaining andJor pending administrati#e cases! if any.

/) T$entyAnine (*') criminal cases[/] s"bmitted for decision! the earliest in *001! $ere "ndecided. &) ;f the **( ci#il cases lodged in the co"rt! no setting for hearing and no f"rther action $as ta2en on /? cases.[&] ?) T$entyAfo"r (*/) ci#il cases[?] ha#e pending motionsJincidents a$aiting resol"tion! the earliest since *00*. () FiftyAse#en (&() ci#il cases[(] s"bmitted for decision from *000 to *00' $ere "ndecided at the time of the a"dit. =) <n the co"rse of the a"dit in Branch *(! 4ta. -r"6! se#eral records of criminal cases $ere fo"nd to be incomplete. The records $ere not paginated. -ertificates of arraignment! min"tes of hearings and notices of hearing $ere missing from the files. ') The record of one case! -riminal -ase No. 1*1(=![=] an appealed case s"bmitted for resol"tion! is missing and is in the possession of )"dge Geonida as per certification iss"ed by Atty. Bernadette laton! the Branch -ler2 of -o"rt.['] 8egarding Branch (/! +alabon -ity! the ;-A also loo2ed into the +onthly 8eport of -ases s"bmitted by said branch for A"g"stA;ctober *00= and )an"aryA+arch *00= and noted that '& criminal cases and 1= ci#il cases $ere s"bmitted for decision.[10] -onsidering that )"dge Geonida applied for ;ptional 8etirement effecti#e )"ly &! *00=! he sho"ld ha#e decided '1 of the '& s"bmitted criminal cases and 1? of the 1= s"bmitted ci#il cases. <n s"m! )"dge Geonida failed to decide 10* criminal cases and /> ci#il cases both in Branch *( and Branch (/! and failed to resol#e motions in ten (10) ci#il cases in Branch *(. The same report bears the recommendations of the ;-A that $ere e#ent"ally adopted by the -o"rt in a 8esol"tion dated )"ly *'! *00'![11] to $it% (1) 89A:;-X9T the 1"dicial a"dit report as an administrati#e complaint against former )"dge Geonardo G. Geonida for gross incompetence and inefficiencyB (*) 89MK<89 )"dge Geonida to +AN<F94T $hether he is $illing to s"bmit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadingsJrecords already filed and s"bmitted! $ithin ten (10) days from noticeB (>) :<89-T%

4; ;8:989:.

er -"riam% This administrati#e case at bench stemmed from a 1"dicial a"dit and in#entory of pending cases cond"cted by the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A)! in Branch *(! 8egional Trial -o"rt! 4ta. -r"6! Gag"na (Branch *(! 4ta. -r"6)! and in Branch (/! 8egional Trial -o"rt! +alabon -ity (Branch (/! +alabon). The a"dits $ere cond"cted beca"se respondent )"dge Geonardo G. Geonida ()"dge Geonida) applied for ;ptional 8etirement effecti#e )"ly &! *00=. )"dge Geonida $as the presiding 1"dge of Branch *(! 4ta. -r"6! from ;ctober 1''( "ntil his retirement and $as detailed as assisting 1"dge of Branch (/! +alabon. ;n +ay *1! *00'! then -o"rt Administrator )ose . ere6 iss"ed a +emorand"m[1] on the a"dit team7s findings! among $hich are% 1) As of a"dit date! +arch & and ?! *00'! Branch *(! 4ta. -r"6 had a total caseload of &0( cases consisting of *=0 criminal cases and **( ci#il cases based on the records act"ally presented to! and e,amined by! the a"dit team. *) ;"t of the total n"mber of pending criminal cases! no f"rther action $as ta2en after #arying considerable periods of time in 1/ cases.[*] >) ending incidents and motions filed by parties in = criminal cases[>] $ere left "nresol#ed for more than one (1) year in > cases! and three months in * cases.

(a) @on. )aime -. Blancaflor! Acting residing )"dge! 8T-! Branch *(! 4ta. -r"6! Gag"na to% (1) TAX9 A 8; 8<AT9 A-T<;N on -riminal -ase Nos. ,,, $hich are $itho"t f"rther action for a considerable length of timeB (*) 894;G59 $ith dispatch the pending incidentsJmotions in -riminal -ase Nos. ,,, and f"rnish the -o"rt! thro"gh the ;-A! a copy of the resol"tionJorder $ithin ten (10) days from iss"anceJresol"tion thereofB and

(>) :9-<:9 $ith dispatch -riminal -ase Nos. ,,, and F"rnish the -o"rt! thro"gh the ;-A! a copy of the decision $ithin ten (10) days from its prom"lgationB and (b) Atty. Bernadette laton! Branch -ler2 of -o"rt! to% (1) A 8<49 the Acting residing )"dge! from time to time! of cases s"bmitted for resol"tionJdecision and those cases that re."ire immediate actionB (*) ;8:98 the stitching of all orders iss"ed! min"tes ta2en! notices of hearing iss"ed! certificates of arraignment in all appropriate case folders especially those 1ointly tried! incl"ding their chronological arrangement and pagination as $ell as the proofreading of all orders and noticesB and (>) 4KB+<T report of compliance there$ith to this -o"rt $ithin fifteen (1&) days from notice. ;n ;ctober /! *00'! )"dge Geonida filed an Krgent +otion for 9,tension of Time to File +anifest and +emorand"m.[1*] @e cited the short period compo"nded by the typhoons and floods $hich ra#aged +anila as his reason for re."esting an additional period of t$enty (*0) days $ithin $hich to file the same. <n its ;ctober *=! *00' 8esol"tion! the -o"rt noted )"dge Geonida7s motion. ;n ;ctober **! *00'! )"dge Geonida filed a +anifest and +emorand"m[1>] e,pressing his $illingness to s"bmit the case for decision based on the pleadings. @e e,plained that he failed to finali6e and prom"lgate cases pending in his sala beca"se of the se#erely clogged doc2et of Branch (/. 3ith an o#er$helming n"mber of more than 1!000 cases! he calendared an a#erage of >0 cases daily in order to C2eep all the cases mo#ing.D According to )"dge Geonida! Cthe co"rt sessions together $ith the preparationJcorrectionJre#ie$ of the orders in the cases set for hearing almost ate "pD his time as a 1"dge. The fact that Branch (/! a commercial co"rt! $as still incl"ded in the raffle of reg"lar cases e,acerbated the sit"ation. 5ol"mino"s pleadings re."iring e,tensi#e dissection and research! and cases in#ol#ing n"mero"s inter#enors $ho raised different and comple, iss"es! made matters m"ch more diffic"lt that he e#en had to cond"ct hearings on applications for search and sei6"res "ntil nighttime. )"dge Geonida f"rther claimed that his $or2 encroached "pon the time he had to de#ote to his $ife and eight children. Finally! the reconstr"ction and re#ie$ of case records s"bmerged in flood $aters added "p to his str"ggle to e,pedite the disposition of cases assigned to his co"rt. Anent the missing record in Branch *(! )"dge Geonida alleged that the case $as raffled to said branch long after he ass"med the position of Assisting )"dge of Branch (/B that he neither sa$ nor had possession of the said recordB and that there $as no reason for him to ta2e the record any$here. @e pleaded for compassion and leniency from the -o"rt! in#o2ing his "nblemished record in go#ernment ser#ice for t$entyAthree (*>) years. @e li2e$ise offered his sincere apologies to those $ho $ere pre1"diced. <n its e#al"ation of the charges against )"dge Geonida! the ;-A recommended that for his fail"re to resol#e motions in ten (10) ci#il casesB decide ele#en (11) criminal cases! and t$entyAse#en (*() ci#il cases in Branch *(! and to decide ninetyAone ('1) criminal cases and si,teen (1?) ci#il cases in Branch (/! he be fo"nd g"ilty of gross incompetency and

inefficiency! and fined the amo"nt of &0!000.00 pesos to be ded"cted from his retirement benefits. The recommendations of the ;-A are $ellAta2en. recedents ha#e sho$n that the fail"re of a 1"dge to decide a case $ithin the reglementary period $arrants administrati#e sanction. The -o"rt treats s"ch cases $ith "tmost rigor for any delay in the administration of 1"sticeB no matter ho$ brief! depri#es the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case.[1/] Not only does it magnify the cost of see2ing 1"sticeB it "ndermines the people7s faith and confidence in the 1"diciary! lo$ers its standards and brings it to disrep"te.[1&] No less than 4ection 1& (1)! Article = of the 1'=( -onstit"tion mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lo$er co"rts shall be decided or resol#ed $ithin three (>) months from the date of s"bmission. The prescribed period is a firm mandatory r"le for the efficient administration of 1"stice and not merely one for ind"lgent t$ea2ing. As a general principle! r"les prescribing the time $ithin $hich certain acts m"st be done! or certain proceedings ta2en! are considered absol"tely indispensable to the pre#ention of needless delays and for the orderly and speedy discharge of 1"dicial b"siness. By their #ery nat"re! these r"les are regarded as mandatory.[1?] <n the same #ein! -anon >! 8"le >.0& of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct is emphatic in en1oining 1"dges to administer 1"stice $itho"t delay by disposing of the co"rt7s b"siness promptly and deciding cases $ithin the period prescribed by la$. -orollary to this! Administrati#e -irc"lar No. >A'' dated )an"ary 1&! 1'''! re."ires all 1"dges to scr"p"lo"sly obser#e the periods prescribed in the -onstit"tion for deciding cases! beca"se fail"re to comply there$ith #iolates the constit"tional right of the parties to speedy disposition of the cases.[1(] ;nly in certain meritorio"s cases! that is! those in#ol#ing diffic"lt ."estions of la$ or comple, iss"es! may a longer period to decide the case be allo$ed b"t only "pon proper application for e,tension of the period has been made by the concerned 1"dge.[1=] )"dge Geonida $as clearly remiss in his d"ties as a 1"dge for he did not ta2e the abo#e constit"tional command to heart. Neither did he obser#e the abo#e r"les $hich ha#e encaps"lated the -o"rt7s strict message% Cthe need and the imperati#eD for 1"dges to promptly and e,peditio"sly decide cases incl"ding all incidents therein.[1'] <n this case! the findings of the ;-A sho$ed that )"dge Geonida failed to decide a considerable n"mber of cases% (10*) criminal cases and fortyAthree (/>) ci#il cases. )"dge Geonida openly admitted his c"lpability in the delay of disposition of cases. @is proffered e,planation is "nacceptable gi#en the ample period that he had. @e cannot ta2e ref"ge behind the common e,c"se of hea#y caseload to 1"stify his fail"re to decide and resol#e cases promptly. @e co"ld ha#e as2ed the -o"rt for a reasonable period of e,tension to dipose of the cases b"t did not. :"e to his inefficiency! the constit"tional right of parties to a speedy trial $as #iolated o"t of neglect. <nstead of 1"stice $ro"ght by efficient and competent handling of 1"dicial b"siness! the lo$er co"rts handled and assisted by )"dge Geonida prod"ced "nnecessary financial strain! not to mention physical and emotional an,iety! to litigants. :elay derails the administration of 1"stice. <t postpones the rectification of $rong and the

#indication of the "n1"stly prosec"ted. <t cro$ds the doc2ets of the co"rts! increasing the costs for all litigants! press"ring 1"dges to ta2e short c"ts! interfering $ith the prompt and deliberate disposition of those cases in $hich all parties are diligent and prepared for trial! and o#erhanging the entire process $ith the pall of disorgani6ation and insol"bility. +ore than these! possibilities for error in factAfinding m"ltiply rapidly bet$een the original fact and its 1"dicial determination as time elapses. <f the facts are not f"lly and acc"rately determined! e#en the $isest 1"dge cannot disting"ish bet$een merit and demerit. <f co"rts do not get the facts right! there is little chance for their 1"dgment to be right.[*0] The -o"rt has al$ays considered a 1"dge7s delay in deciding cases $ithin the prescribed period of three months as gross inefficiency.[*1] Knd"e delay cannot be co"ntenanced at a time $hen the clogging of the co"rt doc2ets is still the bane of the 1"diciary. The raison dQ etre of co"rts lies not only in properly dispensing 1"stice b"t also in being able to do so seasonably.[**] Aside from the delay in deciding the reported cases! the a"dit findings li2e$ise sho$ that the case recordsJrollo in Branch *( $ere not chronologically arranged. -ertificates of arraignment! min"tes of hearings and notices of hearing $ere "nsigned by the acc"sed and hisJher co"nsel! or $orse! missing from the files. )"dge Geonida $as as2ed to e,plain the $hereabo"ts of the case records of -riminal -ase No. 1*1(=. @is bare denial ho$e#er! does not o#ercome the fair concl"sion that 4ection 1/ of 8"le 1>? of the 8"les of -o"rt[*>] $as not obser#ed. The e,pectation directed at 1"dges to e,ercise "tmost diligence and care in handling the records of cases $as certainly not met! or at least appro,imated. The administration of 1"stice demands that those $ho don 1"dicial robes be able to comply f"lly and faithf"lly $ith the tas2 set before them.[*/] As frontline officials of the 1"diciary! 1"dges sho"ld! at all times! act $ith efficiency and $ith probity. They are d"tyAbo"nd not only to be faithf"l to the la$! b"t li2e$ise to maintain professional competence. The p"rs"it of e,cellence m"st be their g"iding principle. This is the least that 1"dges can do to s"stain the tr"st and confidence $hich the p"blic reposed on them and the instit"tion they represent. [*&] Therefore! as recommended by the ;-A after a thoro"gh 1"dicial a"dit and considering the "nreb"tted a"dit reports on record! proper sanctions m"st be imposed. The penalty imposed for "nd"e delay in deciding cases #aries in each case% from fine! s"spension! s"spension and fine! and e#en dismissal! depending mainly on the n"mber of cases left "ndecided $ithin the reglementary period! and other factors! s"ch as the damage s"ffered by the parties as a res"lt of the delay! the health and the age of the 1"dge.[*?] The -o"rt agrees $ith the ;-A that the total n"mber of cases $hich )"dge Geonida failed to timely decide or act on $arrants a fine higher than that prescribed by the r"les. <n G"gares #. )"dge G"tierre6ATorres![*(] the defa"lting 1"dge $ho $as fo"nd g"ilty of gross inefficiency for her "nd"e delay in resol#ing cases s"bmitted for decision for a n"mber of years $as dismissed from the ser#ice. <n #ie$ of )"dge Geonida7s retirement on )"ly &! *00=! the only penalty that the -o"rt can impose against him is a fine! p"rs"ant to the r"le that the retirement of a 1"dge does not release him from liability inc"rred $hile in the acti#e ser#ice.

3@989F;89! the -o"rt finds respondent )"dge Geonardo Geonida! former residing )"dge of Branch *(! 8egional Trial -o"rt! 4ta. -r"6! Gag"na! and Assisting )"dge in Branch (/! 8egional Trial -o"rt! +alabon -ity! GK<GTL of gross incompetence and gross inefficiency for fail"re to decide one h"ndred t$o (10*) criminal cases and fortyAthree (/>) ci#il cases for $hich he is F<N9: &0!000.00 to be ded"cted from his retirementJgrat"ity benefits. )"dge )aime -. Blancaflor! Acting residing )"dge! 8T-! Branch *(! 4ta. -r"6! Gag"na! and Atty. Bernadette laton! Branch -ler2 of -o"rt! are hereby ordered to report on their respecti#e compliance $ith the orders of the -o"rt contained in its )"ly *'! *00' ;rder! $ithin ten (10) days from receipt hereof. The -o"rt notes that! in its Febr"ary 10! *010 8esol"tion! )"dge Blancaflor $as granted a nonAe,tendible period of si,ty (?0) to comply $ith its )"ly *'! *00' ;rder. )"dge Blancaflor is hereby ordered to ca"se the reconstit"tion of -riminal -ase No. 1*1(= $ithin three (>) months from receipt hereof and to report his compliance thereon $ithin ten (10) days from completion. Atty. Bernadette laton is hereby ordered to incl"de the stat"s of said case in her +onthly 8eport of -ases. -@<-;ANAIA8<;! ).% O9."ity does not demand that its s"itors shall ha#e led blameless li#es.O )"stice Brandeis! Go"ghran #. Go"ghran 1 T@9 -A494 The First -ase% A.+. No. 8T)A''A1/?0 (;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator #. )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r.) <t $as in 1''& that Atty. Florentino 5. Floro! )r. first applied for 1"dgeship. A preAre."isite psychological e#al"ation on him then by the 4"preme -o"rt -linic 4er#ices (4- -linic) re#ealed O(e)#idence of ego disintegrationO and Ode#eloping psychotic process.O )"dge Floro later #ol"ntarily $ithdre$ his application. <n )"ne 1''=! $hen he applied ane$! the re."ired psychological e#al"ation e,posed problems $ith selfAesteem! mood s$ings! conf"sion! socialJinterpersonal deficits! paranoid ideations! s"spicio"sness! and percept"al distortions. Both 1''& and 1''= reports concl"ded that Atty. Floro $as "nfit to be a 1"dge. Beca"se of his impressi#e academic bac2gro"nd! ho$e#er! the )"dicial and Bar -o"ncil ()B-) allo$ed Atty. Floro to see2 a second opinion from pri#ate practitioners. The second opinion appeared fa#orable th"s pa#ing the $ay to Atty. Floro7s appointment as 8egional Trial -o"rt (8T-) )"dge of Branch (>! +alabon -ity! on / No#ember 1''=. Kpon )"dge Floro7s personal re."est! an a"dit on his sala $as cond"cted by the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;-A) from * to > +arch 1'''.* After cond"cting the a"dit! the a"dit team! led by Atty. +ary )ane :acarraA B"ena#ent"ra! reported its findings to erst$hile -o"rt Administrator! Alfredo G. Benipayo! $ho s"bmitted his o$n reportJmemorand"m > to then -hief )"stice @ilario G. :a#ide! )r. dated 1> )"ly 1''' recommending! among other things! that his report be considered as an administrati#e complaint against )"dge Floro and that )"dge Floro be s"b1ected to an appropriate

psychological or mental e,amination. -o"rt Administrator Benipayo recommended as $ell that )"dge Floro be placed "nder pre#enti#e s"spension for the d"ration of the in#estigation against him. <n a 8esol"tion/ dated *0 )"ly 1'''! the -o"rt en banc adopted the recommendations of the ;-A! doc2eting the complaint as A.+. No. 8T)A''A 1/?0! in #ie$ of the commission of the follo$ing acts or omissions as reported by the a"dit team% (a) The act of circ"lating calling cards containing selfAla"datory statements regarding ."alifications and for anno"ncing in open co"rt d"ring co"rt session his ."alification in #iolation of -anon *! 8"le *.0*! -anons of )"dicial -ond"ctB (b) For allo$ing the "se of his chambers as sleeping ."artersB (c) For rendering resol"tions $itho"t $ritten orders in #iolation of 8"le >?! 4ection 1! 1''( 8"les of roced"resB (d) For his alleged partiality in criminal cases $here he declares that he is proAacc"sed $hich is contrary to -anon *! 8"le *.01! -anons of )"dicial -ond"ctB (e) For appearing and signing pleadings in -i#il -ase No. /?A+A'= pending before 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch =>! +alolos! B"lacan in #iolation of -anon &! 8"le &.0(! -anons of )"dicial -ond"ct $hich prohibits a 1"dge from engaging in the pri#ate practice of la$B (f) For appearing in personal cases $itho"t prior a"thority from the 4"preme -o"rt and $itho"t filing the corresponding applications for lea#es of absence on the sched"led dates of hearingB (g) For proceeding $ith the hearing on the +otion for 8elease on 8ecogni6ance filed by the acc"sed $itho"t the presence of the trial prosec"tor and propo"nding ."estions in the form of e,amination of the c"stodian of the acc"sedB (h) For "singJta2ing ad#antage of his moral ascendancy to settle and e#ent"ally dismiss -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N (for fr"strated homicide) in the g"ise of settling the ci#il aspect of the case! by pers"ading the pri#ate complainant and the acc"sed to sign the settlement e#en $itho"t the presence of the trial prosec"torB (i) For mot" proprio and o#er the strong ob1ection of the trial prosec"tor! ordering the mental and physical e,amination of the acc"sed based on the gro"nd that the acc"sed is Omahina ang pic2A"pOB (1) For iss"ing an ;rder on = +arch 1''' $hich #aries from that $hich he iss"ed in open co"rt in -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N! for fr"strated homicideB (2) For #iolation of -anon 1! 8"le 1.01 -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct $hen he openly critici6ed the 8"les of -o"rt and the hilippine 1"stice systemB (l) For the "se of highly improper and intemperate lang"age d"ring co"rt proceedingsB (m) For #iolation of -irc"lar No. 1>& dated 1 )"ly 1'=(.

er the same resol"tion of the -o"rt! the matter $as referred to 8etired -o"rt of Appeals )"stice edro 8amire6 (cons"ltant! ;-A) for in#estigation! report and recommendation $ithin ?0 days from receipt. )"dge Floro $as directed to comment $ithin ten days from receipt of the resol"tion and to s"b1ect himself to an appropriate psychological or mental e,amination to be cond"cted Oby the proper office of the 4"preme -o"rt or any d"ly a"thori6ed medical andJor mental instit"tion.O <n the same breath! the -o"rt resol#ed to place )"dge Floro "nder pre#enti#e s"spension Ofor the d"ration of the in#estigation of the administrati#e charges against him.O @e $as barely eight months into his position. ;n *0 A"g"st 1'''! )"dge Floro s"bmitted a 5erified -omment $here he set forth both affirmati#e and negati#e defenses? $hile he filed his OAns$erJ-omplianceO on *? A"g"st 1'''. ;n > +arch *000! )"dge Floro mo#ed for the pro#isionalJfinal dismissal of his case for fail"re to prosec"te.( @o$e#er! on *1 +arch *000! he presented himself as his first $itness in the hearing cond"cted by )"stice 8amire6.= 4"bse."ently! on ( )"ly *000! )"dge Floro filed a O etition for <nhibitionJ:is."alificationO against )"stice 8amire6 as in#estigator' $hich $as denied by )"stice 8amire6 in an ;rder dated 11 )"ly *000. 10 )"dge Floro7s motion for reconsideration 11 s"ffered the same fate. 1* ;n *( )"ly *000! )"dge Floro s"bmitted the ."estion of )"stice 8amire67s inhibitionJdis."alification to this -o"rt. 1> ;n = A"g"st *000! the -o"rt r"led against the inhibition of )"stice 8amire6. 1> ;n 11 4eptember *000! the ;-A! after ha#ing been ordered by the -o"rt to comment on )"dge Floro7s motion to dismiss! 1& recommended that the same sho"ld be denied. )"dge Floro presented his last $itness on ? +arch *001. 1? The day after! )"stice 8amire6 came o"t $ith a O artial 8eportO recommending the dismissal of )"dge Floro from office Oby reason of insanity $hich renders him incapable and "nfit to perform the d"ties and f"nctions of )"dge of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! National -apital )"dicial 8egion! +alabon! +etro +anila! Branch (>.O 1( <n the meantime! thro"gho"t the in#estigation of the 1> charges against him and e#en after )"stice 8amire6 came o"t $ith his report and recommendation on ( +arch *001! )"dge Floro had been indiscriminately filing cases against those he percei#ed to ha#e conni#ed to boot him o"t of office. A list of the cases )"dge Floro filed in the $a2e of his *0 )"ly 1''' pre#enti#e s"spension follo$s% 1. ;-A < < No. 00A0(A;-A H against Atty. +ary )ane :acarraA B"ena#ent"ra! Team Geader! )"dicial A"dit Team! ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator 1= *. ;-A < < No. 00A'>>A8T) H against )"dge Ben1amin A."ino! )r.! 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch (*! +alabon -ity 1' >. A- No. &*=? H against -o"rt Administrator Alfredo G. Benipayo and )"dge Ben1amin A."ino! )r.*0

/. A- No. -B:A00A(/0 H against Thelma -. Bahia! -o"rt +anagement ;ffice! Atty. +ary )ane :acarraAB"ena#ent"ra! Atty. <<! -o"rt +anagement ;ffice! both of the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator and Atty. 9smeralda G. :i6on! Branch -ler2 of -o"rt! Branch (>! +alabon*1 &. A- No. ?*=* (- G No. -A0*A0*(=) H against former -o"rt Administrator )"stice Alfredo G. Benipayo and (8et.) )"stice edro A. 8amire6! -ons"ltant! ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator** ?. A.+. No. 0>A=A0>A0 H against (8et.) )"stice edro A. 8amire6*> (. A.-. No. ?0&0 H against (8et.) )"stice edro A. 8amire6*/ ;n 1 Febr"ary *00?! )"dge Floro mo#ed that the cases he filed! no$ totaling se#en! be dismissed.*& ;n 1/ Febr"ary *00?! the -o"rt granted the motion to dismiss.*? The 4econd -ase% A.+. No. 8T)A0?A1'==(G"6 Arriego #. )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r.) This charge is li2e$ise the s"b1ect matter of charge OhO in A.+. No. 8T)A''A 1/?0% O(f)or "singJta2ing ad#antage of his moral ascendancy to settle and e#ent"ally dismiss -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N (for fr"strated homicide) in the g"ise of settling the ci#il aspect of the case! by pers"ading the pri#ate complainant and the acc"sed to sign the settlement e#en $itho"t the presence of the trial prosec"tor.O The complainant G"6 Arriego is the mother of the pri#ate complainant in -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N. ;n *= )"ne *001! Arriego testified! $hile co"rt stenographer )ocelyn )apitenga testified on 1? )"ly *001. ;n >1 )"ly *001! Arriego filed her Formal ;ffer of 9#idence $hich $as opposed by )"dge Floro on *1 A"g"st *001. ;n & 4eptember *001! )"dge Floro testified on his behalf $hile Atty. Galang testified against him on / ;ctober *001. ;n 1? ;ctober *001! )"dge Floro filed a +emorand"m in this case.*( The Third -ase% A.+. No. ''A(A*(>A8T- (8e% 8esol"tion :ated 11 +ay 1''' of )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r.) As can be gathered from the title! this case concerns a resol"tion iss"ed by )"dge Floro on 11 +ay 1''' in 4pecial roceeding -ase No. >1&A+N O<n 8e% etition To Be Admitted A -iti6en ;f The hilippines! +ary Ng Nei! etitioner.O The resol"tion disposed of the motions for #ol"ntary inhibition of )"dge Floro and the reconsideration of the order denying the petition for nat"rali6ation filed by petitioner in that case! +ary Ng Nei. This resol"tion fo"nd its $ay to the ;-A thro"gh a letter $ritten by Atty. :a#id 4. Nar#asa! the petitioner7s co"nsel.*= The ;-A! thro"gh -o"rt Administrator Benipayo! made the follo$ing e#al"ation% <n the s"b1ect resol"tion! )"dge Floro! )r. denied the motion for inhibition and declared it as n"ll and #oid. @o$e#er! he ordered the raffling of the case ane$ (not reAraffle d"e to inhibition) so that the petitioner! +ary Ng Nei! $ill ha#e a chance to ha#e the case be assigned to other 1"dges thro"gh an impartial raffle. 3hen )"dge Floro! )r. denied the motion for inhibition! he sho"ld ha#e contin"ed hearing and ta2ing cogni6ance of the case. <t is improper for him to order the raffle of the case Oane$O as this #iolates Administrati#e -irc"lar

No. 1 (<mplementation of 4ec. 1*! Art. F5<<< of the 1'=( -onstit"tion) dated )an"ary *=! 1'== $hich pro#ides to $it% O=. 8affle of -ases% ,,,, =.> 4pecial raffles sho"ld not be permitted e,cept on #erified application of the interested party $ho see2s iss"ance of a pro#isional remedy and only "pon a finding by the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge that "nless the special raffle is cond"cted! irreparable damage shall be s"ffered by the applicant. The special raffle shall be cond"cted by at least t$o 1"dges in a m"ltipleAsala station. , , , ,O Based on the foregoing! a 1"dge may not mot" proprio order the special raffle of a case since s"ch is only allo$ed "pon a #erified application of the interested party see2ing a pro#isional remedy and only "pon the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge7s finding that if a special raffle is not cond"cted! the applicant $ill s"ffer irreparable damage. Therefore! )"dge Floro! )r.7s order is contrary to the abo#eAmentioned Administrati#e -irc"lar. +oreo#er! it is highly inappropriate for )"dge Floro! )r. to e#en mention in his resol"tion that )"stice 8egino -. @ermosisima! )r. is his benefactor in his nomination for 1"dgeship. <t is not "n"s"al to hear a 1"dge $ho spea2s highly of a OpadrinoO ($ho helped him get his position). 4"ch remar2 e#en if made as an e,pression of deep gratit"de ma2es the 1"dge g"ilty of creating a d"bio"s impression abo"t his integrity and independence. 4"ch fla"nting and e,pression of feelings m"st be s"ppressed by the 1"dges concerned. A 1"dge shall not allo$ family! social! or other relationships to infl"ence 1"dicial cond"ct or 1"dgment (-anon *! 8"le *.0>! -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct). The merits of the denial of the motion for inhibition and the r"ling on the motion for reconsideration are 1"dicial matters $hich this ;ffice has no a"thority to re#ie$. The remedy is 1"dicial! not administrati#e.*' The ;-A th"s recommended that )"dge Floro comment on (a) his act of ordering the raffle of the case in #iolation of Administrati#e -irc"lar No. 1B and (b) his remar2 on page & of the s"b1ect resol"tion that O)"stice @ermosisima! )r. , , , helped "ndersigned so m"ch! in the )B-! regarding his nomination , , ,.O <n a 8esol"tion dated 1( A"g"st 1'''! the -o"rt en banc adopted the recommendations of the ;-A.>0 )"dge Floro! thro"gh his co"nsel! filed his -omment on ** ;ctober 1'''>1 $hich $as noted by this -o"rt on ( :ecember 1'''. ;n 11 )an"ary *000! )"dge Floro filed a Formal ;ffer of 9#idence $hich this -o"rt! in a resol"tion dated *& )an"ary *000! referred to )"stice 8amire6 for incl"sion in his report and recommendation. For the record! the ;-A is yet to come "p $ith its report and recommendation in this case as $ell as in the second case (i.e.! A.+. No. 8T)A0?A1'==). Th"s! in a resol"tion dated 1/ Febr"ary *00?! the -o"rt directed )"dge Floro as $ell as the other parties in these t$o cases to inform the -o"rt $hether or not they are $illing to s"bmit A.+. 8T)A0?A1'== and A.+. No. ''A(A*(>A8T- for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed and the e#idence so far s"bmitted by them or to ha#e the decision in A.+. No. 8T)A''A1/?0 decided ahead of the t$o. ;n *0 Febr"ary *00?! the

;-A! thr" -o"rt Administrator resbitero ). 5elasco! )r.! manifested its $illingness to s"bmit A.+. No. ''A(A*(>A8T- for resol"tion based on the pleadings and the e#idence s"bmitted therein. -omplainant G"6 Arriego in A.+. No. 8T)A0?A1'== li2e$ise informed this -o"rt! in a Getter dated *= Febr"ary *00?! her $illingness to s"bmit her case for decision based on the pleadings already s"bmitted and on the e#idence pre#io"sly offered and mar2ed. ;n the other hand! on > +arch *00?! )"dge Floro manifested his preference to ha#e A.+. No. 8T)A''A1/?0 decided ahead of A.+. 8T)A0?A 1'== and A.+. No. ''A(A*(>A8T-. <n the interest of orderly administration of 1"stice! considering that these are consolidated cases! $e resol#e to render as $ell a consolidated decision. B"t first! the gro"nd r"les% +"ch has been said across all fronts regarding )"dge Floro7s alleged mental illness and its effects on his d"ties as )"dge of a 8egional Trial -o"rt. For o"r part! fig"ring o"t $hether )"dge Floro is indeed psychologically impaired andJor disabled as concl"ded by the in#estigator appointed by this -o"rt is fran2ly beyond o"r sphere of competence! in#ol#ing as it does a p"rely medical iss"eB hence! $e $ill ha#e to depend on the findings of the mental health professionals $ho inter#ie$edJanaly6ed )"dge Floro. ;"r 1ob is simply to $ade thro"gh the e#idence! filter o"t the irrele#ant and the irre#erent in order to determine once and for all if )"dge Floro is indeed g"ilty of the charges against him. <f the e#idence ma2es o"t a case against )"dge Floro! the ne,t iss"e is to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed. Finally! $e $ill ha#e to determine $hether )"dge Floro acted $ith an e#il mind or beca"se of a psychological or mental incapacity. Kpon the resol"tion of this ."estion hinges the applicability of e."ity. As an aside! it bears pointing o"t that some of the charges (OcO and OgO! OhO and O1O! OeO and OfO) $ill be 1ointly disc"ssed as they had li2e$ise been 1ointly disc"ssed by the ;-A. These charges in#ol#e common facts and to treat them separately $ill be s"perfl"o"s. :<4-K44<;N As alleged and as pro#en! the 1> specified charges do not $arrant the s"preme penalty of dismissal against )"dge Floro (a) 8e% -harge of circ"lating calling cards containing selfAla"datory statements regarding ."alifications AN: for anno"ncing in open co"rt d"ring co"rt session his ."alifications in #iolation of -anon *! 8"le *.0*! -anons of )"dicial -ond"ct As narrated by the a"dit team! )"dge Floro $as circ"lating calling cards bearing his name as the residing )"dge of 8T-! Branch (>! +alabon -ity! and indicating therein that he is a Obar e,ams topnotcher (=(.&&Z)O and $ith Of"ll second honorsO from the Ateneo de +anila Kni#ersity! A.B. and GG.B.>* The a"dit team li2e$ise reported that% O(b)efore the start of co"rt session! )"dge Floro is introd"ced as a pri#ate la$ practitioner! a grad"ate of Ateneo de +anila Kni#ersity $ith second honors! and a bar topnotcher d"ring the 1'=> Bar 9,aminations $ith an a#erage score of =(.&&Z. After$ards! a reading of the @oly Bible! partic"larly the Boo2 of 8e#elation according to 4aint )ohn! $as made. The people in the co"rtroom $ere gi#en the opport"nity to as2 )"dge Floro ."estions on the matter read. No ."estions $ere as2edB hence the session commenced.O>>

)"dge Floro arg"es that! per commentary of )"stice 8"perto G. +artin! >/ Othe "se of professional cards containing the name of the la$yer! his title! his office and residence is not improperO and that the $ord OtitleO sho"ld be broad eno"gh to incl"de a )"dge7s legal standing in the bar! his honors d"ly earned or e#en his Ga$ 4chool. +oreo#er! other la$yers do incl"de in their calling cards their formerJpresent titlesJpositions li2e resident of the )aycees! 8otary -l"b! etc.! so $here then does one dra$ the lineR Finally! )"dge Floro arg"es that his cards $ere not being circ"lated b"t $ere gi#en merely as to2ens to close friends or by reciprocity to other callers considering that common sense dictates that he is not allo$ed by la$ to see2 other professional employment. As to the charge that he had been anno"ncing in open co"rt his ."alifications! )"dge Floro co"nters that it $as his branch cler2 of co"rt! Atty. 9smeralda GalangA:i6on! $ho s"ggested that d"ring his initial co"rt session! she $o"ld briefly anno"nce his appointment $ith an introd"ction of his school! honors! bar rating and la$ practice. Nai#ely! )"dge Floro agreed as the introd"ction $as done only d"ring the first $ee2 of his ass"mption into office. -anon *! 8"le *.0* of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct says in no "ncertain terms that Oa 1"dge sho"ld not see2 p"blicity for personal #ainglory.O A parallel proscription! this time for la$yers in general! is fo"nd in 8"le >.01 of the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility% Oa la$yer shall not "se or permit the "se of any false! fra"d"lent! misleading! decepti#e! "ndignified! selfA la"datory or "nfair statement or claim regarding his ."alifications or legal ser#ices.O This means that la$yers and 1"dges ali2e! being limited by the e,acting standards of their profession! cannot debase the same by acting as if ordinary merchants ha$2ing their $ares. As s"ccinctly p"t by a leading a"thority in legal and 1"dicial ethics! O(i)f la$yers are prohibited from , , , "sing or permitting the "se of any "ndignified or selfAla"datory statement regarding their ."alifications or legal ser#ices (8"le >.01! -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility)! $ith more reasons sho"ld 1"dges be prohibited from see2ing p"blicity for #anity or selfAglorification. )"dges are not actors or actresses or politicians! $ho thri#e by p"blicity.O >& The ."estion! therefore! is% By incl"ding selfAla"datory details in his professional card! did )"dge Floro #iolate -anon *! 8"le *.0* of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ctR <n Klep #. Gegal -linic! <nc.! >? $e e,plained that the "se of an ordinary and simple professional card by la$yers is permitted and that the card Omay contain only a statement of his name! the name of the la$ firm $hich he is connected $ith! address! telephone n"mber and special branch of la$ practiced.O <n herein case! )"dge Floro7s calling cards cannot be considered as simple and ordinary. By incl"ding therein the honors he recei#ed from his la$ school $ith a claim of being a bar topnotcher! )"dge Floro breached the norms of simplicity and modesty re."ired of 1"dges. )"dge Floro insists! ho$e#er! that he ne#er circ"lated his cards as these $ere 1"st gi#en by him as to2ens andJor only to a fe$ $ho re."ested the same. >( The in#estigation by )"stice 8amire6 into the matter re#eals other$ise. An eyeA$itness from the ;-A categorically stated that )"dge Floro circ"lated these cards. >= 3orse! )"dge Floro7s #ery o$n $itness! a researcher from an ad1oining branch! testified that )"dge Floro ga#e her one of these cards. >'

As this charge in#ol#es a #iolation of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! it sho"ld be meas"red against 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt as amended by A.+. No. 01A=A10A4- being more fa#orable to respondent )"dge Floro. 8"le 1/0! before its amendment! a"tomatically classified #iolations of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct as serio"s charges. As amended! a #iolation of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct may amo"nt to gross miscond"ct! $hich is a serio"s charge! or it may amo"nt to simple miscond"ct! $hich is a less serio"s charge or it may simply be a case of #"lgar andJor "nbecoming cond"ct $hich is a light charge. O+iscond"ctO is defined as $rong or improper cond"ct $hile OgrossO connotes something Oo"t of all meas"reB beyond allo$anceB not to be e,c"sedB flagrantB shamef"l.O /0 For serio"s miscond"ct to e,ist! the 1"dicial act complained of sho"ld be corr"pt or inspired by an intention to #iolate the la$ or a persistent disregard of $ellA2no$n legal r"les. /1 3ith the foregoing as yardstic2! $e find the act of )"dge Floro in circ"lating calling cards containing selfAla"datory statements constit"ti#e of simple miscond"ct in #iolation of -anon *! 8"le *.0* of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct as it appears that )"dge Floro $as not moti#ated by any corr"pt moti#e b"t! from $hat $e can see from the e#idence! a persistent and "n."enchable thirst for recognition. -oncededly! the need for recognition is an all too h"man fla$ and 1"dges do not cease to be h"man "pon donning the 1"dicial robe. -onsidering! ho$e#er! the proscription against 1"dges see2ing p"blicity for personal #ainglory! they are held to a higher standard as they m"st act $ithin the confines of the code they s$ore to obser#e. As to the charge that )"dge Floro! thro"gh his branch cler2 of co"rt! had been anno"ncing in open co"rt his ."alifications! $e find that this is li2e$ise #iolati#e of -anon *! 8"le *.0* of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct as it smac2s of "nnecessary p"blicity. )"dges sho"ld not "se the co"rtroom as platform for anno"ncing their ."alifications especially to an a"dience of la$yers and litigants $ho #ery $ell might interpret s"ch p"blicity as a sign of insec"rity. 5erily! the p"blic loo2s "pon 1"dges as the bastion of 1"stice H confident! competent and tr"e. And to disco#er that this is not so! as the 1"dge appears so "ns"re of his capabilities that he has to co"rt the litigants and their la$yers7 appro#al! definitely erodes p"blic confidence in the 1"diciary. As it is not disp"ted! ho$e#er! that these anno"ncements $ent on for only a $ee2! )"dge Floro is g"ilty of simple miscond"ct only. (b)8e% -harge of allo$ing the "se of his chambers as sleeping ."arters The a"dit team obser#ed that Oinside )"dge Floro7s chamber[s]! there is a folding bed $ith c"shion located at the right corner of the room. A man! $ho $as later identified as )"dge Floro7s dri#er! $as sleeping. @o$e#er! "pon seeing the a"dit team! the dri#er immediately $ent o"t of the room.O /* )"dge Floro contends that this charge is $itho"t legal or fact"al basis. The man the a"dit team sa$ OsleepingO on his folding bed! ). Torralba! $as )"dge Floro7s aide or OalalayO $hom he allo$s to rest from time to time (in bet$een periods and especially d"ring co"rt sessions) for h"manitarian reasons. ). Torralba $as not sleeping d"ring that time that the a"dit team $as in Branch (> as he immediately left $hen he sa$ the members thereof. This charge m"st fail as there is nothing inherently improper or deplorable in )"dge Floro ha#ing allo$ed another person to "se his folding bed for short periods of time d"ring office ho"rs and $hile there is no one else in the

room. The sit"ation $o"ld ha#e been different if there had been any allegation of mis"se or ab"se of go#ernment f"nds andJor facilities s"ch as in the case of resado #. Geno#a /> $herein )"dge Geno#a $as fo"nd g"ilty of serio"s miscond"ct and cond"ct pre1"dicial to the best interest of the ser#ice $hen he and his family "sed his chambers as residential ."arters! $ith the pro#incial go#ernment paying for the electrical bills. Be that as it may! it does not a"g"r $ell for a ne$ 1"dge to allo$ s"ch familiarity from his aide as this becomes fodder for gossip as $hat had apparently happened in this case. )"dge Floro sho"ld ha#e been a$are of and att"ned to the sensibilities of his staff $ho $ere "nderstandably "ncomfortable $ith the "ncommon arrangement of a 1"dge allo$ing his aide easy access to his folding bed. (c) 8e% -harge of rendering resol"tions $itho"t $ritten orders in #iolation of 8"le >?! 4ection 1! 1''( 8"les of roced"re (g) 8e% -harge of proceeding $ith the hearing on the +otion for 8elease on 8ecogni6ance filed by the acc"sed $itho"t the presence of the trial prosec"tor and propo"nding ."estions in the form of e,amination of the c"stodian of the acc"sed The memorand"m report reads% c. <t $as reported by the staff of Branch (> that regardless of the absence of the trial prosec"tor! )"dge Floro! )r. still proceeded $ith the hearing of the follo$ing matters% (cA1) O+otion for 8elease on 8ecogni6anceO filed by the acc"sed! in -riminal -ases Nos. *0>=/! *0>(1! *0*/? and *0//* entitled O eople #s. G"isito BeltranO! O eople #s. 9mma Al#are6! et al.O! O eople #s. 8o$ena -aminoO! and O eople #s. )ohn 8ichie 5illal"6O! respecti#ely. <n the hearing of these motions! )"dge Floro! )r. propo"nded ."estions (in a form of direct e,amination) to the c"stodian of the acc"sed $itho"t the acc"sed being s$orn by the administering officer. (Note% initially! )"dge Floro! )r. ordered the Branch -ler2 of -o"rt :i6on to place the acc"sed "nder oath prior to the start of his ."estions. @o$e#er! -;- :i6on ref"sed). The hearing on the aforesaid motions is an offshoot of a pre#io"s hearing $herein the acc"sed had pleaded g"ilty to a lesser offense. After the reading of the sentence! )"dge Floro! )r. $o"ld a"tomatically inform the acc"sed that they are ."alified to apply for probation. <n fact! )"dge Floro! )r. $o"ld e#en instr"ct his staff to draft the application in behalf of the acc"sed so that a motion for release on recogni6ance $ill immediately be heard and be conse."ently granted. As appearing in the min"tes of the hearing (attached here$ith as Anne,es O>O to O?O)! the c"stodians of the acc"sed are either a barangay 2aga$ad! barangay tanod or a member of the l"pong tagapamayapa. Gi2e$ise! no $ritten order granting the motion for release on recogni6ance is being iss"ed by )"dge Floro! )r. since according to him neither r"les nor circ"lar mandates the iss"ance of a $ritten order. <nstead! after granting the motion! )"dge Floro! )r. 1"st re."ires the parties to sign the min"tes of the session. hotocopies of the min"tes dated +arch /! 1''' in -riminal -ases Nos. *0>=/A+NB *0>(>A+NB and *0>(1A+N are hereto attached as Anne,es O>O to O&O. ;n +arch 11! 1'''! in -riminal -ases Nos. *0/*?A+N and *0//*A+N! )"dge Floro! )r. granted a similar motion $itho"t iss"ing a $ritten order. -opies of the min"tes are hereto attached as anne,es O?O to O(.O //

<n his 5erified -omment! )"dge Floro arg"es that he ne#er #iolated any r"le of proced"re $ith respect to the cases mentioned by the A"dit Team! asserting that H -ontrary to the stance of the T9A+! 4ec. 1 of 8"le >?! 8"les of -o"rt refers only to final and not interloc"tory orders. ;nly final orders and 1"dgments are prom"lgated! rendered and entered. ,,,, Applying the foregoing $ellAsettled doctrines of la$ to the case at bar! herein respondent faithf"lly complied $ith the re."irements of 4ec. ( of .:. '?= as amended! regarding the applications for release on recogni6ance! th"s% a. The application for release on recogni6ance! altho"gh captioned as +;T<;N F;8 89G9A49 ;N 89-;GN<IAN-9! is primarily go#erned by 4ec. ( of .:. '?=! a 4pecial Ga$ on robation. b. Any Application for 8elease on 8ecogni6ance! is gi#en d"e co"rseJta2en cogni6ance of by respondent! if on its face! the same bears the r"bber stamp mar2Jreceipt by the ;ffice of the -ityJ "blic rosec"tor. c. The consistent practice both in 8T-! +9T8; +AN<GA (all co"rts)! especially in 8T-! +AGAB;N! and in +alolos! B"lacan ($here respondent practiced from 1'=&A1''= H almost 1/ years)! [and especially the practice of former )"dge A. 5. -abigao! Br. (>! 8T-! +alabon! +etro +anila]! is to inter#ie$ the c"stodian! in the chambers! regarding his being a responsible member of the comm"nity $here the acc"sed resideJresidesB the ."estions propo"nded are in the form of direct and e#en cross e,amination ."estions. d. The acc"sed is not re."ired to be placed on the $itness stand! since there is no s"ch re."irement. All that is re."ired! is to inform the acc"sed regarding some matters of probation (optional) s"ch as $hether he $as sentenced pre#io"sly by a -o"rt! $hether or not he has had pre#io"s cases! etc. e. 9#en if 8T- )"dges in +alabon do not cond"ct -o"rt hearings on application for release on recogni6ance! respondent! for ca"tion in most of the applications! incl"ded the inter#ie$Jhearing on the applications for release on recogni6ance! d"ring criminal trial dates! $here a fiscalJtrial prosec"tor is a#ailableB at other times! the hearing is held in the chambers./& The e,planation gi#en by )"dge Floro betrays his liability for ignorance of the r"les on probation "nder residential :ecree No. '?= ( robation Ga$)! as amended. -ontrary to his remonstrations! the release of an acc"sed on recogni6ance entails more than a c"rsory inter#ie$ of the c"stodian and the applicant. Knder the robation Ga$!/? and as $e e,plained in oso #. )"dge +i1ares!/( it is inc"mbent "pon the )"dge hearing the application to ascertain first that the applicant is not a Odis."alified offenderO as O(p)"tting the discharge of the acc"sed on hold $o"ld ha#e allo$ed [the 1"dge] more time to pass "pon the re."est for pro#isional liberty.O +oreo#er! from )"dge Floro7s e,planations! it $o"ld seem that he completely did a$ay $ith the re."irement for an in#estigation report by the probation officer. Knder the robation Ga$! the acc"sed7s temporary liberty is $arranted only d"ring the period for a$aiting the s"bmission of the

in#estigation report on the application for probation and the resol"tion thereon./= As $e e,plained in oso #. )"dge +i1ares/' % <t m"st be stressed that the stat"tory se."ence of actions! i.e.! order to cond"ct case st"dy prior to action on application for release on recogni6ance! $as prescribed precisely to "nderscore the interim character of the pro#isional liberty en#isioned "nder the robation Ga$. 4tated differently! the temporary liberty of an applicant for probation is effecti#e no longer than the period for a$aiting the s"bmission of the in#estigation report and the resol"tion of the petition! $hich the la$ mandates as no more than si,ty (?0) days to finish the case st"dy and report and a ma,im"m of fifteen (1&) days from receipt of the report for the trial 1"dge to resol#e the application for probation. By allo$ing the temporary liberty of the acc"sed e#en before the order to s"bmit the case st"dy and report! respondent )"dge "nceremonio"sly e,tended the pro tem discharge of the acc"sed to the detriment of the prosec"tion and the pri#ate complainants. (9mphasis s"pplied) As to the arg"ment of )"dge Floro that his ;rders for the release of an acc"sed on recogni6ance need not be in $riting as these are d"ly reflected in the transcript of stenographic notes! $e refer to 9cha"s #. -o"rt of Appeals &0 $herein $e held that Ono 1"dgment! or order $hether final or interloc"tory! has 1"ridical e,istence "ntil and "nless it is set do$n in $riting! signed and prom"lgated! i.e.! deli#ered by the )"dge to the -ler2 of -o"rt for filing! release to the parties and implementation.O ;b#io"sly! then! )"dge Floro $as remiss in his d"ties as 1"dge $hen he did not red"ce into $riting his orders for the release on recogni6ance of the acc"sed in -riminal -ases No. *0>=/! *0>(1! *0*/*? and *0//* entitled! O eople #. G"isito Beltran!O O eople #. 9mma Al#are6! et al.!O O eople #. 8o$ena -amino!O and O eople #. )ohn 8ichie 5illal"6.O &1 From his e,planation that s"ch $ritten orders are not necessary! $e can s"rmise that )"dge Floro7s fail"re $as not d"e to inad#ertence or negligence on his part b"t to ignorance of a proced"ral r"le. <n fine! $e percei#e three f"ndamental errors in )"dge Floro7s handling of probation cases. First! he ordered the release on recogni6ance of the acc"sed $itho"t the presence of the prosec"tor th"s depri#ing the latter of any opport"nity to oppose said release. 4econd! )"dge Floro ordered the release $itho"t first re."iring the probation officer to render a case st"dy and in#estigation report on the acc"sed. Finally! the order granting the release of the acc"sed on recogni6ance $as not red"ced into $riting. <t $o"ld seem from the foregoing that the release of the acc"sed on recogni6ance! as $ell as his e#ent"al probation! $as already a done deal e#en before the hearing on his application as )"dge Floro too2 "p the c"dgels for the acc"sed by instr"cting his staff to draft the application for probation. This! )"dge Floro did not deny. Th"s! $e agree in the obser#ation of the a"dit team that )"dge Floro! as a matter of policy! had been appro#ing applications for release on recogni6ance hastily and $itho"t obser#ing the re."irements of the la$ for said p"rpose. 5erily! $e ha#ing nothing against co"rts leaning bac2$ard in fa#or of the acc"sedB in fact! this is a sal"tary endea#or! b"t only $hen the sit"ation so $arrants. <n herein case! ho$e#er! $e cannot co"ntenance $hat )"dge Floro did as Othe "nsolicited fer#or to release the acc"sed significantly depri#ed the prosec"tion and the pri#ate complainants of their right to d"e process.O &* )"dge Floro7s insistence that orders made in open co"rt need not be red"ced in $riting constit"tes gross ignorance of the la$. Gi2e$ise! his

fail"re to follo$ the basic r"les on probation! constit"tes gross ignorance of the la$. &> 5erily! one of the f"ndamental obligations of a 1"dge is to "nderstand the la$ f"lly and "phold it conscientio"sly. &/ 3hen the la$ is s"fficiently basic! a 1"dge o$es it to his office to 2no$ and simply apply it for anything less is constit"ti#e of gross ignorance of the la$. && Tr"e! not e#ery 1"dicial error bespea2s ignorance of the la$ and that! if committed in good faith! does not $arrant administrati#e sanctions. &? To hold other$ise O$o"ld be nothing short of harassing 1"dges to ta2e the fantastic and impossible oath of rendering infallible 1"dgments.O &( This r"le! ho$e#er! admits of an e,ception as Ogood faith in sit"ations of fallible discretion inheres only $ithin the parameters of tolerable 1"dgment and does not apply $here the iss"es are so simple and the applicable legal principle e#ident and as to be beyond permissible margins of error.O &= Th"s! e#en if a 1"dge acted in good faith b"t his ignorance is so gross! he sho"ld be held administrati#ely liable. &' (d) 89% -harge of partiality in criminal cases $here he declared that he is proAacc"sed $hich is contrary to -anon *! 8"le *.01! -anons of )"dicial -ond"ct The a"dit team reported that )"dge Floro relayed to the members thereof that in criminal cases! he is al$ays OproAacc"sedO partic"larly concerning detention prisoners and bonded acc"sed $ho ha#e to contin"ally pay for the premi"ms on their bonds d"ring the pendency of their cases. )"dge Floro denies the foregoing charge. @e claims that $hat he did impart "pon Atty. B"ena#ent"ra $as the need for the ;-A to remedy his predicament of ha#ing /0 detention prisoners and other bonded acc"sed $hose cases co"ld not be tried d"e to the lac2 of a permanent prosec"tor assigned to his sala. @e narrated as $ell to Atty. B"ena#ent"ra the s"fferings of detention prisoners lang"ishing in the +alabonJNa#otas 1ail $hose cases had not been tried d"ring the #acancy of his sala from Febr"ary 1''( to & No#ember 1''=. At any rate! )"dge Floro s"bmits that there is no single e#idence or proof s"bmitted by any litigant or pri#ate complainant that he sided $ith the acc"sed. Atty. :i6on! )"dge Floro7s -ler2 of -o"rt! on the other hand! categorically stated "nder oath that )"dge Floro! d"ring a staff meeting! admitted to her and the staff of Branch (> and in the presence of his "blic Attorney7s ;ffice ( A;) la$yer that he is proAacc"sed for the reason that he commiserated $ith them especially those "nder detention as he! himself! had been acc"sed by his brother and sisterAinAla$ of so many "nfo"nded offenses. ?0 Bet$een the t$o #ersions! the testimony of Atty. :i6on is more credible especially since it is corroborated by independent e#idence! ?1 e.g.! )"dge Floro7s "n$arranted eagerness in appro#ing application for release on recogni6ance as pre#io"sly disc"ssed. -anon *.01 of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct states% OA 1"dge sho"ld so beha#e at all times as to promote p"blic confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the 1"diciary.O This means that a 1"dge $hose d"ty is to apply the la$ and dispense 1"stice Osho"ld not only be impartial! independent and honest b"t sho"ld be belie#ed and percei#ed to be impartial! independent and honestO as $ell. ?* Gi2e -aesar7s $ife! a 1"dge m"st not only be p"re b"t abo#e s"spicion. ?> )"dge Floro! by broadcasting to his staff and the

A; la$yer that he is proAacc"sed! opened himself "p to s"spicion regarding his impartiality. r"dence and 1"dicial restraint dictate that a 1"dge sho"ld reser#e personal #ie$s and predilections to himself so as not to stir "p s"spicions of bias and "nfairness. <rresponsible speech or improper cond"ct of a 1"dge erodes p"blic confidence in the 1"diciary. ?/ O@is lang"age! both $ritten and spo2en! m"st be g"arded and meas"red! lest the best of intentions be misconstr"ed.O ?& ;n a more f"ndamental le#el! $hat is re."ired of 1"dges is ob1ecti#ity if an independent 1"diciary is to be reali6ed. And by professing his bias for the acc"sed! )"dge Floro is g"ilty of "nbecoming cond"ct as his capacity for ob1ecti#ity is p"t in serio"s do"bt! necessarily eroding the p"blic7s tr"st in his ability to render 1"stice. As $e held in -astillo #. )"an ?? % <n e#ery litigation! , , ,! the manner and attit"de of a trial 1"dge are cr"cial to e#eryone concerned! the offended party! no less than the acc"sed. <t is not for him to ind"lge or e#en to gi#e the appearance of catering to the atA times h"man failing of yielding to first impressions. @e is to refrain from reaching hasty concl"sions or pre1"dging matters. <t $o"ld be deplorable if he lays himself open to the s"spicion of reacting to feelings rather than to facts! of being imprisoned in the net of his o$n sympathies and predilections. <t m"st be ob#io"s to the parties as $ell as the p"blic that he follo$s the traditional mode of ad1"dication re."iring that he hear both sides $ith patience and "nderstanding to 2eep the ris2 of reaching an "n1"st decision at a minim"m. <t is not necessary that he sho"ld possess mar2ed proficiency in la$! b"t it is essential that he is to hold the balance tr"e. 3hat is e."ally important is that he sho"ld a#oid any cond"ct that casts do"bt on his impartiality. 3hat has been said is not merely a matter of 1"dicial ethics. <t is impressed $ith constit"tional significance. (h) 8e% -harge of "singJta2ing ad#antage of his moral ascendancy to settle and e#ent"ally dismiss -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N (for fr"strated homicide) in the g"ise of settling the ci#il aspect of the case! by pers"ading the pri#ate complainant and the acc"sed to sign the settlement e#en $itho"t the presence of the trial prosec"tor. (1) 8e% -harge of iss"ing an ;rder on = +arch 1''' $hich #aries from that $hich he iss"ed in open co"rt in -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N! for fr"strated homicide. The memorand"m report states% :"ring the arraignment and preAtrial of -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N entitled% O eople #s. Nenita 4al#adorO! )"dge Floro! )r.! in the absence of the p"blic prosec"tor and considering that the pri#ate complainant $as not being represented by a pri#ate prosec"tor! "sed his moral ascendancy and infl"ence to con#ince the pri#ate complainant to settle and e#ent"ally ca"se the dismissal of the case in the g"ise of settling its ci#il aspect by ma2ing the pri#ate complainants and the acc"sed sign the settlement. (-opy of the signed stenographic notes is hereto attached as Anne, O=O). ,,,, <n an ;rder dated +arch =! 1''' in -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N! for fr"strated homicide! )"dge Floro! )r. p"t on record the OmanifestationsO of the pri#ate complainant and the acc"sed relati#e to their $illingness to settle the ci#il aspect of the case. <n the same order! )"dge Floro! )r. reser#ed his r"ling on the said settlement "ntil after the p"blic prosec"tor has gi#en his

comment. @o$e#er! per report of the co"rt employees in Branch (>! the aforesaid order $as act"ally a re#ised one or a de#iation from the original order gi#en in open co"rt. Act"ally! the said criminal case $as already settled e#en $itho"t the presence of the p"blic prosec"tor. The settlement $as in the nat"re of absol#ing not only the ci#il liability of the acc"sed b"t the criminal liability as $ell. <t $as f"rther reported that the pri#ate complainants signed the compromise agreement d"e to the insistence or pers"asion of )"dge Floro! )r. The a"dit team $as f"rnished a copy of the stenographic notes ("nsigned draft order) and the re#ised order (signed). -opies of the stenographic notes and the re#ised order are hereto attached as Anne,es O=O! O1>O! and O1/O. (Note% the stenographic notes $ere signed by the parties to the case). <n the meantime! the mother of the pri#ate complainant in -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N! G"6 Arriego! filed an administrati#e case against )"dge Floro doc2eted as A.+. ;-AA<. .<. No. ''A=1*A8T). <n her Affida#it -omplaint ?( dated ' A"g"st 1'''! she alleged that on = +arch 1'''! )"dge Floro forced them to settle her da"ghter7s case against the acc"sed therein despite the absence of the trial prosec"tor. 3hen the parties co"ld not agree on the amo"nt to be paid by the acc"sed for the medical e,penses inc"rred by complaining $itness! they re."ested respondent that they be gi#en time to st"dy the matter and cons"lt a la$yer to $hich )"dge Floro replied that the case be settled immediately! "ttering! Ongayon naY ngayon naYO +oreo#er! )"dge Floro allegedly made them belie#e that the co"nterAcharges filed by the acc"sed against the complaining $itness $o"ld li2e$ise be dismissed! so they agreed to settle the case. @o$e#er! the $ritten ;rder iss"ed by respondent )"dge did not reflect the agreement entered into by the parties in open co"rt. )"dge Floro ta2es e,ception to the foregoing ;-A report and the complaint filed by +rs. Arriego! maintaining that the hearing on said case $as not only in accordance $ith the 8"les of -o"rt b"t $as also beneficial to the litigants concerned as they openly manifested their $illingness to patch "p their differences in the spirit of reconciliation. Then! considering that the parties s"ggested that they $o"ld file the necessary pleadings in d"e co"rse! )"dge Floro $aited for s"ch pleadings before the T4NAdictated ;rder co"ld be red"ced to $riting. +ean$hile! in the co"rse of a con#ersation bet$een )"dge Floro and -o"rt Administrator Benipayo! the latter opined that "nder 4ection *( of 8"le 1>0 of the 8"les of -o"rt! an offer of compromise in criminal cases is tantamo"nt to an admission of g"ilt e,cept in some cases. 3ith this in mind! the = +arch 1''' ;rder of the hearing on e#en date $as s"perseded by the re#ised $ritten ;rder li2e$ise dated = +arch 1'''. )"dge Floro asserts that contrary to Atty. B"ena#ent"ra7s stance that he has no po$er to re#ise an ;rder! co"rts ha#e plenary po$er to recall and amend or re#ise any orally dictated order in s"bstance and in form e#en mot" proprio. The r"le on the matter finds e,pression in 9cha"s #. -o"rt of Appeals ?= $herein $e declared% , , , [N]o 1"dgment! or order $hether final or interloc"tory! has 1"ridical e,istence "ntil and "nless it is set do$n in $riting! signed and prom"lgated! i.e.! deli#ered by the )"dge to the -ler2 of -o"rt for filing! release to the parties and implementation! and that indeed! e#en after prom"lgation! it does not bind the parties "ntil and "nless notice thereof is d"ly ser#ed on them by any of the modes prescribed by la$. This is so e#en if the order or 1"dgment has in fact been orally prono"nced in the presence of the parties!

or a draft thereof dra$n "p and signed andJor copy thereof someho$ read or ac."ired by any party. <n tr"th! e#en after prom"lgation (i.e.! filing $ith the cler2 of co"rt)! and e#en after ser#ice on the parties of notice of an order or 1"dgment! the -o"rt rendering it indisp"tably has plenary po$er to recall and amend or re#ise it in s"bstance or form on motion of any party or e#en mot" proprio! pro#ided that in the case of a final order or 1"dgment! the same has not attained finality. (9mphasis s"pplied) <n herein case! $hat $as in#ol#ed $as an interloc"tory order made in open co"rt H ostensibly a 1"dicial appro#al of a compromise agreement H $hich $as amended or re#ised by remo#ing the stamp of 1"dicial appro#al! the $ritten order merely stating that )"dge Floro $as reser#ing its r"ling regarding the manifestations of the parties to enter into a compromise agreement after the p"blic prosec"tor shall ha#e s"bmitted its comments thereto. ?' -onsidering then that it $as $ell $ithin the discretion of )"dge Floro to re#ise his oral order per the 9cha"s r"ling and factoring in his e,planation for resorting to s"ch an amendment! $e find no basis for the charge of dishonesty ("nder paragraph O1O of the complaint). Anent the charge that )"dge Floro "sed his moral ascendancy to settle and e#ent"ally dismiss -riminal -ase No. *0>=&A+N (for fr"strated homicide) in the g"ise of settling the ci#il aspect of the case! by pers"ading the pri#ate complainant and the acc"sed to sign the settlement e#en $itho"t the presence of the trial prosec"tor! the same m"st li2e$ise fail for lac2 of basis. The contro#ersial settlement ne#er came to pass. <t $as not 1"dicially appro#ed as reflected in the re#ised ;rder of = +arch 1'''! th"s! +rs. Arriego act"ally had no ca"se for complaint. 4he cannot! on one hand! complain that the $ritten order did not reflect the agreement reached d"ring the hearing and! on the other hand! claim that this agreement $as reached "nder d"ress at the instance of )"dge Floro. (i) For mot" proprio and o#er the strong ob1ection of the trial prosec"tor! ordering the mental and physical e,amination of the acc"sed based on the gro"nd that the acc"sed is Omahina ang pic2A"pO The a"dit team reported that in an ;rder dated = Febr"ary 1''' in -riminal -ase No. *0>/(A+N! )"dge Floro Omot" proprio ordered the physical and mental e,amination of the acc"sed by any physician! o#er the strong ob1ection of the trial prosec"tor! on the gro"nd that the acc"sed is Omahina ang pic2A"p.O (0 <n ref"tation! )"dge Floro arg"es AA <n the case at bar! respondentJ-o"rt caref"lly obser#ed the demeanor of the acc"sed N94T;8 94-A8GAN and noted the manifestations of his co"nsel de oficio! Atty. 9. Galle#o! A; la$yer! and the commentJob1ections of the trial prosec"tor! rosec"tor ). :ia6! th"s% a. Atty. Galle#o manifested to the -o"rt that the acc"sed opted to enter a plea of not g"iltyB b. B"t "pon ."ery of the -o"rt! the acc"sed approached the bench and he appeared trembling and stammeringB

c. Atty. Galle#o! "pon ."estions by respondent! readily admitted that acc"sed is Ona""talO! has diffic"lty of reasoning! of spea2ing! and #ery ner#o"sB d. Atty. Galle#o also manifested that the acc"sed often changed his mind regarding the plea! from not g"ilty to g"ilty and to not g"ilty! and so forthB e. -onsidering the gra#e sit"ation! Atty. Galle#o! "pon citation by the -o"rtJrespondent of the pertinent pro#isions of the 8"les! namely 8"le *= (+ental 9,amination of ersons)! 4ec. 1* of 8"le 11?! and 4ec. &(g) of 8"le 1>&! 8"les of -o"rt (plenary po$ers to iss"e orders to conform to 1"stice)! manifested orally that the acc"sed is Omahina ang pic2A"pOB f. @ence! respondent e,ercised his so"nd discretion in iss"ing the ;8:98 ;F +9NTAG 9FA+<NAT<;N. The +9NTAG e,amination ;8:98 finds legal s"pport! since it is $ellA settled that Othe co"rt may order a physical or +9NTAG e,amination of a party $here his physical or mental condition is material to the iss"es in#ol#ed.O (*( -.).4. p. 11'! cf. +A8T<N! p. 10(! id.). (1 A; la$yer 9r$in )oy B. Galle#o too2 the $itness stand for )"dge Floro. @e testified that he mo#ed for the s"spension of the arraignment of the acc"sed Nestor 9scarlan 9scancilla in order to assess his mental fitness for trial. (* As reflected in the ;rder for s"spension! ho$e#er! and as admitted by )"dge Floro himself in his -omment! Atty. Galle#o merely manifested that acc"sed is Omahina ang pic2A"p.O Be that as it may! $e cannot fa"lt )"dge Floro for s"spending the arraignment mot" proprio and Oo#er the strong ob1ection of the trial prosec"tor.O <t m"st be remembered that the sched"led arraignment too2 place in Febr"ary 1''' $hen the applicable r"le $as still 4ection 1*(a) of 8"le 11? of the 1'=& 8"les of -riminal roced"re! $hich reads% 49-. 1*. 4"spension of arraignment. H The arraignment shall be s"spended! if at the time thereof% (a) The acc"sed appears to be s"ffering from an "nso"nd mental condition $hich effecti#ely renders him "nable to f"lly "nderstand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. <n s"ch case! the co"rt shall order his mental e,amination and! if necessary! his confinement for s"ch p"rpose. The abo#eAcited r"le does not re."ire that the s"spension be made p"rs"ant to a motion filed by the acc"sed "nli2e 4ection 11(a)! 8"le 11? of the present *000 8"les of -riminal roced"re $hich decrees that the s"spension be made O"pon motion by the proper party.O (> Th"s! it $as $ell $ithin the discretion of )"dge Floro to order the s"spension of the arraignment mot" proprio based on his o$n assessment of the sit"ation. <n fact! 1"rispr"dence imposes "pon the )"dge the d"ty to s"spend the proceedings if it is fo"nd that the acc"sed! e#en $ith the aid of co"nsel! cannot ma2e a proper defense. (/ As $e "nderscored in eople #. Alcalde (& % 4ettled is the r"le that $hen a 1"dge is informed or disco#ers that an acc"sed is apparently in a present condition of insanity or imbecility! it is $ithin his discretion to in#estigate the matter. <f it be fo"nd that by reason of s"ch affliction the acc"sed co"ld not! $ith the aid of co"nsel! ma2e a proper defense! it is the d"ty of the co"rt to s"spend the proceedings and commit

the acc"sed to a proper place of detention "ntil his fac"lties are reco#ered. , , ,. ,,,, The constit"tional right to be informed of the nat"re and ca"se of the acc"sation against him "nder the Bill of 8ights carries $ith it the correlati#e obligation to effecti#ely con#ey to the acc"sed the information to enable him to effecti#ely prepare for his defense. At the bottom is the iss"e of fair trial. 3hile not e#ery aberration of the mind or e,hibition of mental deficiency on the part of the acc"sed is s"fficient to 1"stify s"spension of the proceedings! the trial co"rt m"st be f"lly satisfied that the acc"sed $o"ld ha#e a fair trial $ith the assistance the la$ sec"res or gi#es. , , ,. 3hether or not )"dge Floro $as indeed correct in his assessment of the acc"sed7s mental fitness for trial is already beside the point. <f e#er he erred! he erred in the side of ca"tion $hich! "nder the circ"mstances of the case! is not an actionable $rong. (e)8e% -harge of appearing and signing pleadings in -i#il -ase No. /?A+A '= pending before 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch =>! +alolos! B"lacan in #iolation of -anon &! 8"le &.0(! -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct $hich prohibits a 1"dge from engaging in the pri#ate practice of la$ (f)8e% -harge of appearing in personal cases $itho"t prior a"thority from the 4"preme -o"rt and $itho"t filing the corresponding applications for lea#es of absence on the sched"led dates of hearing <n s"pport of the abo#e charges! the memorand"m report states% i.)"dge Floro! )r. informed the a"dit team that he has personal cases pending before the lo$er co"rts in B"lacan. @e admitted that Atty. Bordador! the co"nsel of record in some of these cases! is 1"st signing the pleadings for him $hile he ()"dge Floro! )r.) acts as collaborating co"nsel. 3hen attending the hearing of the cases! )"dge Floro! )r. admitted that he does not file an application for lea#e of absence. Based on the reports gathered by the a"dit team! )"dge Floro! )r. has a pending ci#il case in the 8egional Trial -o"rt of +alolos! B"lacan and a criminal case in +"nicipal Trial -o"rt! +eyca"ayan! B"lacan. <t is reported that in these cases! he is appearing and filing pleadings in his capacity as party and co"nsel for himself and e#en indicating in the pleadings that he is the residing )"dge of Branch (>! 8T-! +alabon. Kpon #erification by the a"dit team! it $as fo"nd o"t that )"dge Floro! )r. indeed has a pending case before the 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch =>! +alolos! B"lacan doc2eted as -i#il -ase No. /?A+A'=! entitled% O<n 8e% <n the +atter of the etition for @abeas -orp"s of 8obert 5. Floro! Atty. Florentino 5. Floro! )r.! etitioner A #ers"s H )esie 5. Floro and Ben1amin 5. FloroO. <n this case )"dge Floro! )r. filed an O9,A arte +otion for <ss"ance of 9ntry of )"dgment $ith +anifestation andJor )"dicial AdmissionO $herein he signed as the petitioner and at the same time indicated that he is the presiding 1"dge of 8T-! Branch (>! +alabon! +etro +anila. -o"rt stenographer +arissa Garcia! 8T-! Branch =>! +alolos! B"lacan confirmed this information. )"dge Floro! )r. e#en attached a copy of his oath ta2ing and his pict"re together $ith resident )oseph 9strada to the aforesaid pleading. hotocopy of the said +otion is hereto attached as Anne, O'O.

)"dge Floro! )r. has a pending re."est $ith the -o"rt +anagement ;ffice! ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator! to appear as co"nsel or collaborating co"nsel in se#eral ci#il cases (e,cept the abo#eAmentioned case) pending before lo$er co"rts. (? 3ell ensconced is the r"le that 1"dges are prohibited from engaging in the pri#ate practice of la$. 4ection >&! 8"le 1>= of the 8"les of -o"rt "ne."i#ocally states that% ONo 1"dge or other official or employee of the s"perior co"rts or of the ;ffice of the 4olicitor General! shall engage in pri#ate practice as member of the bar or gi#e professional ad#ice to client.O -anon &! 8"le &.0( of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! on the other hand! pro#ides that% OA 1"dge shall not engage in the pri#ate practice of la$.O )"dge Floro #ehemently denies the foregoing charge claiming that he hired la$yers to attend to his personal cases. (( A scr"tiny of the #ol"mino"s records in this case does not re#eal any concrete proof of )"dge Floro ha#ing appeared as co"nsel in his personal cases after he had already been appointed )"dge e,cept that he prepared a pleading (O9, arte +otion For <ss"ance of 9ntry of )"dgment 3ith +anifestation andJor )"dicial AdmissionO) 1ointly $ith his co"nsel of record in connection $ith a habeas corp"s case he filed against his brothers for the c"stody of their Omild! mentallyAretardedO brother. @e e,plained! ho$e#er! that he prepared the said pleading in the heat of anger as he co"ld not accept the 1"dgment of dismissal in that case.(= @e li2e$ise e,plained that the pleading $as signed by him alone d"e to inad#ertence and that he had rectified the same by filing an Amended +anifestation $ith Affida#it of +erit. (' Finally! d"ring the hearing of this case! )"dge Floro arg"ed that he filed the s"b1ect pleading as petitioner and not as co"nsel. =0 The proscription against the pri#ate practice of la$ by 1"dges is based on so"nd p"blic policy! th"s% [T]he rights! d"ties! pri#ileges and f"nctions of the office of an attorneyAatA la$ are inherently incompatible $ith the high official f"nctions! d"ties! po$ers! discretion and pri#ileges of a 1"dge. <t also aims to ens"re that 1"dges gi#e their f"ll time and attention to their 1"dicial d"ties! pre#ent them from e,tending special fa#ors to their o$n pri#ate interests and ass"re the p"blic of their impartiality in the performance of their f"nctions. These ob1ecti#es are dictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the p"blic interest. =1 Based on the abo#e rationale! it becomes ."ite e#ident that $hat is en#isioned by Opri#ate practiceO is more than an isolated co"rt appearance! for it consists in fre."ent or c"stomary action! a s"ccession of acts of the same nat"re habit"ally or c"stomarily holding one7s self to the p"blic as a la$yer. =* <n herein case! sa#e for the O+otion for 9ntry of )"dgment!O it does not appear from the records that )"dge Floro filed other pleadings or appeared in any other co"rt proceedings in connection $ith his personal cases. <t is safe to concl"de! therefore! that )"dge Floro7s act of filing the motion for entry of 1"dgment is b"t an isolated case and does not in any $ise constit"te pri#ate practice of la$. +oreo#er! $e cannot ignore the fact that )"dge Floro is ob#io"sly not la$yering for any person in this case as he himself is the petitioner. Be that as it may! tho"gh )"dge Floro might not be g"ilty of "na"thori6ed practice of la$ as defined! he is g"ilty of "nbecoming cond"ct for signing a pleading $herein he indicated that he is the presiding 1"dge of 8T-! Branch

(>! +alabon -ity and for appending to the pleading a copy of his oath $ith a pict"re of his oathAta2ing. The only logical e,planation $e can reach for s"ch acts is that )"dge Floro $as ob#io"sly trying to infl"ence or p"t press"re on a fello$ 1"dge by emphasi6ing that he himself is a 1"dge and is th"s in the right. => 5erily! -anon *! 8"le *.0/ of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct mandates that a O1"dge shall refrain from infl"encing in any manner the o"tcome of litigation or disp"te pending before another co"rt or administrati#e agency.O By doing $hat he did! )"dge Floro! to say the least! p"t a fello$ 1"dge in a #ery a$2$ard position. As to charge (f)! the ;-A has failed to s"bstantiate its claim that )"dge Floro has been attending the hearing of his personal cases $itho"t filing for lea#e of absence. As )"dge Floro #ehemently protests the charge as "ntr"e! it $as inc"mbent "pon the ;-A to pro#e its case. Time and again $e ha#e held that altho"gh administrati#e proceedings are not strictly bo"nd by formal r"les on e#idence! the liberality of proced"re in administrati#e actions is still s"b1ect to limitations imposed by the f"ndamental re."irement of d"e process. =/ (2) 8e% -harge of openly critici6ing the 8"les of -o"rt and the hilippine 1"stice system (l) 8e% -harge of "se of highly improper and intemperate lang"age d"ring co"rt proceedings The memorand"m report reads% <n the co"rse of the 1"dicial a"dit! the a"dit team $as able to obser#e the $ay )"dge Floro! )r. cond"cts co"rt proceedings. 3ith the assistance of the co"rt staff! the team $as able to obtain a tapeArecorded proceeding cond"cted by )"dge Floro! )r. Attached is the transcript of the proceedings (Anne, O1&O). The tape record of the co"rt proceedings is also s"bmitted along $ith this report as 9,hibit OAO. ,,,, The case for hearing that day $as -i#il -ase No. 1*&? ++. A certain Atty. Abelarde $as appearing for the plaintiff $hile Atty. 9mman"el Basa $as appearing for the defendant. :"ring the hearing! it seems that the co"nsels for both parties $ere g"iding )"dge Floro! )r. on ho$ to proceed $ith the trial. There $as one instance $hen )"dge Floro! )r. critici6ed the 8"les of -o"rt! to $it% O)"dge Floro! )r.% Xasi nga ang may plano nito ay ang 8"les of -o"rt! hindi nila maayos ang 8"les of -o"rt natin! hindi realistic 2inopya lang sa la$ of -alifornia on -i#il roced"reB pagdating dito eh U dahil sa 2anila maraming nag2a2aproblema! masyadong maraming U eh a2o $ala a2ong pinag2opyahan yan U b"t gina$a 2o lang yon U 4abi 2o si )"dge nag2oA complain 2asi! sabi 2o nga pag2a ang la$yer hindi alam yan talo na sa a2in U e,cept U na hindi papayag U 2asi marami diyang UO <n another proceeding cond"cted on a different day! )"dge Floro! )r.! instead of holding trial! disc"ssed! in open co"rt! the case in#ol#ing his brother. @e e#en condemned the hilippine 1"stice system and manifested his disg"st on the "nfairness of the system. Th"s! he said%

O4abi 2o paano 2o matatagp"an ang 2atar"ngan dito sa 2orteng eto b"lo2 ang h"stisya. Ang 2apatid 2o napa2ayaman! a2o $alang pera.O @e contin"ed% OL"ng 2apatid 2o. @indi 2o ma2"ha 2"ndi ma2ita 2o lang. Ba$al 2asiB y"ng 2apatid 2o retarded! ba$al. <n memory of my brother! 8obert Floro. 4o! ngayon nagAfile a2o. 4abi ni )"dge Agloro senermonan pa a2o! gan"n U gan"n U 4abi 2o paano 2o ma2i2ita ang 2atar"ngan. Tapos ngayon ang nangyari di )"dge na a2o! hindi 2o pa na2ita ang 2apatid 2o. :i ngayon! ang gina$a 2o naAdismiss na y"ng case! hindi 2o inano 2asi $ala a2ong na2i2itang 2atar"ngan dahil ang 2apatid 2o ay napa2araming pera. Alam 2o naman 2"ng ang isang co"rt eh parehas o may 2iling eh. L"ng abogado niya mala2as na mala2as doon. 4ana hindi na2aArecord eto (la"ghs) ba2a a2o maAcontempt dito.O =& )"dge Floro denies the foregoing acc"sations! emphatically arg"ing that these are all hearsay fabrications s"pplied by his -ler2 of -o"rt! Atty. :i6on! and by disgr"ntled 8T- personnel d"e to ill or "lterior moti#es (i.e.! to allegedly co#erA"p their consistent tardiness! habit"al absenteeism and gross neglect of d"ties $hich $ere all "nearthed by )"dge Floro). As to the tape recording of an alleged co"rt hearing $herein he critici6ed the hilippine 1"dicial system! )"dge Floro contends that this recording $as done clandestinely by his staff in #iolation of the AntiA3ire Tapping Ga$ (8ep"blic Act No. /*00) and! to s"it their plans! they t$isted the facts by c"tting portions thereof. They also made it appear that the con#ersation too2 place in a co"rt proceeding $hen! in fact! this $as inside his chambers. :"ring the in#estigation! it $as established that the t$o tapes in ."estion $ere s"bmitted to the ;-A sans the Oyello$ notesO and the official transcribed copy thereof. =? This means that the transcribed copy that $as s"bmitted by the a"dit team as Anne, O1&O is b"t an "nofficial copy and does not! by itself! pro#e that $hat $as being recorded $as a co"rt proceeding. This being the case! the t$o tapes! $itho"t concrete proof that they $ere ta2en officially d"ring a co"rt proceeding! cannot be "sed against )"dge Floro as the "na"thori6ed recording of a pri#ate con#ersation is inadmissible "nder 8ep. Act No. /*00. =( 3itho"t the tape and transcribed copies of the contents thereof! $e are th"s left $ith only )"dge Floro7s $ord against that of Atty. :i6on! his -ler2 of -o"rt $ho testified "nder oath as to )"dge Floro7s alleged propensity to critici6e the 1"diciary and to "se intemperate lang"age. 8esol#ing these partic"lar charges $o"ld therefore depend "pon $hich party is more credible. Atty. :i6on stated on the $itness stand that% M% <s )"dge Floro g"ilty of 5iolation of -anon 1 8"le 1.01 -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct $hen he openly critici6ed the 8"les of -o"rt and the hilippine )"stice 4ystemR A% Les. )"dge Floro has mentioned to each and e#eryone of "s in branch (> the alleged O2ab"l"2an ng h"stisyaO. Time and again he said the 8"les of -o"rt is of no "se. @e said that since theory and the practice of la$ are #ery different! the 8"les of -o"rt does not al$ays apply to different cases. Not only the 1"stice system did he critici6e b"t li2e$ise )"dges and )"stices. @e told "s . . . and < ."ote O:7yan sa +alolos sang2at"ta2 ang corr"pt na

)"dges . . . 4a -o"rt of Appeals *&!000.00 ang pina2amababang lagayan diyan.O To o"r mind! ho$ can a )"dge li2e him openly critici6e the #ery instit"tion he is no$ ser#ingR 3here is his respect to the co"rt! to the bar and to the benchR @o$ can he "phold co"rts as temples of 1"stice if he himself did not belie#e in the 1"stice systemR ,,,, M 3hat can yo" say abo"t charge letter OGO $hich reads for the "se of highly improper and intemperate lang"age d"ring co"rt proceedingsR A )"dge Floro! if in the presence of all his staff! d"ring the presence of me! the -o"rt <nterpreter! the Gegal 8esearcher! maybe a -ler2! he al$ays disc"ss matters regarding practitioners in o"r co"rt. There is one time one Atty. Feliciano a lady la$yer! he said! OG"2aAl"2a! talaga yang babaing yanO and then he $o"ld call e#en not d"ring co"rt session! b"t d"ring office ho"rs o"r -o"rt <nterpreter Omalandi! l"2aAl"2a! may fr"it of the s"nO. 4o! it did not s"rprise "s one time $hen d"ring a preAtrial conference in a -i#il -ase! for -i#il -ase No. *&A=?A+N OGope6 #. 8eyes and +ercadoO! he "ttered offensi#e lang"age against his fello$ 1"dge. Ta2e the transcription of this co"rt proceeding is already adapted by the -o"rt Administrator. <t $as the content of the tape he sent the -o"rt Administrator. Act"ally! for cons"ltation and ad#ise after hearing $hat )"dge Floro disc"ssed in open -o"rt! before all of "s! the co"rt staff present in the hearing and before the la$yer and the defendants in the case! $e $ere in ."andary $hether or not to attach in the record the stenographic notes or e#en the act"al transcription of the proceedings beca"se it contained offensi#e lang"ages against the 1"stice system! against a certain 1"dge! against a certain -ler2 of -o"rt named )"de Assanda! against people he is disg"sted $ith. <n fact! instead of disc"ssing the merit of the case or the possibility of the amicable settlement bet$een the parties! he integrated this 2ind of disc"ssion. 4o! as a -ler2 of -o"rt! < may not "se my discretion $hether or not to ad#ise the stenographer to indeed present the same or attach the same in the record beca"se it contained offensi#e lang"ages highly improper and intemperate lang"ages li2e for e,ample! Op"tang inaO! $ords li2e Oa2o ang anghel ng 2amatayan! etcetera! etceteraO. == The denials of )"dge Floro are ins"fficient to discredit the straightfor$ard and candid declarations of Atty. :i6on especially in the light of confirming proofs from )"dge Floro himself. The -o"rt finds the #ersion of Atty. :i6on more credible beca"se s"b1ect "tterances are consistent $ith )"dge Floro7s claims of intellect"al s"periority for ha#ing grad"ated $ith se#eral honors from the Ateneo 4chool of Ga$ and ha#ing placed 1>th in the bar e,aminations. +oreo#er! his "tterances against the 1"dicial system on acco"nt of his perception of in1"stice in the disposition of his brother7s case are not far remo#ed from his reactions to $hat he percei#ed $ere in1"stices committed against him by the ;-A and by the persons $ho $ere either in charge of the cases against him or had some sort of participation therein. -onse."ently! altho"gh there is no direct proof that )"dge Floro said $hat he is claimed to ha#e said! nonetheless! e#idence that he sees himself as intellect"ally s"perior as $ell as e#idence of his habit of crying fo"l $hen things do not go his $ay! sho$ that it is more li2ely that he act"ally critici6ed the 8"les of -o"rt and the 1"dicial system and is th"s g"ilty of "nbecoming cond"ct. 5erily! in administrati#e cases! the ."ant"m of proof necessary for a finding of g"ilt is s"bstantial e#idence or

s"ch rele#ant e#idence as reasonable mind might accept as ade."ate to s"pport a concl"sion. =' <n this case! there is ample and competent proof of #iolation on )"dge Floro7s part. (m) 8e% -harge of #iolating -irc"lar No. 1>A=( dated 1 )"ly 1'=( The memorand"m report stated that )"dge Floro H [:]e#iat[ed] from the reg"lar co"rse of trial $hen he disc"sses matters in#ol#ing his personal life and beliefs. -anon >! 8"le >.0> pro#ides that O[a] 1"dge shall maintain order and proper decor"m in the co"rt.O A disorderly 1"dge generates disorderly $or2. An indecoro"s 1"dge in#ites indecoro"s reactions. @ence! the need to maintain order and proper decor"m in co"rt. 3hen the 1"dge respects himself! others $ill respect him too. 3hen he is orderly! others $ill follo$ s"it. roceedings in co"rt m"st be cond"cted formally and solemnly. The atmosphere m"st be characteri6ed $ith honor and dignity befitting the serio"sness and importance of a 1"dicial trial called to ascertain the tr"th. Anything $hich tends to detract from this atmosphere m"st be a#oided. And the 1"dge is s"pposed to be in control and is therefore responsible for any detraction therefrom. -irc"lar No. 1> (G"idelines in the Administration of )"stice) dated )"ly 1! 1'=( pro#ides that trial of cases sho"ld be cond"cted efficiently and e,peditio"sly. )"dges sho"ld plan the co"rse and direction of trials so that $aste of time is a#oided. +oreo#er! a 1"dge sho"ld a#oid being ."eer in his beha#ior! appearance and mo#ements. @e m"st al$ays 2eep in mind that he is the #isible representati#e of the la$. )"dge Floro! )r.7s claims that he is endo$ed $ith psychic po$ers! that he can inflict pain and sic2ness to people! that he is the angel of death and that he has "nseen Olittle friendsO are manifestations of his psychological instability and therefore casts do"bt on his capacity to carry o"t the f"nctions and responsibilities of a 1"dge. @ence! it is best to s"b1ect )"dge Floro! )r. once again to psychiatric or mental e,amination to ascertain his fitness to remain in the 1"diciary. '0 -irc"lar No. 1>A=(! by itself! does not define nor p"nish an offense b"t! as its title $o"ld s"ggest! it merely sets the g"idelines in the administration of 1"stice follo$ing the ratification of the 1'=( -onstit"tion. The arg"ments for$arded by the ;-A! ho$e#er! best e,emplify the fact that the 1> charges are ine,tricably lin2ed to the charge of mentalJpsychological illness $hich allegedly renders )"dge Floro "nfit to contin"e discharging the f"nctions of his office. This being the case! $e $ill consider the allegation that )"dge Floro proclaims himself to be endo$ed $ith psychic po$ers! that he can inflict pain and sic2ness to people! that he is the angel of death and that he has "nseen Olittle friendsO in determining the transcendental iss"e of his mentalJpsychological fitness to remain in office. B"t before $e e#en go into that! $e m"st determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed for the se#en of the 1> charges disc"ssed abo#e. To recapit"late! $e ha#e fo"nd )"dge Floro g"ilty! in one $ay or another! of se#en of the 1> charges against him. Th"s% 1) -harge OaO A simple miscond"ct *) -harges OcO and OgO H gross ignorance of the la$

>) -harge OdO H "nbecoming cond"ct /) -harge OeO H "nbecoming cond"ct &) -harges O2O and OlO H "nbecoming cond"ct Gross ignorance of the la$ or proced"re is a serio"s charge. Knder 8"le 1/0 as amended! a 1"dge g"ilty of a serio"s charge may be dismissed from the ser#ice! s"spended from office $itho"t salary and other benefits for more than three b"t not e,ceeding si, months or fined in the amo"nt of *0!000.00 b"t not e,ceeding /0!000.00 depending on the circ"mstances of the case. <n herein case! considering that )"dge Floro had barely $armed his seat $hen he $as slammed $ith these charges! his relati#e ine,perience is to be ta2en in his fa#or. And! considering f"rther that there is no allegation or proof that he acted in bad faith or $ith corr"pt moti#es! $e hold that a fine is the appropriate penalty. The fine is to be imposed in the ma,im"m! i.e. /0!000.00! as $e $ill treat the findings of simple miscond"ct and "nbecoming cond"ct as aggra#ating circ"mstances. '1 )"dge Floro m"st be relie#ed of his position as )"dge of 8T- +alabon Branch d"e to a medically disabling condition of the mind that renders him "nfit to discharge the f"nctions of his office As $e ha#e e,plained! the common thread $hich binds the 1> seemingly "nrelated acc"sations in A.+. No. 8T)A''A1/?0 is the charge of mental illness against )"dge Floro embodied in the re."irement for him to "ndergo an appropriate mental or psychological e,amination and $hich necessitated his s"spension pending in#estigation. This charge of mental illness! if tr"e! renders him "nfit to perform the f"nctions of his office not$ithstanding the fact that! in disposing of the 1> charges! there had been no finding of dismissal from the ser#ice against )"dge Floro. The 4"preme -o"rt -linic first had occasion to inter#ie$ )"dge Floro $hen the latter applied for 1"dgeship ($hich application he later #ol"ntarily $ithdre$) $ay bac2 in 4eptember 1''&. The psychological report! as prepared by -ecilia -. 5illegas! +.:. (:irector <<<! -hief 4- -linic 4er#ices) and +elinda -. Grio ( sychologist)! stated in part% 4L-@<AT8<- 95AGKAT<;N% There are e#idences of de#eloping psychotic process at present. 89+A8X4% Atty. Floro $as obser#ed to be restless and #ery an,io"s d"ring the inter#ie$. @e $as arg"mentati#e and o#er solicito"s of ."estions as2ed! gi#ing the impressions of mar2ed s"spicio"sness. @e centered on his academic e,cellence! an Ateneo de +anila grad"ate of the -ollege of Ga$! rated top 1>th place in the bar e,amination. @e emphasi6ed his obsessi#e and comp"lsi#e method of st"dying! at least 1& ho"rs per day regardless of $hether it $as school days or #acation time. 5ying for honors all the time and grad"ated Ga$ as second honor! he calls this selfAdiscipline and selfA organi6ation. @e e,pressed dissatisfaction of his achie#ements! tend to be a perfectionist and cannot accept fail"res. To emphasi6e his "ltra bright mind and analytical system! he related that! for the past > to & years! he has been e,periencing O sychic #isionO e#ery morning and that the biggest secret of the "ni#erse are the O"nseen things.O @e can predict f"t"re e#ents beca"se of Opo$er in psychic phenomenonO as $hen his bar res"lts $as to be

released! he sa$ lights in the s2y Ono. 1>A1!O and he got the 1>th place. @e has been practicing OparapsychologyO H seeing plenty of Od$endesO aro"nd him. @e can tal2 on and on of bi6arre ideas! that tends (sic) to be irrele#ant. <ntellect"ally! he has high assets! ho$e#er! e#idence of ego disintegration are prominent findings! both in the inter#ie$ (conscio"s) and psychological test res"lts. ("nconscio"s le#el). '* Appro,imately three years later! in )"ne 1''=! )"dge Floro again presented himself to the 4"preme -o"rt -linic $hen he applied ane$ for 1"dgeship! this time of 8T- +alabon. sychologist Beatri6 ;. -r"6 and -eleste . 5ista! +.:. ( sychiatrist and +edical ;fficer <5) did the inter#ie$ and e#al"ation. :r. 5ista obser#ed% Atty. Floro has an impressi#e academic achie#ements (sic)! and he ta2es pride in this. :"ring the inter#ie$! he $as ."ite rel"ctant to re#eal information abo"t his family bac2gro"nd and $o"ld rather tal2 abo"t his $or2 and academic achie#ements. @o$e#er! he failed to integrate his 2no$ledge into a cohesi#e "nit $hich he can "tili6e to cope $ith the #ario"s tas2s that he "nderta2es. This renders him conf"sed and ambi#alent $ith a tendency to #acillate $ith decisionAma2ing. @e also has a lo$ selfAesteem and prone to mood s$ings $ith the slightest pro#ocation. From the inter#ie$! there seems to ha#e been no drastic change in his personality and le#el of f"nctioning as a la$yer in pri#ate practice. @o$e#er! he sho$ed a per#asi#e pattern of social and interpersonal deficits. @e has poor social s2ills and sho$ed discomfort $ith close social contacts. aranoid ideations! s"spicio"sness of others7 moti#es as $ell as percept"al distortions $ere e#ident d"ring the inter#ie$. Atty. Floro7s c"rrent intelligence f"nction is along the mild mental retardation (?=) $hich is belo$ the e,pected cogniti#e efficiency of a 1"dge. :espite his impressi#e academic bac2gro"nd and achie#ements! he has lapses in 1"dgment and may ha#e problems $ith decisionAma2ing. @is character traits s"ch as s"spicio"sness and secl"si#eness and preocc"pation $ith paranormal and psychic phenomena tho"gh not detrimental to his role as a la$yer! may clo"d his 1"dgment! and hamper his primary role as a 1"dge in dispensing 1"stice. F"rthermore! he is at present not intellect"ally and emotionally e."ipped to h"rdle the responsibilities of a 1"dge and he may decompensate $hen e,posed to an,ietyApro#o2ing and stressAladen sit"ation. '> <t $o"ld seem that the )B- disregarded the abo#eA."oted report as it allo$ed )"dge Floro to see2 a second opinion from pri#ate practitioners. A.+. No. 8T)A''A1/?0! ho$e#er! res"rrected the iss"e of his mental and psychological capacity to preside o#er a regional trial co"rt. Th"s! the 8esol"tion of *0 )"ly 1''' specifically ordered )"dge Floro to s"bmit to Oappropriate psychological or mental e,amination.O ;n 1 Febr"ary *000! per recommendation of )"stice 8amire6! '/ the -o"rt clarified that the Oappropriate psychological or mental e,aminationO being ad#erted to in the 8esol"tion of *0 )"ly 1''' is to be cond"cted by the 4-linic. The -o"rt thereby directed )"dge Floro to Os"bmit himself to the 4-linic for psychological or mental e,amination! $ithin ten (10) days from notice.O '& )"dge Floro so"ght reconsideration $hich $as denied by the -o"rt on ** Febr"ary *000. '?

The order to s"bmit to the appropriate psychological e,amination by the 4-linic $as reiterated by the -o"rt on 1( ;ctober *000 $ith the admonition that )"dge Floro7s fail"re to do so $o"ld res"lt in appropriate disciplinary sanctions. '( ;n */ ;ctober *000! )"dge Floro so"ght reconsideration of the 1( ;ctober *000 8esol"tion $ith a con1"ncti#e special motion for him to "ndergo psychiatric e,amination by any d"ly a"thori6ed medical andJor mental instit"tion. '= This $as denied by the -o"rt on 1/ No#ember *000. '' ;n 10 No#ember *000! )"dge Floro mo#ed! among other things! for the inhibition or dis."alification of 4"preme -o"rt -linic doctors 100 and psychologist 101 $ith a manifestation that he filed cases against them for re#ocation of licenses before the rofessional 8eg"latory -ommission ( 8-)! the hilippine +edical Association ( +A) and the A 10* for alleged gross incompetence and dishonorable cond"ct "nder 4ec. */ of 8ep. Act No. *>=*J1'&' +edical ActJ-ode of +edical 9thics. 10> ;n 1? No#ember *000! )"stice 8amire6! $ith the appro#al of -o"rt Administrator Benipayo! mo#ed that )"dge Floro be sanctioned for ob#io"s contempt in ref"sing to comply $ith the 1 Febr"ary *000 and 1( ;ctober *000 resol"tions. According to )"stice 8amire6! )"dge Floro7s filing of administrati#e cases $ith the 8- against :r. +endo6a! et al.! is an indication of the latter7s intention to disregard and disobey the legal orders of the -o"rt. 10/ The -o"rt en banc agreed in the report of )"stice 8amire6! th"s )"dge Floro $as ordered to s"bmit to psychological and mental e,amination $ithin 10 days from receipt! other$ise! he Oshall be ordered arrested and detained at the 1ail of the National B"rea" of <n#estigation (NB<) , , ,.O 10& )"dge Floro finally complied $ith the directi#e on 1> and 1& :ecember *000. 10? @e li2e$ise so"ght the ser#ices of a pri#ate practitioner! :r. 9d"ardo T. +aaba! $ho came o"t $ith his o$n e#al"ation of )"dge Floro on > )an"ary *001. 10( Th"s! )"dge Floro trooped to the 4"preme -o"rt -linic for the third time in :ecember *000! this time in connection $ith A.+. No. 8T)A''A1/?0. Francianina G. 4anche6! -linical sychologist and -hief )"dicial 4taff ;fficer reported that O(o)#er all data strongly s"ggest a del"sional disorder $ith mo#ement in the paranoid direction.O :r. -eleste 5ista! for her part! stated that% Based on the clinical data gathered! it appears that )"dge Floro is basically a ca"tio"s! and s"spicio"s indi#id"al $ith a comp"lsion to analy6e and obser#e moti#es in his milie". :espite his stat"s! cogniti#e assets and impressi#e ed"cational bac2gro"nd! his c"rrent f"nctioning is ga"ged along the G;3 A598AG9 intelligence. @e can f"nction and apply his s2ills in e#eryday and ro"tine sit"ations. @o$e#er! his test protocol is characteri6ed by disabling indicators. There is impairment in reality testing $hich is an indicator of a psychotic process. @e is "nable to ma2e an ob1ecti#e assessment and 1"dgment of his milie". @ence! he is apt to misconstr"e signals from his en#ironment res"lting to percept"al distortions! dist"rbed associations! and lapses in 1"dgment. 4"ch that! c"lt"ral beliefs in d$arfs! psychic and paranormal phenomena and di#ine gifts of healing ha#e become incorporated in a del"sional (false and "nsha2able beliefs) system! that it has interfered and tainted his

occ"pational and social f"nctioning. @ence! he is fo"nd to be "nfit in performing his co"rt d"ties as a 1"dge. 10= "rs"ant to the aforecited :ecember *000 inter#ie$ of )"dge Floro! 4"preme -o"rt 4enior -hief 4taff ;fficer 8osa ). +endo6a! +.:.! reported to -hief )"stice @ilario G. :a#ide! )r. in +arch *001 that H The findings of mental and psychological incapacity is th"s s"bstantially s"pported by e#idence. Based on the three[>] psychological tests and e#al"ation of the t$o[*] psychiatrists! the "ndersigned has no other reco"rse b"t to recommend that )"dge Florentino Floro be declared "nfit to discharge his d"ties as a )"dge! effecti#e immediately. Not one to ta2e this last recommendation sitting do$n! )"dge Floro s"bmitted earlier psychological e#al"ations cond"cted by se#eral mental health professionals $hich $ere all fa#orable to him. The first three e#al"ations $ere in connection $ith his application as 8T- )"dge of +alabon -ity in 1''= bro"ght abo"t by him ha#ing OfailedO the e,amination gi#en by the 4"preme -o"rt -linic. The report dated 0/ 4eptember 1''= by staff psychologist! 8o$ena A. 8eyes as noted by clinical sychologist! +a. Teresa G"stiloA5illasor of the +etropolitan sychological -orporation (+ -)! states in part% <. <NT9GG9-TKAGJ-;GN<T<59 -@A8A-T98<4T<-4 4K++A8L ;F <NT9GG9-TKAGJ-;GN<T<59 -@A8A-T98<4T<-4 1. FF) can dra$ from abo#e a#erage intellect"al reso"rces to cope $ith e#eryday demands. @e is able to handle both concrete and abstract re."irements of tas2s. Alert to details! he has a logical approach in e#al"ating the relationship bet$een things and ideas. *. @e thri#es in predictable and str"ct"red sit"ations! $here he can consider solid facts to arri#ed (sic)at concrete! tangible o"tcomes. Tas2Aoriented! he can organi6e proced"res and details so as to get things done correctly and on sched"le. @e "ses con#entional standards to determine personal progress. 4et in his #ie$s! he may not readily accept others7 ideas and contrib"tions especially if these oppose his o$n. >. A serio"s and thoro"gh approach to his commitments is e,pected of FF). Generally! he prefers to control his emotions and does not let this get in the $ay of his 1"dgment and decisions. <<. 9+;T<;NAGJ<NT98 984;NAG -@A8A-T98<4T<-4 FF) is moti#ated by the need to be recogni6ed and respected for his "nderta2ings. Achie#ementAoriented! he sets high personal standards and tends to 1"dge himself and others according to these standards. 3hen things do not de#elop along desired lines! he may become restless and impatient. Ne#ertheless! he is caref"l of his social stat"re and can be e,pected to comply $ith con#entional social demands. 10' Testifying as one of )"dge Floro7s $itnesses! 8o$ena A. 8eyes opined on crossAe,amination that Opsychologically spea2ing!O )"dge Floro $as not fit to be a 1"dge. Th"s% )K:G9 AMK<N;%

M% No$! that $e are telling yo" that )"dge Floro based on his testimony here and on e#ery a#ailable records of the proceedings! has been claiming that he [is] possessed $ith sychic o$ers and he did not tell yo" that in the inter#ie$. 3o"ld yo" consider his fail"re to tell yo" abo"t his sychic o$ers to be a fatal [fla$]R ,,,, A% Les! 4ir. M% 5ery gra#e one! beca"se it $ill affect the psychological o"tloo2 of the patientR A% Les! 4ir. ,,,, M% < tell yo" no$! )"dge Floro has been claiming in [these] proceedings and yo" $ere here $hen $e $ere crossAe,amining +r. Gicaoco and yo" heard that $e mentioned in the co"rse of o"r crossAe,amination. 3o"ld yo" consider his fail"re to tell yo" abo"t his po$er of by location to be a fatal [fla$] and yo"r assessment of his psychological o"tloo2R ,,,, A% Les! 4ir. M% Fatal [fla$]R A% Les! 4ir. M% :id )"dge Floro tell yo" also in the co"rse of the inter#ie$ that he is capable of being in a tranceR A% @e did not. M% 4o! he did not tell yo" that $hile in a trance he co"ld type lettersR A% @e did not. ,,,, M% And reality oriented and a reality oriented person is one $ho $ill not be prono"ncing or ma2ing prono"ncement concerning his psychic po$ers. <s this not correctR ,,,, A% Les sir. M% A reality oriented person is also one $ho $ill not claim that he is capable of ha#ing trances in the co"rse of his pri#ate acti#ities and e#en in the co"rse of the performance of his official d"ty as a )"dge. 3ill yo" not agree $ith thatR A% < agree $ith yo"! 4ir.

M% And if he $ill do so! he $ill not be act"ally a reality oriented person. +eaning tatagal"gin 2o na po na2"2"ha naman Ona a2o ay psychic! na a2o ay p$edeng ipo$er ng by location! na 2aya 2ong mag trance. G"ma$a pa ng iba7t iba pang bagay at the same time.O Lan ay hindi compatible sa pagiging reality orientedR A% Les! 4ir.

,,,, M% :id yo" inter#ie$ )"dge Floro or did he [#ol"nteer] to yo" information abo"t his claim to be the n"mber fi#e psychic in the co"ntryR ,,,, A% No! Lo"r @onor.

M% And a person $ho is not reality oriented is not fit to sit as a )"dge. ,,,, M% < $ill add the phrase sychologically spea2ing. ,,,, A% Les! 4ir. 110 Another psychiatrist! acita 8amosA4alceda! +.:.! 4enior -ons"ltant sychiatrist of the +a2ati +edical -enter! stated in her report dated > 4eptember 1''= that at the time of the inter#ie$ )"dge Floro H [3]as enth"siastic and confident. @e is $ell informed abo"t c"rrent iss"es! able to disc"ss a $ide #ariety of topics intelligently $itho"t hesitation. @is thin2ing is l"cid! rational! logical and reality based. @e is $ell oriented! intelligent! emotionally stable! $ith #ery good 1"dgment. There is no pre#io"s history of any psychological dist"rbances. 111 This $as follo$ed by the e#al"ation of 9d"ardo G. )"rilla! +.:.! dated 4eptember 1''=! $ho stated in his report that H Atty. Floro is an asthenic! medi"m height! fairly groomed! beAspectacled person $ith graying hair. 3hen inter#ie$ed he $as some$hat an,io"s! elaborati#e and at times appro,imate in his ans$ers. @e $as alert! oriented! conscio"s! cooperati#e and artic"late in ilipino and 9nglish. @e denied any percept"al dist"rbances. 4tream of tho"ght $as logical and goalAdirected. There $as press"re of speech $ith tendency to be arg"mentati#e or defensi#e b"t there $ere no flight of ideas! tho"ght bloc2ing! looseness of associations or neologisms. :el"sions $ere not elicited. Affect $as broad and appropriate b"t mood $as an,io"s. There $ere no abnormal in#ol"ntary mo#ements or tics. <mp"lse control is good. -ognition is intact. )"dgment! insight! and other test for higher cortical f"nctions did not re#eal abnormal res"lts. -omments% The o#erAall res"lts of this psychiatric e#al"ation of Atty. Florentino 5. Floro! )r. do not contradict his nomination and appointment to the post he is see2ing. 11* ;n the $itness stand! ho$e#er! and testifying as )"dge Floro7s $itness! :r. )"rilla clarified that the inter#ie$ had its limitations 11> and he might ha#e missed o"t certain information left o"t by his patient. 11/ The follo$ing e,change is th"s instr"cti#e% )K:G9 AMK<N;% , , ,. :id )"dge Floro tell yo" in the inter#ie$ that he has little "nseen! "nheard friends 2no$n as d"$endesR :8. )K8<GGA% @e did not. M% @e did not tell yo" also that he is gifted also $ith this so called! psychic phenomenaR A% @e did not. ,,,, M% @e did not tell yo" also that in [tra#eling] from one place to another! at least fo"r (/) 2ilometers apart! he "sed to ride on a big $hite or $hate#er it is! horseR A% Not d"ring o"r inter#ie$. ,,,, A% <t is possible li2e any other psychiatrist or mental health doctor yo" might ha#e missed some information or it is possible that o"r clients or patients might not [ha#e] told "s e#erything. M% And if yo"r clients or patients did not tell yo" things s"ch as those that )"dge Floro did not admittedly tell yo" in the co"rse of the inter#ie$! yo"r opinion of the patient $o"ld be altered a littleR ,,,, A% The ans$er has something to do $hether my e#al"ation may be altered. Les! Lo"r @onor in the absence of any corroborati#e contradiction. M% +ore so! if the presence of confirming e#ents that transpired after the inter#ie$! $o"ld that be correctR A% The inter#ie$ has its limitations. M% Get "s say! $hat )"dge Floro did [not] tell yo" d"ring the inter#ie$ are confirmed by e#ents that transpired after the inter#ie$! $o"ld yo" not say yo" ha#e more reason to ha#e yo"r e#al"ation alteredR A% Les. M% 9specially so if yo" $ill no$ 2no$ that after that inter#ie$ )"dge Floro has been proclaiming himself as the n"mber fi#e psychic in the co"ntry [$here] no one has called him as a psychic at allR ,,,, M% 3o"ld it be really more alteredR A% < $o"ld say so.

,,,, M% 8et"rning to the confirming proofs! meaning after the inter#ie$! $hich are confirmations of $hat )"dge Floro did not tell yo" d"ring the inter#ie$! $o"ld yo"r finding of [)]"dge Floro be drastically altered if he $ill tell yo" that he is capable or possessed of the po$er of bilocationR ,,,, A% < $o"ld probably try to for a diagnosis. M% 3hich may ma2e a drastic alteration of yo"r e#al"ation of )"dge Floro7s mental and psychological , , ,R A% +y diagnosis < $ill be see2ing for an abnormal condition. M% 3hen yo" said abnormal something $o"ld ha#e made yo" s"spect that there $as abnormality in the person of )"dge FloroR A% Gi#en the data. M% 3e $ill gi#e yo" the data or additional information. 3o"ld yo" also ha#e yo"r e#al"ation fa#orable to )"dge Floro drastically altered if < tell yo" that based on record )"dge Floro has claimed that $hile in a trance he is capable of typing a letterR ,,,,

erson Test. Test res"lts and e#al"ation sho$ed an indi#id"al $ith an Abo#e A#erage <ntelligence. ro1ecti#e data! sho$ed an obsessi#eA comp"lsi#e person $ho is metic"lo"s to details and stri#e for perfection in tas2s assigned to him. @e is realityAoriented and is deemed capable of ma2ing dayAtoAday decisions in his personal as $ell as professional decisions. -onf"sion $ith regard to se,"al identification! $as f"rther obser#ed. Based on the clinical obser#ation and the res"lts of the psychological tests! respondent )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r.! $as fo"nd to be a highly intelligent person $ho is realityAoriented and is not s"ffering from any ma1or psychotic disorder. @e is not del"ded nor hall"cinated and is capable of "tili6ing his s"perior intellect in ma2ing so"nd decisions. @is belief in s"pernat"ral abilities is c"lt"reAbo"nd and needs f"rther st"diesJ$or2A"ps. ;n crossAe,amination by )"dge A."ino! ho$e#er! :r. +aaba also stated that )"dge Floro $as "nfit to be a 1"dge. 11( The rele#ant e,changes bet$een :r. +aaba and )"dge A."ino are here"nder reprod"ced% )K:G9 AMK<N;% And $o"ld yo" say that something is $rong $ith a 1"dge $ho shall claim that he is possessed $ith po$er of [biAlocation]R ,,,, :8. +AABA% A realityAoriented indi#id"al $o"ld not claim to be in t$o (*) places at one time. M% And that something m"st be $rongR

A% <f there is data to$ard that effect prior to 4eptember 1''=! probably drastically altered. 11& Gastly! )"dge Floro presented the psychiatric e#al"ation of 9d"ardo T. +aaba! +.:.! 11? dated > )an"ary *001! the rele#ant portions of $hich state% Affect $as ade."ate and no mood incongr"ity $as obser#ed. -ontent of tho"ght did not re#eal del"sional tho"ght. @e $as pro"d of his achie#ements in line $ith his profession and e,pressed his fr"stration and dissatisfaction $ith the $ay his colleag"es are handling his pending administrati#e cases. @e $as obser#ed to be realityAoriented and $as not s"ffering from hall"cinations or abnormal percept"al distortions. ;rientation! $ith respect to time! place and person! $as "nimpaired. )"dgment and decisionAma2ing capacity $ere ade."ately f"nctioning. ,,,, An openAended clinical inter#ie$ $as cond"cted at o"r clinic on :ecember *?! *000. @e tal2ed abo"t his family and academic achie#ements. @e claimed to possess a di#ine gift for prophecy and a gift of healing. @e also tal2ed abo"t a Oco#enantO made d"ring a dream bet$een him and > d$arf friends named G"is! Armand and Angel. @e reported that the first part of his ministry is to cast illness andJor disease and the second part is to heal and alle#iate s"fferingsJpain from disease. A series of psychological test $as administered to )"dge Floro on :ecember *=! *000. The battery of test consisted of the follo$ing% (1) ;tisA Gennon +ental Ability Test (*) 48A Gang"age Test (>) "rd"e NonA Gang"age Test (/) 4ac27s 4entence -ompletion Test and (&) :ra$ A

A% Les. M% ;2ay. 3o"ld yo" say that something is $rong also $ith a 1"dge claiming in the co"rse of his testimony and in this #ery case that $hile [he] $as so testifying there is another spirit! another person! another character "nseen $ho is $ith him at the same time or in tagalog Os"mapi sa 2anyaO. ,,,, A% The obser#ation that )"dge Floro had "nseen companion Os"mapiO to me is "nbelie#able. M% Knbelie#able. And anyone claiming it might be s"ffering from some del"sionR ,,,, A% <t co"ld be and it co"ld not be considered as percept"al distortion! yo"r @onor. M% No! :el"sion. A% :el"sions! no! b"t @all"cinations! maybe yes. M% Ah! @all"cination! and $hich maybe $orseR A% Both are on the same footing.

M% ;2ay. 3o"ld yo" say that the person declaring in a proceeding as a $itness abo"t hall"cinatory matters $o"ld t"rn o"t to be fit to become a 1"dgeR ,,,, A. <f these del"sions or hall"cinations are part and parcel of a ma1or psychiatric disorder li2e schi6ophrenia or an organic mental disorder! this indi#id"al s"ffering from hall"cinations or del"sions is "nfit to sit as a 1"dge! ho$e#er! there is! this symptom might also e,i[s]t in a nonApsychotic illness and the hall"cinations and del"sions co"ld be transient and short in d"ration. M% B"t of do"btf"l capacity to sit as a 1"dgeR

is created by the so calledU Beca"se Fr. )aime B"latao! m"lti a$arded )es"it priest! considered that as mind pro1ection. @e is correct in a sense that those nagtaAtrance na yan! naninigas! the mind pro1ection or the hypnosis do come! and there is a change in the psychological aspect of the person. B"t in my case < ne#er $as changed physically or mentally. ;nly the lights and heat $ill penetrate that person. ATTL. :<I;N% That $ill do. 4o at this #ery moment! +r. $itness! Omeron 2ayong 2ala2ip ngayonROO ONgayong oras na itoRO )K:G9 FG;8;% Les! they are here. Atty. :<I;N% 3here are theyR )"dge Floro! )r.% They cannot be seen b"tU ATTL. :<I;N% No! can yo" see themRO To point to "s $here are they in this roomRO! No$ that yo" ha#e read and seen this portion $herein )"dge Floro himself admitted that in the co"rse of his testimony in these cases he $as in a trance! $o"ld yo" still consider him at least insofar as this claim of his to be a normal personR A% No.

A% Les! do"btf"l capacity. M% No$! trance is something co#ered by the field of $hich yo" are practicing $ith psychiatry. A% Les. M% 3o"ld yo" consider a person claiming in the co"rse of a 1"dicial! ."asiA 1"dicial or administrati#e proceedings partic"larly in the co"rse of his testimony that $hile he $as doing so! he $as "nder trance normal. ,,,, ,,,, A% Get me e,plain the phenomenon of trance it is "s"ally considered in the hilippines as part of a c"lt"re bo"nd syndrome and it co"ld also be an indication U Basically the phenomenon of trance are often seen in cases of organic mental disorder. <t is also common in c"lt"re bo"nd syndrome and the effect of person is "s"ally loss of concentration in a partic"lar settings or sit"ations so that a person or a 1"dge hearing a case in co"rt $o"ld [lose] concentration and $o"ld not be able to follo$ "p testimony of $itnesses as $ell as arg"ments gi#en by the co"nsel for the defense and also for the prosec"tion! so < $o"ld say that there is this diffic"lty in manners of attention span and concentration if that person sitting as a 1"dge e,perience trance as in the case of )"dge Floro! this trance is manifested by flashing of lights and he might not be able to rationali6e or to control e,pressions or as $ell as physical $hen he is in a trance. M% @a#e yo" heard of a 1"dge claiming that in the co"rse of a proceeding! he $as in a tranceR A% No! < ha#e not enco"ntered any. M% And if yo" hear one and $ill be sho$n records of one maybe s"ch claim yo" $ill call that person not a normal person. A% +aybe $eird. M% < $ill no$ sho$ to yo" portions of the stenographic notes of the proceedings in these cases held on ;ctober 10! *000! afternoon session! page >0 $e start $ith the ."estion of Atty. :i6on. OAtty. :i6on% +r. $itness! can yo" tell "sR Are yo" in trance at this #ery precise momentR )K:G9 FG;8;! )8.% ONa2ala2ip silaO. < call it a trance! b"t < disting"ished not the trance that yo" see the H nagAsaA4to.! Nino! naninigas. That7s a trance that A% Les. 11= Based on the foregoing! the ;-A! thr" )"stice 8amire6! reported that% Kpon the testimony of his o$n $itnesses! :rs. 9d"ardo T. +aaba! +a. Nie#es -eleste and 9d"ardo G. )"rilla! respondent )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r. is "nfit beca"se of insanity to remain in office as )"dge of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! National -apital )"dicial 8egion! +alabon! +etro +anila! Branch (>. <t is $eird for respondent )"dge to state in one of his pleadings in this case that resident 9strada $o"ld not finish his term as resident. <t is "n"s"al and ."eer of him to state in his calling card that he is a grad"ate of Ateneo de +anila! second honors! bar topnotcher $ith a grade of =(.&&Z and incl"de in his address the name -olonel 8eynaldo -aba"atan $ho $as in#ol#ed in a co"p d7etat attempt. 4o is it strange of him to ma2e "se of his alleged psychic po$ers in $riting decisions in the cases assigned to his co"rt. <t is improper and grandiose of him to e,press s"periority o#er other 1"dges in the co"rse of hearings he is cond"cting and for him to say that he is #ery s"ccessf"l o#er many other applicants for the position he has been appointed. <t is abnormal for a )"dge to distrib"te selfAser#ing propaganda. ;ne $ho distrib"tes s"ch selfAser#ing propaganda is odd! ."eer! am"sing! irresponsible and abnormal. A 1"dge s"ffering from del"sion or hall"cination is "nfit to be one. 4o is he $ho gets into a trance $hile presiding at the hearing of a case in co"rt. ;ne need not be a doctor of medicine! a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine and concl"de that a person in s"ch circ"mstances is mentally "nfit or insane and sho"ld not be allo$ed to contin"e discharging the d"ties and f"nctions of a 1"dge. The life! liberty and property of the litigants in the co"rt presided by s"ch 1"dge are in his hands. M% No! o2ay! so he is not normal. No$! )"dge Floro in these proceedings also and < $ill sho$ to yo" the transcript of stenographic notes later ha#e claimed that he had! al$ays had and still had a soHcalled co"nter part! his other side! other self! $hat can yo" say to that claim! $o"ld that be the claim of a normal! mental so"nd personR A% No. M% And one $ho is not normal and mentally so"nd is of co"rse not fit to sit as 1"dgeR

@ence! it is imperati#e that he is free from do"bt as to his mental capacity and condition to contin"e discharging the f"nctions of his office. 89-;++9N:AT<;N 3@989F;89! it is respectf"lly recommended that by reason of insanity $hich renders him incapable and "nfit to perform the d"ties and f"nctions of )"dge of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! National -apital )"dicial 8egion! +alabon! +etro +anila! Branch (>! respondent Florentino 5. Floro! )r. be 89+;59: and :<4+<449: from s"ch office. 11' 3e are in agreement $ith the ;-A that )"dge Floro cannot remain as 8T)"dge beca"se of the findings of mental impairment that renders him "nfit to perform the f"nctions of his office. 3e hasten to add! ho$e#er! that neither the ;-A nor this -o"rt is ."alified to concl"de that )"dge Floro is OinsaneO as! in fact! the psychologists and psychiatrists on his case ha#e ne#er said so. 3hen )"stice 8amire6 recommended that )"dge Floro be dismissed from the ser#ice d"e to Oinsanity!O he $as apparently "sing the term in its loose sense. <nsanity is a general layman7s term! a catchHall $ord referring to #ario"s mental disorders. sychosis is perhaps the appropriate medical term 1*0 as this is the one "sed by :rs. 5ista and 5illegas of the 4"preme -o"rt -linic. <t is of note that the 1''&! 1''= and *000 psychological e#al"ations all reported signs and symptoms of psychosis. -o"rts e,ist to promote 1"sticeB th"s aiding to sec"re the contentment and happiness of the people. 1*1 An honorable! competent and independent 1"diciary e,ists to administer 1"stice in order to promote the stability of go#ernment! and the $ellAbeing of the people. 1** -arrying m"ch of the $eight in this da"nting tas2 of administering 1"stice are o"r front liners! the 1"dges $ho preside o#er co"rts of la$ and in $hose hands are entr"sted the destinies of indi#id"als and instit"tions. As it has been said! co"rts $ill only s"cceed in their tas2s if the 1"dges presiding o#er them are tr"ly honorable men! competent and independent. 1*> There is no indication that )"dge Floro is anything b"t an honorable man. And! in fact! in o"r disposition of the 1> charges against him! $e ha#e not fo"nd him g"ilty of gross miscond"ct or acts or corr"ption. @o$e#er! the findings of psychosis by the mental health professionals assigned to his case indicate gross deficiency in competence and independence. +oreo#er! )"dge Floro himself admitted that he belie#es in Opsychic #isions!O of foreseeing the f"t"re beca"se of his po$er in Opsychic phenomenon.O @e belie#es in Od"$endesO and of a co#enant $ith his Od$arf friends G"is! Armand and Angel.O @e belie#es that he can $rite $hile on trance and that he had been seen by se#eral people to ha#e been in t$o places at the same time. @e has li2ened himself to the Oangel of deathO $ho can inflict pains on people! especially "pon those he percei#ed as corr"pt officials of the 8T-s of +alabon. @e too2 to $earing bl"e robes d"ring co"rt sessions! s$itching only to blac2 on Fridays. @is o$n $itness testified that )"dge Floro e,plained that he $ore blac2 from head to foot on Fridays to recharge his psychic po$ers. Finally! )"dge Floro cond"cted healing sessions in his chambers d"ring his brea2 time. All these things #alidate the findings of the 4"preme -o"rt -linic abo"t )"dge Floro7s "ncommon beliefs and that s"ch beliefs ha#e spilled o#er to action.

Gest $e be misconstr"ed! $e do not denigrate s"ch belief system. @o$e#er! s"ch beliefs! especially since )"dge Floro acted on them! are so at odds $ith the critical and impartial thin2ing re."ired of a 1"dge "nder o"r 1"dicial system. sychic phenomena! e#en ass"ming s"ch e,ist! ha#e no place in a 1"diciary d"ty bo"nd to apply only positi#e la$ and! in its absence! e."itable r"les and principles in resol#ing contro#ersies. Th"s! )"dge Floro7s reference to psychic phenomena in the decision he rendered in the case of eople #. Francisco! )r. 1*/ stic2s o"t li2e a sore th"mb. <n said decision! )"dge Floro discredited the testimony of the prosec"tion7s principal $itness by concl"ding that the testimony $as a OfairytaleO or a Ofantastic story.O 1*& @e then $ent to state that Opsychic phenomenaO $as destined to cooperate $ith the stenographer $ho transcribed the testimony of the $itness. The pertinent portion of )"dge Floro7s decision is ."oted here"nder% >. The testimony of the prosec"tion7s 8<N-< AG $itness (sole eye$itness of the incident) N;8+AN:L is <N-89:<BG9! is f"ll of inconsistencies (ma1or and not regarding minor points)! ergo! the co"rt concl"des that d"e to se#eral indicia of fra"dJper1"ry (flagrantJpalpable deception of the -o"rt)! his testimony is not $orthy of belief! ass"ming e,Agratia arg"menti! that the same may be admissible! and his -o"rt narrati#e is hereby declared a FA<8L TAG9 or a FANTA4T<- 4T;8L of a crime scene that is acceptable only for 4-899NJcinematic #ie$ing. The follo$ing details! are proof of the foregoing concl"sion% a.) N;8+AN:L s$ore that he! onciano <neria and 8a"l <neria $ere Osinal"bongO by GandoJacc"sed on )"ne *1! 1'=( at *%>0 a.m. at alley 3esleyanJTangos! Na#otas! and that he sa$ the Onagpamb"noO bet$een 8a"l and Ando! and that @9 4A3 . <N98<A dead! b"t @9 3A4 N; G;NG98 T@989! b"t he still sa$ the Onagpamb"noOB +;89 <+ ;8TANTGL! he 43;89 that @9 N;T<-9: the A--K49: . Francisco T@9 F;GG;3<NG :ALB b.) The foregoing #erily demonstrate his 11th @;K8 -;N-;-T<;N (Big Gie! ha#ing been as2ed to s"bmit false testimony)B for ho$ co"ld ha#e he $itnessed the stabbing by acc"sed $hen he N;T<-9: him the follo$ing dayR (T4N dated +ay *! 1''&! pp. 1A*)B ass"ming arg"endo that the T4N $as incorrect d"e to typographical error! or maybe the -o"rt 4tenographer <<< 9loisa B. :omingo might ha#e been 4G99 <NG d"ring the testimony! so that the $ord :AL sho"ld ha#e been corrected to another $ord 4K<TABG9 to Normandy7s FA<8L TAG9! still! the -o"rt had synthesi6ed the entire NA88AT<59 of Normandy! b"t the -o"rt fo"nd no reason that the seeming error E:AL7 sho"ld be correctedB the -o"rt7s soleJremaining concl"sion is that 959N the 4T9N;G8A @<- N;T94 cooperated by 4L-@<@9N;+9NA perhaps of F;8 4K89! in ha#ing B99N :94T<N9: to be FAT9FKGGL <N4-8<B9: 3<T@ T@9 3;8:4 F;GG;3<NG :AL (line >! p. > T4N! id.) 1*? (9mphasis s"pplied) <n 4tate rosec"tors #. +"ro 1*( $e held that H 3hat is re."ired on the part of 1"dges is ob1ecti#ity. An independent 1"diciary does not mean that 1"dges can resol#e specific disp"tes entirely as they please. There are both implicit and e,plicit limits on the $ay 1"dges perform their role. <mplicit limits incl"de accepted legal #al"es and the e,plicit limits are s"bstanti#e and proced"ral r"les of la$. 1*=

The 1"dge! e#en $hen he is free! is still not $holly free. @e is not to inno#ate at pleas"re. @e is not a 2nightAerrant! roaming at $ill in p"rs"it of his o$n ideal of bea"ty or goodness. @e is to dra$ his inspiration from consecrated principles. @e is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment! to #ag"e and "nreg"lated bene#olence. @e is to e,ercise a discretion informed by tradition! methodi6ed by analogy! disciplined by system! and s"bordinate to the Oprimordial necessity of order in the social life.O 1*' )"dge Floro does not meet s"ch re."irement of ob1ecti#ity and his competence for 1"dicial tas2s lea#es m"ch to be desired. As reported by the 4"preme -o"rt -linic% :espite his impressi#e academic bac2gro"nd and achie#ements! he has lapses in 1"dgment and may ha#e problems $ith decisionAma2ing. @is character traits s"ch as s"spicio"sness and secl"si#eness and preocc"pation $ith paranormal and psychic phenomena tho"gh not detrimental to his role as a la$yer! may clo"d his 1"dgment! and hamper his primary role as a 1"dge in dispensing 1"stice. , , , 1>0 )"dge Floro7s belief system! as $ell as his act"ations in the eight months that he ser#ed as 8T- 1"dge! ind"bitably sho$s his inability to f"nction $ith the cold ne"trality of an impartial 1"dge. 5erily! )"dge Floro holds an e,alted position in o"r system of go#ernment. Th"s% Gong before a man dons the 1"dicial robes! he has accepted and identified himself $ith large components of the 1"dge7s role. 9specially if he has aspired to a 1"dge7s stat"s! he is li2ely to ha#e cond"cted himself! more or less "nconscio"sly! in the fashion of one $ho is said to ha#e Othe 1"dicial temperament.O @e is li2ely to ha#e displayed the 2inds of beha#ior that the 1"dge7s role demands. A large proportion of his e,periences on the bench de#elop and reinforce s"ch conformity! moreo#er. The rit"alistic elements of in#estit"re and of co"rt proced"re! the honorific forms of address! and e#en the imposing appearance of some co"rt b"ildings ser#e to emphasi6e the demands "pon his beha#ior. 9#en the most "nscr"p"lo"s former amb"lance chaser $ho o$es his position to a thoro"ghly corr"pt political organi6ation m"st conform at least in part to the beha#iors e,pected of him as a 1"dge. 1>1 The e,pectations concerning 1"dicial beha#ior are more than those e,pected of other p"blic officials. )"dges are seen as g"ardians of the la$ and they m"st th"s identify themsel#es $ith the la$ to an e#en greater degree than legislators or e,ec"ti#es. 1>* As it has been said! O[1]"dges administer 1"stice 1"dicially! i.e.! not according to some abstract ideas of right and 1"stice! b"t according to the r"les laid do$n by society in its -ode of Ga$s to $hich it gi#es its sanctions. The f"nction of the 1"dge is primarily ad1"dication. This is not a mechanical craft b"t the e,ercise of a creati#e art! $hether $e call it legislati#e or not! $hich re."ires great ability and ob1ecti#ity.O 1>> 3e! th"s! ."ote )"stice Fran2f"rter! in spea2ing of the f"nctions of the )"stices of the 4"preme -o"rt of the Knited 4tates% To practice the re."isite detachment and to achie#e s"fficient ob1ecti#ity no do"bt demands of 1"dges the habit of selfAdiscipline and selfAcriticism! incertit"de that one7s o$n #ie$s are incontestable and alert tolerance

to$ard #ie$s not shared. B"t these are precisely the pres"ppositions of o"r 1"dicial process. They are precisely the ."alities society has a right to e,pect from those entr"sted $ith U 1"dicial po$er. ,,,, The 1"dicial 1"dgment U m"st mo#e $ithin the limits of accepted notions of 1"stice and is not to be based "pon the idiosyncrasies of a merely personal 1"dgment. 1>/ <n fine! )"dge Floro lac2s the 1"dicial temperament and the f"ndamental re."irements of competence and ob1ecti#ity e,pected of all 1"dges. @e cannot th"s be allo$ed to contin"e as 1"dge for to do so might res"lt in a serio"s challenge to the e,istence of a critical and impartial 1"diciary. 9."itable considerations entitle )"dge Floro bac2$ages and other economic benefits for a period of three (>) years. <n retrospect! $e are forced to say that )"dge Floro sho"ld not ha#e 1oined the 1"diciary as 8T- 1"dge. @o$e#er! $e ha#e assid"o"sly re#ie$ed the history of this case and $e cannot hold anyone legally responsible for s"ch ma1or and "nfort"nate fa", pas. )"dge Floro did not breach any r"le of proced"re relati#e to his application for 1"dgeship. @e $ent thro"gh the entire gam"t of tests and inter#ie$s and he $as nominated by the )B- on the strength of his scholastic achie#ements. As to ha#ing failed the psychological e,aminations gi#en by the 4- -linic! it m"st be pointed o"t that this $as disregarded by the )B"pon )"dge Floro7s s"bmission of psychiatric e#al"ations cond"cted by mental health professionals from the pri#ate sector and $hich $ere fa#orable to him. No$here is it alleged that )"dge Floro acted less than honorably in proc"ring these e#al"ations. The )B- in 1''' had all the discretion to refer )"dge Floro to a pri#ate clinic for a second opinion of his mental and psychological fitness. <n performing its f"nctions! the )B- had been g"ided primarily by the -onstit"tion $hich prescribes that members of the )"diciary m"st be! in addition to other re."irements! persons of pro#en competence! integrity! probity and independence. 1>& <t $as only on 1= ;ctober *000 $hen it prom"lgated )B-A00'! the O8"les of the )"dicial and Bar -o"ncil!O that the )B- p"t do$n in $riting g"idelines or criteria it had pre#io"sly "sed in ascertaining Oif one see2ing s"ch office meets the minim"m constit"tional ."alifications and possesses ."alities of mind and heart e,pected of the )"diciary.O 1>? 8"le ? thereof states% 49-T<;N 1. Good health. H Good physical health and so"nd mentalJpsychological and emotional condition of the applicant play a critical role in his capacity and capability to perform the delicate tas2 of administering 1"stice. , , , 49-. *. sychologicalJpsychiatric tests. H The applicant shall s"bmit to psychologicalJpsychiatric tests to be cond"cted by the 4"preme -o"rt +edical -linic or by a psychologist andJor psychiatrist d"ly accredited by the -o"ncil. <t $o"ld seem that as things stood then! the )B- co"ld #ery $ell rely on the e#al"ation of a pri#ate psychologist or psychiatrist not accredited by the )B-. Th"s! the )B- cannot be fa"lted for accepting the psychological

e#al"ations of mental health professionals not affiliated $ith the 4"preme -o"rt -linic. <t goes $itho"t saying that )"dge Floro7s appointment as 8T- 1"dge is fait accompli. 3hat a$aits "s no$ is the seemingly o#er$helming tas2 of finding the 8; 98! )K4T AN: 9MK<TABG9 sol"tion to )"dge Floro7s almost se#en years of s"spension in the light of the fact that the penalty imposed herein does not merit a s"spension of se#en years. 5erily! the 4"preme -o"rt is #ested $ith the po$er to prom"lgate r"les concerning pleading! practice and proced"re in all co"rts. 1>( The -onstit"tion limits this po$er thro"gh the admonition that s"ch r"les Oshall pro#ide a simplified and ine,pensi#e proced"re for the speedy disposition of cases! shall be "niform for all co"rts of the same grade! and shall not diminish! increase! or modify s"bstanti#e rights.O 1>= 8"le 1/0 of the 8"les of -o"rt o"tlines the proced"re to be follo$ed in administrati#e cases against 1"dges. Glaringly! 8"le 1/0 does not detail the steps to be ta2en in cases $hen the 1"dge is pre#enti#ely s"spended pending in#estigation. This is the state of things e#en after its amendment by A.+. No. 01A=A10A4- $hich too2 effect on 1 ;ctober *001. The 4"preme -o"rt7s po$er to s"spend a 1"dge! ho$e#er! is inherent in its po$er of administrati#e s"per#ision o#er all co"rts and the personnel thereof. 1>' This po$er AA consistent $ith the po$er to prom"lgate r"les concerning pleading! practice and proced"re in all co"rts AA is hemmed in only by the -onstit"tion $hich prescribes that an ad1ecti#e la$ cannot! among other things! diminish! increase or modify s"bstanti#e rights. The resol"tion of *0 )"ly 1''' $hich p"t )"dge Floro "nder pre#enti#e s"spension resol#ed to% (1) :<89-T )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r. to ans$er the foregoing charges against him $ithin ten (10) days from noticeB (*) 89F98 this case to 8etired )"stice edro 8amire6! -ons"ltant! ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator for in#estigation! report and recommendation! $ithin si,ty (?0) days from receipt of the records thereofB (>) 4KB)9-T )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r. for appropriate psychological or mental e,amination to be cond"cted by the proper office of the 4"preme -o"rt or any d"ly a"thori6ed medical andJor mental instit"tion. +oreo#er! the -o"rt 894;G59: to place )"dge Florentino Floro! effecti#e immediately "nder 8959NT<59 4K4 9N4<;N for the d"ration of the in#estigation of the administrati#e charges against him. 1/0 As can be gleaned from the abo#eA."oted resol"tion! )"dge Floro7s s"spension! albeit indefinite! $as for the d"ration of the in#estigation of the 1> charges against him $hich the -o"rt pegged at ?0 days from the time of receipt by the in#estigator of the records of the case. 8"le 1/0! as amended! no$ states that O(t)he in#estigating )"stice or )"dge shall terminate the in#estigation $ithin ninety ('0) days from the date of its commencement or $ithin s"ch e,tension as the 4"preme -o"rt may grantO 1/1 and! O($)ithin thirty (>0) days from the termination of the in#estigation! the in#estigating )"stice or )"dge shall s"bmit to the 4"preme -o"rt a report containing findings of fact and recommendation.O 1/* From the foregoing! the r"le no$ is that a )"dge can be pre#enti#ely s"spended not only for the entire period of his in#estigation $hich $o"ld be

'0 days ("nless e,tended by the 4"preme -o"rt) b"t also for the >0 days that it $o"ld ta2e the in#estigating 1"dge or 1"stice to come "p $ith his report. +oreo#er! the -o"rt may pre#enti#ely s"spend a 1"dge "ntil s"ch time that a final decision is reached in the administrati#e case against him or her. 1/> This is beca"se H [K]nli2e ordinary ci#il ser#ice officials and employees! 1"dges $ho are charged $ith a serio"s offense $arranting pre#enti#e s"spension are not a"tomatically reinstated "pon e,piration of the ninety ('0)Aday period! as mandated abo#e. The -o"rt may pre#enti#ely s"spend a 1"dge "ntil a final decision is reached in the administrati#e case especially $here there is a strong li2elihood of his g"ilt or complicity in the offense charged. <ndeed! the meas"re is intended to shield the p"blic from any f"rther damage or $rongdoing that may be ca"sed by the contin"ed ass"mption of office by the erring 1"dge. <t is also intended to protect the co"rts7 image as temples of 1"stice $here litigants are heard! rights and conflicts settled and 1"stice solemnly dispensed. This is a necessary conse."ence that a 1"dge m"st bear for the pri#ilege of occ"pying an e,alted position. Among ci#il ser#ants! a 1"dge is indeed in a class all its o$n. After all! in the #ast go#ernment b"rea"cracy! 1"dges are beacon lights loo2ed "pon as the embodiment of all $hat is right! 1"st and proper! the "ltimate $eapons against 1"stice and oppression. 1// <n the case of )"dge Floro! he is "nder pre#enti#e s"spension "p to the present beca"se of the serio"s charge of mental "nfitness aggra#ated by the fact that the act"al in#estigation into his cases dragged on for a m"ch longer period than '0 days. And the reasons for the delay! for the most part! can be directly ascribed to )"dge Floro himself. From the records! it $o"ld seem that not only did )"dge Floro mo#e for se#eral reAsettings of the hearings of his casesB he li2e$ise dragged his feet $ith respect to the order to s"bmit himself to the appropriate psychologicalJmental e,amination. 3orse! $hat started o"t as single case against him ballooned into 10 cases $hich $ere consolidated into one d"e to common ."estions of fact and la$. 1/& All in all! )"dge Floro filed se#en cases against those he percei#ed had conni#ed to remo#e andJor s"spend him from office! the last of $hich he filed on 1' +ay *00> against )"stice 8amire6. 1/? Be that as it may! 9MK<TL demands that $e e,ercise "tmost compassion in this case considering that the r"les on pre#enti#e s"spension of 1"dges! not ha#ing been e,pressly incl"ded in the 8"les of -o"rt! are amorpho"s at best. 3e ha#e r"led similarly in the case of )"dge hilbert <t"rralde! th"s% Be that as it may! $e cannot in conscience hold that a 1"dge $ho $as placed "nder pre#enti#e s"spension pending in#estigation is not entitled to the payment of bac2 salaries! allo$ances and other economic benefits for the entire d"ration of the pre#enti#e s"spension. The ine."ity of the doctrine as applied to 1"dges is clearly apparent! gi#en the pec"liar circ"mstance in $hich a 1"dge finds himself pre#enti#ely s"spended by the -o"rt O"ntil f"rther ordersO. <n this case! )"dge <t"rralde $as pre#enti#ely s"spended for 1>[ months! d"ring $hich period he $as not paid his salaries! allo$ances and other benefits. 9,cept for a teaching 1ob that the -o"rt permitted him to "nderta2e pending resol"tion of the administrati#e case! )"dge <t"rralde had no other so"rce of income. @e th"s inc"rred se#eral loans to pro#ide for his family7s basic needs.

<t $o"ld th"s be "n1"st to depri#e )"dge <t"rralde of his bac2 salaries! allo$ances and other economic benefits for the entire period that he $as pre#enti#ely s"spended. As $e ha#e said in Gloria #. -o"rt of Appeals! pre#enti#e s"spension pending in#estigation is not a penalty b"t only a meas"re intended to enable the disciplining a"thority to cond"ct an "nhampered formal in#estigation. 3e held that ninety ('0) days is ample time to concl"de the in#estigation of an administrati#e case. Beyond ninety ('0) days! the pre#enti#e s"spension is no longer 1"stified. @ence! for p"rposes of determining the e,tent of bac2 salaries! allo$ances and other benefits that a 1"dge may recei#e d"ring the period of his pre#enti#e s"spension! $e hold that the ninetyAday ma,im"m period set in Gloria #. -o"rt of Appeals! sho"ld li2e$ise be applied. -oncededly! there may be instances $hen an in#estigation $o"ld e,tend beyond ninety ('0) days and s"ch may not be entirely "n1"stified. Ne#ertheless! $e belie#e that in s"ch a sit"ation! it $o"ld be "nfair to $ithhold his salaries and other economic benefits for the entire d"ration of the pre#enti#e s"spension! moreso if the delay in the resol"tion of the case $as not d"e to his fa"lt. Kpon being fo"nd innocent of the administrati#e charge! his pre#enti#e s"spension e,ceeding the ninetyAday ('0) period act"ally becomes $itho"t basis and $o"ld indeed be nothing short of p"niti#e. <t m"st be emphasi6ed that his s"bse."ent ac."ittal completely remo#ed the ca"se for his pre#enti#e s"spension in the first place. Necessarily! therefore! $e m"st rectify its effects on 1"st and e."itable gro"nds. 1/( Ta2ing off from the case of )"dge <t"rralde! $e hold that )"dge Floro is li2e$ise entitled to the payment of bac2 salaries! allo$ances and other economic benefits being at the recei#ing end of a r"le pec"liar to 1"dges $ho find themsel#es pre#enti#ely s"spended by the -o"rt O"ntil f"rther ordersO or! as this case! Ofor the d"ration of the in#estigation.O )"dge <t"rralde7s s"spension of 1> [ months e#en pales in comparison to )"dge Floro7s s"spension of =1 months! more or less. :"ring this entire e,cr"ciating period of $aiting! )"dge Floro co"ld not practice his profession! th"s p"tting him solely at the mercy of his brother7s largesse. And! tho"gh he $as gi#en donations by those $ho came to him for healing! ob#io"sly! these co"ld not compensate for his loss of income as )"dge. Knli2e the case of )"dge <t"rralde! ho$e#er! $herein $e held that the period of s"spension e,ceeding '0 days sho"ld be the basis for the payment of bac2 salaries! $e hold that! as a matter of e."ity! )"dge Floro is entitled to bac2 salaries! allo$ances and other economic benefits for a period corresponding to three of his almost se#en years s"spension. 3e cannot apply the r"ling in Gloria that any s"spension ser#ed beyond '0 days m"st be compensated as $e $o"ld be! in effect! re$arding )"dge Floro7s propensity to delay the resol"tion of his case thro"gh the indiscriminate filing of administrati#e cases against those he percei#ed conni#ed to o"st him o"t of office. <n )"dge <t"rralde7s case! the in#estigation $as not delayed thro"gh any fa"lt of his. +ore importantly! )"dge <t"rralde $as "ltimately held innocent! th"s! "sing by analogy Gloria #. -o"rt of Appeals! his s"spension in e,cess of '0 days $as already in the nat"re of a penalty $hich cannot be co"ntenanced precisely beca"se! being innocent! he cannot be penali6ed. )"dge Floro! on the other hand! and as already disc"ssed! contrib"ted to the delay in the in#estigation of his cases. +oreo#er! "nli2e )"dge <t"rralde! )"dge Floro has not been ad1"dged innocent of all the 1> charges against him.

These facts! ho$e#er! as $e ha#e already disc"ssed! do not p"t )"dge Floro beyond the reach of e."ity. To paraphrase )"stice Brandeis! e."ity does not demand that its s"itors are free of blame. As $e are $ont to say% 9."ity as the complement of legal 1"risdiction see2s to reach and do complete 1"stice $here co"rts of la$! thro"gh the infle,ibility of their r"les and $ant of po$er to adapt their 1"dgments to the special circ"mstances of cases! are incompetent so to do. 9."ity regards the spirit of and not the letter! the intent and not the form! the s"bstance rather than the circ"mstance! as it is #ario"sly e,pressed by different co"rts. 1/= <n fine! not$ithstanding the fact that )"dge Floro is m"ch to blame for the delay in the resol"tion of his case! e."itable considerations constrain "s to a$ard him bac2 salaries! allo$ances and other economic benefits for a period corresponding to three years. This is beca"se )"dge Floro7s separation from the ser#ice is not a penalty as $e ordinarily "nderstand the $ord to mean. <t is imposed instead "pon )"dge Floro o"t of necessity d"e to a medically disabling condition of the mind $hich renders him "nfit! at least at present! to contin"e discharging the f"nctions of his office. The period of three years seems to "s the most e."itable "nder the circ"mstances. As disc"ssed! if $e $ere to gi#e him more than three years of bac2 salaries! etc.! then it $o"ld seem that $e are re$arding him for his role in delaying the resol"tion of these cases (as $ell as the se#en cases he filed $hich $ere only dismissed on 1/ Febr"ary *00? at his o$n bidding). ;n the other hand! if $e $ere to peg the period at less than three years then the same $o"ld only be a pittance compared to the se#en years s"spension he had to li#e thro"gh $ith :amocles7 s$ord hanging o#er his head and $ith his hands bo"nd as he co"ld not practice his profession. )"dge Floro7s separation from the ser#ice moots the case against him doc2eted as A.+. No. ''A(A*(>A8T- (8e% 8esol"tion :ated 11 +ay 1''' ;f )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r.) A.+. No. 8T)A0?A1'== (G"6 Arriego #. )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r.)! on the other hand! is dismissed for lac2 of merit. A.+. No. ''A(A*(>A8T<t cannot be gainsaid that )"dge Floro7s separation from the ser#ice renders moot the complaint in A.+. No. ''A(A*(>A8T-. As it is! e#en the most fa#orable of resol"tions in this case $ill not ca"se a ripple on the -o"rt7s decision to separate )"dge Floro from the ser#ice. Th"s! this charge is dismissed for being moot and academic. A.+. No. 8T)A0?A1'== -onsidering that this case is a replica of charge OhO in A.+. No. 8T)A''A 1/?0 and considering that charge OhO is $itho"t basis! this partic"lar complaint filed by G"6 Arriego m"st necessarily be dismissed for lac2 of merit. )"dge Floro7s separation from the ser#ice does not carry $ith it forfeit"re of all or part of his accr"ed benefits nor dis."alification from appointment to any other p"blic office incl"ding go#ernmentAo$ned or controlled corporations. As )"dge Floro7s separation from the ser#ice cannot be considered a penalty! s"ch separation does not carry $ith it the forfeit"re of all or part of

his accr"ed benefits nor dis."alification from appointment to any other p"blic office incl"ding go#ernmentAo$ned or controlled corporations. <n fact! the psychological and psychiatric reports! considered as the bedroc2 of the finding of mental impairment against )"dge Floro! cannot be "sed to dis."alify him from reAentering go#ernment ser#ice for positions that do not re."ire him to dispense 1"stice. The reports contain statementsJfindings in )"dge Floro7s fa#or that the -o"rt cannot o#erloo2 in all fairness as they deser#e e."al consideration. They mention )"dge Floro7s assets and strengths and capacity for f"nctionality! $ith minor modification of $or2 en#ironment. Th"s% a. @igh intellect"al assets as a res"lt of OselfAdiscipline and selfA organi6ation.O 1/' b. O(<)mpressi#e academic achie#ementsO $ith Ono drastic change in his personality and le#el of f"nctioning as a la$yer in pri#ate practice.O 1&0 c. O(-)haracter traits of s"spicio"sness! secl"si#eness! preAocc"pation $ith paranormal and psychic phenomena U not detrimental to his role as a la$yer.O 1&1 d. O9#eryday sit"ations can be comprehended and dealt $ith in moderate proficiency U. @is concern for the details that ma2e "p a total field represents his attempts at being systematic and ca"tio"s.O 1&* e. O(9)."ipped $ith analytical po$er.O 1&> -onse."ently! $hile )"dge Floro may be dysf"nctional as a 1"dge beca"se of the sensiti#e nat"re of said position! he may still be s"ccessf"l in other areas of endea#or. "tting all of the abo#e in perspecti#e! it co"ld #ery $ell be that )"dge Floro7s c"rrent administrati#e and medical problems are not totally of his ma2ing. @e $as d"ly appointed to 1"dgeship and his mental problems! for no$! appear to render him "nfit $ith the delicate tas2 of dispensing 1"stice not beca"se of any acts of corr"ption and debasement on his part b"t clearly d"e to a medically disabling condition. Finally! if )"dge Floro7s mental impairment is secondary to genetics 1&/ andJor ad#erse en#ironmental factors (and! "nfort"nately! s"ch essential information is not a#ailable)! $e cannot condemn people for their fa"lty genes andJor ad#erse en#ironment H factors they ha#e no control o#er. 3@989F;89! premises considered! the -o"rt resol#es to% 1) F<N9 )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r. in the total amo"nt of F;8TL T@;K4AN: ( /0!000.00) 94;4 for se#en of the 1> charges against him in A.+. No. 8T)A''A1/?0B *) 89G<959 )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r. of his f"nctions as )"dge of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch (>! +alabon -ity and consider him 49 A8AT9: from the ser#ice d"e to a medically disabling condition of the mind that renders him "nfit to discharge the f"nctions of his office! effecti#e immediatelyB

>) As a matter of e."ity! A3A8: )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r. bac2 salaries! allo$ances and other economic benefits corresponding to three (>) yearsB /) :<4+<44 the charge in A.+. No. 8T)A0?A1'== (G"6 Arriego #. )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r.) for GA-X ;F +98<TB and &) :<4+<44 the charge in A.+. No. ''A(A*(>A8T- (8e% 8esol"tion :ated 11 +ay 1''' ;f )"dge Florentino 5. Floro! )r.) for +;;TN944.

4; ;8:989:. RULE &%( DisGua$ifi9ation of 1u6i9ia$ Offi9ers

Se9tion &. DisPualification of 1ud"es. T No 1"dge or 1"dicial officer shall sit in any case in $hich he! or his $ife or child! is pec"niarily interested as heir! legatee! creditor or other$ise! or in $hich he is related to either party $ithin the si,th degree of consang"inity or affinity! or to co"nsel $ithin the fo"rth degree! comp"ted according to the r"les of the ci#il la$! or in $hich he has been e,ec"tor! administrator! g"ardian! tr"stee or co"nsel! or in $hich he has been presided in any inferior co"rt $hen his r"ling or decision is the s"b1ect of re#ie$! $itho"t the $ritten consent of all parties in interest! signed by them and entered "pon the record. A 1"dge may! in the e,ercise of his so"nd discretion! dis."alify himself from sitting in a case! for 1"st or #alid reasons other than those mentioned abo#e. Se9tion !. Cb1ection that 1ud"e disPualified! how made and effect. T <f it be claimed that an official is dis."alified from sitting as abo#e pro#ided! the party ob1ecting to his competency may! in $riting! file $ith the official his ob1ection! stating the gro"nds therefor! and the official shall there"pon proceed $ith the trial! or $ithdra$ therefrom! in accordance $ith his determination of the ."estion of his dis."alification. @is decision shall be forth$ith made in $riting and filed $ith the other papers in the case! b"t no appeal or stay shall be allo$ed from! or by reason of! his decision in fa#or of his o$n competency! "ntil after final 1"dgment in the case. +9N:;IA! ).% Assailed in this petition for re#ie$ on certiorari "nder 8"le /& of the 8"les of -o"rt are the 4eptember >0! *00& :ecision[1] and the +arch 1! *00? 8esol"tion[*] of the -o"rt of Appeals (-A)! in -AAG.8. 4 No. ('1&?! $hich dissol#ed the 3rit of reliminary <n1"nction[>] dated )"ly '! *00> iss"ed by the 8egional Trial -o"rt of -abadbaran! Ag"san del Norte! Branch >/ (8T-). The Fact"al and roced"ral Antecedents

;n April *'! *00>! Gregorio :. -alo! Ioilito G. -epeda! 5ictorioso :. Kdarbe! Tita B. Kdarbe! 9dgar B. alarca! Go"ie Gibarios! Anna +ae elegrino! -irilia A. 4anche6! Anita 5. -arloto and 9d"ardo Andit! the incorporators of +indanao <nstit"te <nc. (+< <ncorporators)! represented by 9ngineer 5ictorioso :. Kdarbe (9ngr. Kdarbe)![/] filed a etition for :eclaratory 8elief $ith rayer for a Temporary 8estraining ;rder (T8;) and reliminary <n1"nction[&] against the Knited -h"rch of -hrist in the hilippines (K-- )! acting thro"gh the Ag"san :istrict -onference of the Knited -h"rch of -hrist in the hilippines and represented by 8e#erend 8odolfo Baslot (8e#. Baslot)! before the 8T-! $hich $as doc2eted as 4pecial -i#il Action -ase No. 0>A0*. The incorporators prayed that +indanao <nstit"te! <nc. (+<) be declared the sole o$ner of the assets and properties of +< and to pre#ent the impending ta2eo#er by K-- of +<7s properties. They a#erred that K-- $as "nla$f"lly claiming o$nership of +<7s properties. ;n )"ne &! *00>! K-- filed its Ans$er $ith -o"nterclaim![?] asserting its o$nership of +<7s properties based on certain doc"ments.[(] <t claimed that the ."estion of o$nership in this case $as a settled iss"e and re."ired no f"rther disco"rse beca"se Cthey constit"te a ma1ority of the Board of Tr"stees and! therefore! in complete control thereof , , ,.D[=] ;n )"ne 10! *00>! the 8T- iss"ed a T8;['] against K-- reasoning o"t that +< $o"ld s"ffer gra#e and irreparable damages if the o$nership and possession of its assets and properties $o"ld be transferred to K-- . The 8T- disposed% 3@989F;89! it appearing that petitioners $ill s"ffer gra#e in1"stice and irreparable in1"ry! let a temporary restraining order against respondents be iss"ed restraining respondents! their representati#es! attorneys! agents or any other person acting in their behalf from sei6ing control and management of the assets and properties of +indanao <nstit"te. <T <4 ;8:989:.[10] +ean$hile! K-- recei#ed copies of +<7s Amended Articles of <ncorporation[11] (*00> Amended A;<) $hich $as adopted by the +< <ncorporators on +ay '! *00> and appro#ed by the 4ec"rities and 9,change -ommission (49-) on +ay *?! *00>. ;n )"ne 11! *00>! K-- ! represented by 8e#. Baslot! and +<! represented by its resident :r. 9dgardo 8. Batitang (:r. Batitang)! lodged a -omplaint for :eclaration of N"llity of the *00> Amended Articles of <ncorporation and ByAGa$s of +indanao <nstit"te $ith rayer for the <ss"ance of Temporary 8estraining ;rder and reliminary <n1"nction andJor :amages[1*] before the 8T-! $hich $as doc2eted as -i#il -ase No. 0'A*00>. K-- and +< asserted that the Amendment of +<7s Articles of <ncorporation effected by signatories in a rec2less and hasty fashion $as accomplished $itho"t the re."ired ma1ority #ote in clear #iolation of 4ection 1?[1>] of -orporation -ode.[1/] ;f the ten (10) signat"res appearing in the *00> Amended A;< constit"ting *J> of the Board of Tr"stees of +<! fi#e (&) $ere affi,ed by mere representati#es $ho $ere not d"ly a"thori6ed to #ote. F"rther! K-- and +<! as represented by :r. Batitang! stressed that the proced"re in the acceptance of corporate members as embodied in the Amended ByAGa$s contains discriminatory pro#isions! $herein certain members maybe s"b1ected to confirmation and acceptance or re1ection! b"t aimed specifically at members to be nominated by K-- .

;n )"ne 1(! *00>! the signatories mo#ed to dismiss[1&] the complaint for declaration of n"llity of the *00> Amended A;<. They contended that the 49-! in appro#ing the amendments to the Articles of <ncorporation and ByA Ga$s! $as e,ercising its ."asiA1"dicial f"nction and! therefore! a coAe."al body of the 8T-. Th"s! the 8T- co"ld not grant any of the reliefs prayed for by K-- . At the sched"led 1oint hearing of 4pecial -i#il Action -ase No. 0>A0* and -i#il -ase No. 0'A*00> to determine the propriety of the iss"ance of a $rit of preliminary in1"nction! the Ga$ ;ffice of Bernabe! :oyon! Bringas and artners entered its appearance[1?] as collaborating co"nsel for K-- . <ncidentally! Atty. 8oy :oyon (Atty. :oyon)! the son of 9,ec"ti#e )"dge ;rlando F. :oyon ()"dge :oyon)! $as one of the partners in the said la$ firm. This prompted Atty. Nelbert T. oc"lan! K-- 7s lead co"nsel! to mo#e for the inhibition of )"dge :oyon from the case. ;n the other hand! Atty. 8olando F. -arlota! +< <ncorporators7 co"nsel! e,pressed no ob1ection to the contin"ed participation of )"dge :oyon in the proceedings of the case despite the said de#elopment. 4"bse."ently! )"dge :oyon proceeded $ith the 1oint hearing. Thereafter! the 8T- granted the +< incorporators7 prayer for preliminary in1"nction against K-- in its ;mnib"s ;rder[1(] dated )"ly /! *00>! the decretal portion of $hich states% 3@989F;89! the prayer for iss"ance of a Temporary 8estraining ;rder in -i#il -ase No. 0'A*00> is hereby denied $ith finality. As prayed for in 4pecial -i#il -ase No. 0>A0*! let a 3rit of reliminary <n1"nction be iss"ed! restraining! prohibiting! and en1oining respondents! KN<T9: -@K8-@ ;F -@8<4T <N T@9 @<G< <N94 (K-- ) acting thr" AGK4AN :<4T8<-T -;NF989N-9 (A:-AK-- )! represented by 8e#. 8odolfo Baslot! their agents! representati#es! attorneys! and any other persons acting for and in their behalf from ta2ing o#er! sei6ing control! managing! or administering +<N:ANA; <N4T<TKT9 and pre#enting plaintiffs in discharging their f"nctions and d"ties in the management! control and administration of the school! its premises and assets! "pon plaintiffs p"tting "p a bond in the amo"nt of *00!000.00 d"ly appro#ed by the -o"rt! $hich bond shall be e,ec"ted in fa#o"r of the defendants to ans$er for $hate#er damages they may s"stain by reason of or arising from the iss"ance of the $rit in the e#ent that the -o"rt $ill finally r"le that the plaintiffs are not entitled thereto. <T <4 4; ;8:989:. <n iss"ing the preliminary in1"nction against K-- ! the 8T- e,plained% The prayer for the iss"ance of a Temporary 8estraining ;rder! hereinafter 2no$n as T8;! in -i#il -ase No. 0'A*00>! is anchored on the ass"mption that the Amended Articles of <ncorporation and Amended ByAGa$s of +indanao <nstit"te adopted on +ay *?! *00>! is n"ll and #oid for being "ltra #ires. @o$e#er! at this stage of the proceedings $here the action of the -o"rt is generally based on initial and incomplete e#idence! the -o"rt cannot 1"st precipitately r"le that the amendments $ere "ltra #ires acts of the respondents. <t sho"ld be stressed that the ."estioned Amended Articles of <ncorporation and ByAGa$s is d"ly appro#ed by the 4ec"rities and 9,change -ommission! hereinafter referred to as 49-. As s"ch! there being no e#idence th"s far

presented to the contrary! the pres"mption is that the official d"ty of the 49- has been reg"larly performed. Th"s! the act"ations of respondents in -i#il -ase No. 0'A*00> based on those doc"ments are pres"mpti#ely #alid "nless declared #oid by this -o"rt after a f"llAblo$n trial. <n other $ords! plaintiffs at this stage! ha#e not sho$n the e,istence of a clear legal right $hich has been #iolated $arranting the iss"ance of a T8;! beca"se before a T8; or in1"nction is iss"ed! it is essential that there m"st be a right in esse or the e,istence of a right to be protected and that the act against $hich the in1"nction is iss"ed is a #iolation of s"ch right. ;n the other hand! plaintiffs in 4pecial -i#il -ase No. 0>A0* ha#e sho$n that they ha#e the legal right in the management and administration of +indanao <nstit"te beca"se their act"ations are based in an Amended Articles of <ncorporation and ByAGa$s d"ly appro#ed by the 49-. The allegation that it $as appro#ed by the 49- in record time cannot be ta2en as e#idence that per se the appro#al $as against any la$! r"le or reg"lation. <t is precisely for this reason that the -o"rt iss"ed a T8; beca"se from the amendments! plaintiffs in 4pecial -i#il -ase No. 0>A0* and respondents in -i#il -ase No. 0'A*00> ha#e clear legal rights o#er the management and administration of +indanao <nstit"te and that the acts of plaintiffs in -i#il -ase No. 0'A*00> and respondents in 4pecial -i#il -ase No. 0>A0* are in #iolation of those rights. ending determination! therefore! of the principal action in 4pecial -i#il -ase No. 0>A0*! the -o"rt is inclined to iss"e a preliminary in1"nction to protect and preser#e the rights of plaintiffs.[1=] K-- mo#ed for a reconsideration b"t the same $as denied by the 8T- in its 8esol"tion[1'] dated A"g"st 1&! *00>. <n its ;mnib"s ;rder[*0] dated A"g"st *0! *00>! )"dge :oyon inhibited himself from the cases citing the fact that his son7s la$ firm entered its appearance as collaborating co"nsel for K-- . :isappointed $ith the "nfa#orable r"ling! K-- and +<! as represented by :r. Batitang! so"ght relief $ith the -A #ia a petition for certiorari "nder 8"le ?& of the 8"les of -o"rt alleging gra#e ab"se of discretion on the part of the 8T- in iss"ing the assailed order. The -A granted the petition in its 4eptember >0! *00& :ecision! the fallo of $hich reads%

actions for declaratory relief! the co"rt $as only called "pon to determine the parties7 rights and obligations. -iting 8ep"blic #. -o"rt of Appeals![**] it reasoned o"t that the 8T- co"ld not iss"e in1"nction in an action for declaratory relief in as m"ch as the right of the +< incorporators had not yet been #iolated. +oreo#er! it stated that the s"bse."ent inhibition of )"dge :oyon in the cases $as p"rs"ant to the r"les on comp"lsory dis."alification of a 1"dge "nder 8"le >.1*(d) of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct.[*>] The +< incorporators! represented by 9ngr. Kdarbe! mo#ed for reconsideration b"t the motion $as denied by the -A in its 8esol"tion dated +arch 1! *00?. @ence! this petition. T@9 <44K94 < 3@9T@98 ;8 N;T T@9 @;N;8ABG9 -;K8T ;F A 9AG4! 4 9-<AG T39NTL T@<8: :<5<4<;N! <N AN ;8<G<NAG A-T<;N F;8 -98T<;8A8< KN:98 8KG9 ?& 9889: <N -;N4<:98<NG AN: 8KG<NG ;N FA-TKAG <44K94 N;T L9T @9A8: AN: T8<9: <N T@9 -;K8T ;F ;8<G<N AN: BA49: <T4 :9-<4<;N T@989;N. << 3@9T@98 ;8 N;T T@9 @;N;8ABG9 -;K8T ;F A 9AG4! 4 9-<AG T39NTL T@<8: :<5<4<;N 9889: <N <T4 A G<-AT<;N ;F 8KG9 >.1*(:) ;F T@9 -;:9 ;F )K:<-<AG 9T@<-4 KN:98 T@9 FA-T4 AN: -<8-K+4TAN-94 4K88;KN:<NG T@<4 -A49.[*/] <n their +emorand"m![*&] the petitioners arg"e that the -A $ent beyond the pro#ince of a $rit of certiorari by resol#ing fact"al ."estions! $hich sho"ld appropriately be threshed o"t in the trial. ;n the inhibition! they pointed o"t that it $as solely the la$ partner of )"dge :oyon7s son! Atty. ). +a. )ames G. Bringas (Atty. Bringas)! $ho personally entered his appearance as collaborating co"nsel! and not the la$ firm. F"rthermore! they claim that Atty. :oyon! )"dge :oyon7s son! $as neither present in co"rt on the day Atty. Bringas entered his appearance nor $as he present in any of the pre#io"s hearings of the s"b1ect cases. @ence! petitioners claim that 8"le >.1*(d) of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct[*?] is not applicable in this case beca"se Atty. :oyon ne#er represented any party in any of the s"b1ect cases being heard by )"dge :oyon.

3@989F;89! abo#e premises considered! the instant etition is G8ANT9:. The $rit of preliminary in1"nction iss"ed against the Knited -h"rch of -hrist in the hilippines (K-- ) in 4pecial -i#il -ase No. 0*A0> is hereby :<44;G59:. No prono"ncement as to costs. 4; ;8:989:.[*1]

<n its +emorand"m![*(] respondent claims that the petition for re#ie$ on certiorari filed by the petitioners $as not properly #erified as to a"thori6e 9ngr. Kdarbe to file the same A a fatal proced"ral infirmity. F"rther! it points o"t that petitioners are raising ."estions of fact in their petition not cogni6able by this -o"rt. T@9 -;K8T74 8KG<NG

The -A reasoned! among others! that the petition for certiorari (-i#il -ase No. 0'A*00>) ha#ing been 1ointly filed by K-- and +<! as represented by :r. Batitang! $as ade."ate e#idence to s"pport the concl"sion that +< did not re."ire any in1"ncti#e relief from K-- . The -A also stated that in

The petition lac2s merit.

The -o"rt is called "pon to resol#e the iss"e of $hether or not the -A erred in dissol#ing the $rit of preliminary in1"nction iss"ed against K-- . The $rit of preliminary in1"nction en1oined K-- from ta2ing control and management of +< and pre#enting petitioners from discharging their f"nctions in its management. Th"s! the -o"rt shall confine itself only $ith the concerned $rit and not the merits of the cases! $hich are still pending $ith the 8T-. A preliminary in1"nction! being a preser#ati#e remedy for the protection of s"bstanti#e rights or interests! is not a ca"se of action in itself b"t merely a pro#isional remedy! an ad1"nct to a main s"it.[*=] A preliminary in1"nction is defined "nder 4ection 1! 8"le &= of the 8"les of -o"rt! as follo$s% 4ection 1. reliminary in1"nction definedB classes. T A preliminary in1"nction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the 1"dgment or final order! re."iring a party or a co"rt! agency or a person to refrain from a partic"lar act or acts. , , ,

(>) There is an "rgent need for the $rit to pre#ent irreparable in1"ry to the applicantB and (/) No other ordinary! speedy! and ade."ate remedy e,ists to pre#ent the infliction of irreparable in1"ry.[>*] [Knderscoring s"pplied] <t bears stressing that to be entitled to an in1"ncti#e $rit! the right to be protected and the #iolation against that right m"st be sho$n. A $rit of preliminary in1"nction may be iss"ed only "pon clear sho$ing of an act"al e,isting right to be protected d"ring the pendency of the principal action.[>>] 3hen the complainant7s right or title is do"btf"l or disp"ted! he does not ha#e a clear legal right and! therefore! the iss"ance of in1"ncti#e relief is not proper.[>/] <n the present case! the records fail to re#eal any clear and "nmista2able right on the part of petitioners. They posit that they are s"ing in behalf of +<7s interests by pre#enting K-- from "nla$f"lly $resting control of +<7s properties. Their claimed deri#ati#e interest! ho$e#er! has been disp"ted by K-- in both its Ans$er $ith -o"nterclaim in 4pecial -i#il Action -ase No. 0>A0* and its -omplaint in -i#il -ase No. 0'A*00>! $herein +< itself! represented by :r. Batitang himself! is its coApetitioner. 9#idently! the conflicting claims of the parties regarding the iss"e of o$nership o#er +<7s property create the impression that the petitioners7 deri#ati#e right! "sed as basis for the iss"ance of the preliminary in1"nction! is far from clear. etitioners claimed right is still indefinite! at least "ntil it is properly threshed o"t in a trial! negating the presence of a right in esse that re."ires the protection of an in1"ncti#e $rit. 5erily! petitioners cannot lay claim to a clear and positi#e right based on the *00> Amended A;<! the pro#isions of $hich are strongly disp"ted and alleged to be in#alidly obtained. As regards the iss"e of )"dge :oyon7s dis."alification to sit as 1"dge in the s"b1ect cases! the -o"rt agrees $ith the -A. The pertinent r"le on the mandatory dis."alification of 1"dicial officers is laid do$n in 8"le 1>( of the 8"les of -o"rt. 4ection 1 thereof pro#ides% 49-T<;N 1. :is."alification of 1"dges. H No 1"dge or 1"dicial officer shall sit in any case in $hich he! or his $ife or child! is pec"niary interested as heir! legatee! creditor or other$ise! or in $hich he is related to either party $ithin the si,th degree of consang"inity or affinity! or to co"nsel $ithin the fo"rth degree! comp"ted according to the r"les of the ci#il la$! or in $hich he has been e,ec"tor! administrator! g"ardian! tr"stee or co"nsel! or $hich he has presided in any inferior co"rt $hen his r"ling or decision is the s"b1ect of re#ie$! $itho"t the $ritten consent of all parties in interest! signed by them and entered "pon the record. [Knderscoring s"pplied] , , ,.

A preliminary in1"nction is a pro#isional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preser#e and protect certain rights and interests d"ring the pendency of an action.[*'] The ob1ecti#e of a $rit of preliminary in1"nction is to preser#e the stat"s ."o "ntil the merits of the case can be f"lly heard. 4tat"s ."o is the last act"al! peaceable and "ncontested sit"ation $hich precedes a contro#ersy.[>0] 4ignificantly! 4ection >! 8"le &= of the 8"les of -o"rt! en"merates the gro"nds for the iss"ance of a $rit of preliminary in1"nction% 49-. >. Gro"nds for iss"ance of preliminary in1"nction. T A preliminary in1"nction may be granted $hen it is established% (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded! and the $hole or part of s"ch relief consists in restraining the commission or contin"ance of the act or acts complained of! or in re."iring the performance of an act or acts! either for a limited period or perpet"allyB (b) That the commission! contin"ance or nonAperformance of the act or acts complained of d"ring the litigation $o"ld probably $or2 in1"stice to the applicantB or (c) That a party! co"rt! agency or a person is doing! threatening! or is attempting to do! or is proc"ring or s"ffering to be done! some act or acts probably in #iolation of the rights of the applicant respecting the s"b1ect of the action or proceeding! and tending to render the 1"dgment ineffect"al. Based on the foregoing pro#ision! the -o"rt in 4t. )ames -ollege of araNa."e #. 9."itable -< Ban2[>1] r"led that the follo$ing re."isites m"st be pro#ed before a $rit of preliminary in1"nction $ill iss"e% (1) The applicant m"st ha#e a clear and "nmista2able right to be protected! that is! a right in esseB (*) There is a material and s"bstantial in#asion of s"ch rightB

+oreo#er! 8"le >.1* of -anon > of the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct! $hich too2 effect from ;ctober *0 1'=' "ntil +ay >1! *00/! the applicable r"le then! reads as follo$s% A 1"dge sho"ld ta2e no part in a proceeding $here the 1"dge7s impartiality might reasonably be ."estioned. These cases incl"de! among others! proceedings $here% ,,,

(d) the 1"dge is related by consang"inity or affinity to a party litigant $ithin the si,th degree or to co"nsel $ithin the fo"rth degree. [Knderscoring s"pplied] The prohibitions "nder the aforeA."oted pro#isions of the 8"les are clear. The dis."alification is mandatory and gi#es the 1"dicial officer concerned no discretion b"t to inhibit himself from trying or sitting in a case. The rationale! therefore! is to preser#e the peopleQs faith and confidence in the 1"diciaryQs fairness and ob1ecti#ity.[>&] 3hile the -o"rt finds it l"dicro"s that it $as the co"nsel of K-- ! Atty. oc"lan! $ho so"ght the inhibition of )"dge :oyon! considering that the la$ firm of the latter7s son is his collaborating co"nsel! still the mandatory prohibition applies. )"dge :oyon sho"ld ha#e immediately inhibited himself from the case "pon learning of the entry of appearance of his son7s la$ firm. 3here the dis."alifying fact is ind"bitable and the parties to the case ma2e no $ai#er of s"ch dis."alification! as in the case at bench! 4ection 1! 8"le 1>( of the 8"les of -o"rt forth$ith completely strips the 1"dge of a"thority to proceed.[>?] 3@989F;89! the petition is :9N<9:. The assailed 4eptember >0! *00& :ecision and +arch 1! *00? 8esol"tion of the -o"rt of Appeals! in -AAG.8. 4 No. ('1&?! are hereby AFF<8+9:.

C[ etitioner] claimed that [respondent7s] EFamily7s Brand7 4ardines is conf"singly similar $ith [petitioner7s] EFamily Brand7 4ardines. [ etitioner] insisted that it has s"perior right to "se the trademar2 EFamily7 than [respondent]. C[8espondent] filed an EAns$er $ith -omp"lsory -o"nterAclaim and +otion to :ismiss and rayer for the <ss"ance of a Temporary 8estraining ;rder andJor reliminary <n1"nction.7 C[8espondent] prayed that [petitioner] be en1oined from "sing the trademar2 EFamily7 and to pay damages. [8espondent] f"rther as2ed [)"dge Antonio +. 9"genio! )r.] to set the hearing for its motion to dismiss the action on the gro"nds of lac2 of a"thority of the affiant of the complaint to instit"te the action! ins"fficient #erification and fail"re to e,ha"st administrati#e remedies. CAfter hearing! [)"dge 9"genio] iss"ed a temporary restraining order en1oining [petitioner] to "se the trademar2 EFamily.7 C;n +arch *1! *00>! [)"dge 9"genio] dismissed $itho"t pre1"dice! [petitioner7s] complaint on the gro"nd of ins"fficient #erification as in#o2ed by [respondent]. C[8espondent] filed a motion for reconsideration of the ;rder dismissing [petitioner7s] complaint! claiming that the defect in the #erification has been rendered moot and academic by s"bse."ent r"lings respecti#e to the application for preliminary in1"nction and that the attending circ"mstances of the case $arrant liberal compliance [$ith] the r"le. C[ etitioner] filed a E+otion for 5ol"ntary <nhibition!7 re."esting [)"dge 9"genio] to inhibit himself from proceeding to hear! try and decide the pending incidents of the case to afford [petitioner] an impartial trial. C[8espondent] opposed [petitioner7s] E+otion for 5ol"ntary <nhibition.7 C;n +ay **! *00>! [)"dge 9"genio] iss"ed an ;rder #ol"ntarily inhibiting himself from f"rther hearing the case. C@ence! [the] petition [filed $ith the -A] by [respondent] for mandam"s to compel [)"dge 9"genio] to contin"e to hear the pending incidents of the case.D[/]

4; ;8:989:. ANGAN<BAN! ).% T he 8"les on #ol"ntary inhibition do not gi#e 1"dges the "nfettered discretion to desist from hearing a case. The motion for inhibition m"st be gro"nded on 1"st and #alid ca"ses. The mere imp"tation of bias or partiality is not eno"gh basis for them to inhibit! especially $hen the charge is gro"ndless. The -ase Before "s is a etition for 8e#ie$[1] "nder 8"le /& of the 8"les of -o"rt! challenging the A"g"st 1/! *00> :ecision[*] of the -o"rt of Appeals (-A) in -AAG8 4 No. ((&1/ and the No#ember */! *00> 8esol"tion[>] denying petitioner7s +otion for 8econsideration. The decretal portion or fallo of the assailed :ecision reads as follo$s% C3@989F;89! foregoing considered! the instant petition for mandam"s is hereby G8ANT9:. "blic respondent7s ;rder dated +ay **! *00>! #ol"ntarily inhibiting himself from the case is hereby 49T A4<:9. "blic respondent is :<89-T9: to contin"e hearing the case and dispose of the same $ith "tmost dispatch.D The Facts The facts are narrated by the -A as follo$s% C[ etitioner] filed a ci#il complaint against [respondent] for Trademar2 <nfringement! False 8epresentation and Knfair -ompetition $ith :amages and <n1"nction. The case $as doc2eted as -i#il -ase [N]o. 0*A10*'==.

8"ling of the -o"rt of Appeals Finding no #alid and 1"st reason for the #ol"ntary inhibition of )"dge 9"genio! the -A iss"ed the $rit of mandam"s. <t r"led that the present case fell $ithin the e,ception that mandam"s $o"ld lie in instances of gross ab"se of discretion. @ence! this etition.[&] <ss"e The iss"e $as $orded by petitioner in this $ise% CThe principal iss"e raised by the petitioner for this @onorable -o"rt to resol#e is $hether or not a petition for mandam"s is the proper remedy to

assail a p"rely discretionary act of )"dge Antonio 9"genio! )r. of #ol"ntarily inhibiting himself from hearing -i#il -ase No. 0*A10*'== and corollary thereto! $hether )"dge 9"genio! )r. $ho inhibited himself in accordance $ith the la$ and the 8"les! can be compelled to perform an act he had already decided not to do $ith the intention of ass"ring the litigants of an impartial trial.D[?] The -o"rt belie#es that there are act"ally t$o iss"es to be settled in this case% first! $hether mandam"s is the proper remedy to assail an order of #ol"ntary inhibitionB and second! $hether there $as a #alid and 1"st reason for the #ol"ntary inhibition of the trial co"rt 1"dge. The -o"rt7s 8"ling The etition is "nmeritorio"s. First <ss"e% 8emedy Against the ;rder of 5ol"ntary <nhibition

heir! legatee! creditor or other$ise! or in $hich he is related to either party $ithin the si,th degree of consang"inity or affinity! or to co"nsel $ithin the fo"rth degree! comp"ted according to the r"les of the ci#il la$! or in $hich he has been e,ec"tor! administrator! g"ardian! tr"stee or co"nsel! or in $hich he has presided in any inferior co"rt $hen his r"ling or decision is the s"b1ect of re#ie$! $itho"t the $ritten consent of all parties in interest! signed by them and entered "pon the record. CA 1"dge may! in the e,ercise of his so"nd discretion! dis."alify himself from sitting in a case! for 1"st or #alid reasons other than those mentioned abo#e.D The 8"les contemplate t$o 2inds of inhibition% comp"lsory and #ol"ntary. Knder the first paragraph of the cited 8"le! it is concl"si#ely pres"med that 1"dges cannot acti#ely and impartially sit in the instances mentioned. The second paragraph! $hich embodies #ol"ntary inhibition! lea#es to the so"nd discretion of the 1"dges concerned $hether to sit in a case for other 1"st and #alid reasons! $ith only their conscience as g"ide. [11] <n Kmale #. 5illal"6![1*] the -o"rt traced the history of the second paragraph of the abo#eA."oted pro#ision! $hich had been added only as an amendment to the 8"les of -o"rt in 1'?/. rior to that year! the ."estion on $hether to ta2e cogni6ance of the case did not depend "pon the discretion of the 1"dges not legally dis."alified to sit in a gi#en case. <f those concerned $ere not dis."alified! it $as their official d"ty to proceed $ith the case or else ris2 being called "pon to acco"nt for their dereliction. They co"ld not #ol"ntarily inhibit themsel#es on gro"nds of pre1"dice or bias! e,treme delicacy! or e#en if they themsel#es too2 great interest and an acti#e part in the filing of the case. G"tierre6 #. 4antos[1>] and :el -astillo #. )a#elona[1/] pa#ed the $ay for the recognition of other circ"mstances for dis."alification AAthose that depended "pon the e,ercise of discretion of the 1"dges concerned. The 1"dges7 right! ho$e#er! m"st be $eighed against their d"ty to decide cases $itho"t fear of repression. C5erily! the second paragraph of 4ection 1 of 8"le 1>( does not gi#e 1"dges the "nfettered discretion to decide $hether to desist from hearing a case. The inhibition m"st be for 1"st and #alid ca"ses. The mere imp"tation of bias or partiality is not eno"gh gro"nd for them to inhibit! especially $hen the charge is $itho"t basis. This -o"rt has to be sho$n acts or cond"ct clearly indicati#e of arbitrariness or pre1"dice before it can brand them $ith the stigma of bias or partiality.D [1&] A per"sal of the records of the case fails to re#eal that any bias or pre1"dice moti#ated )"dge 9"genio in iss"ing the 3rit of reliminary <n1"nction in fa#or of respondent or in dismissing petitioner7s -omplaint. Neither did this -o"rt find any ."estionable or s"spicio"s circ"mstances leading to the iss"ance of those ;rders! as s"ggested by petitioner. This -o"rt has repeatedly held that for bias and pre1"dice to be considered #alid reasons for the #ol"ntary inhibition of 1"dges! mere s"spicion is not eno"gh. Bare allegations of their partiality $ill not s"ffice Cin the absence of clear and con#incing e#idence to o#ercome the pres"mption that a 1"dge $ill "nderta2e his noble role to dispense 1"stice according to la$ and e#idence and $itho"t fear or fa#or.D [1?]

At the o"tset! $e note that petitioner! in an effort to co#er its bases! filed the present etition as both a petition for re#ie$ "nder 8"le /& and a petition for certiorari "nder 8"le ?& of the 8"les of -o"rt. The applicable r"le is 8"le /&! $hich clearly pro#ides that decisions! final orders or resol"tions of the -A in any case AA regardless of the nat"re of the action or proceeding in#ol#ed AA may be appealed to this -o"rt thro"gh a petition for re#ie$. This remedy is a contin"ation of the appellate process o#er the original case.[(] C<t is basic that $here 8"le /& is a#ailable! and in fact a#ailed of as a remedy AA as in this case AA reco"rse "nder 8"le ?& cannot be allo$ed either as an addAon or as a s"bstit"te for appeal.D[=] The proced"ral infirmity not$ithstanding! this -o"rt shall deal $ith this etition as one filed "nder 8"le /& only and shall treat the alleged gra#e ab"se of discretion on the part of the -A as an allegation of re#ersible error. etitioner claims that respondent erred $hen the latter ."estioned the trial 1"dge7s ;rder of 5ol"ntary <nhibition AAs"pposedly a p"rely discretionary act AA thro"gh a etition for +andam"s filed $ith the -A. 3hile! ordinarily! mandam"s $ill not prosper to compel a discretionary act! the $rit shall iss"e in instances of gross ab"se of discretion! manifest in1"stice or palpable e,cess of a"thority! e."i#alent to denial of a settled right to $hich petitioner is entitledB and $hen there is no other plain! speedy and ade."ate remedy.['] This -o"rt has recogni6ed that C[a] 1"dge7s decision to ref"se to act on acco"nt of some dis."alification is not concl"si#e! and his competency may be determined on an application for mandam"s to compel him to act.D[10] 4econd <ss"e% <nhibition 4ection 1 of 8"le 1>( of the 8"les of -o"rt pro#ides% C4ection 1. :is."alification of 1"dges. No 1"dge or 1"dicial officer shall sit in any case in $hich he! or his $ife or child! is pec"niarily interested as

<n his ."estioned ;rder of <nhibition! )"dge 9"genio himself satisfactorily clarified his act"ations and the circ"mstances leading to the iss"ance of the ."estioned in1"nction and ;rder of dismissal. ;b#io"sly not belie#ing that he had been moti#ated by bias or pre1"dice! he nonetheless granted petitioner7s +otion to <nhibit. Knderstandably! he did so $ith the intention to "phold the integrity of the 1"diciary as an instit"tion $orthy of p"blic tr"st and confidence. Knder the circ"mstances! ho$e#er! to affirm his ;rder of <nhibition $o"ld open the floodgates to a form of for"mAshopping! in $hich litigants $o"ld be allo$ed to shop for a 1"dge more sympathetic to their ca"se.[1(] 4"ch action $o"ld be antithetical to the speedy and fair administration of 1"stice. 3@989F;89! the etition is hereby :9N<9: and the assailed :ecision AFF<8+9:. -osts against petitioner. NA-@K8A! ).%

$ere more imaginary than realB that the records bore no s"spicio"s circ"mstances that $o"ld create do"bt on the impartiality! fairness and ob1ecti#ity of the trial 1"dgeB that no e,trinsic e#idence appeared on the records to establish that the trial 1"dge acted $ith bad faith! malice or corr"pt p"rpose all thro"gho"t the proceedingsB and that there $as no 1"st and #alid ca"se for the dis."alification of the trial 1"dge from presiding o#er the case. The appellate co"rt! in the f"rther assailed 4eptember 1=! *00( 8esol"tion! ['] denied petitioner7s motion for reconsideration. Aggrie#ed! petitioner bro"ght the matter to this -o"rt #ia the instant 8"le /& petition. The -o"rt denies the petition. 4ection 1! 8"le 1>( of the 8"les of -o"rt pro#ides thatT 4ection 1. :is."alification of 1"dges.TNo 1"dge or 1"dicial officers shall sit in any case in $hich he! or his $ife or child! is pec"niarily interested as heir! legatee! creditor or other$ise! or in $hich he is related to either party $ithin the si,th degree of consang"inity or affinity! or to co"nsel $ithin the fo"rth degree! comp"ted according to the r"les of the ci#il la$! or in $hich he has been e,ec"tor! administrator! g"ardian! tr"stee or co"nsel! or in $hich he has presided in any inferior co"rt $hen his r"ling or decision is the s"b1ect of re#ie$! $itho"t the $ritten consent of all parties in interest! signed by them and entered "pon the record. A 1"dge may! in the e,ercise of his so"nd discretion! dis."alify himself from sitting in a case! for 1"st or #alid reasons other than those mentioned abo#e. The first paragraph of the section relates to the mandatory inhibition of 1"dgesB the second! to their #ol"ntary inhibition. The discretion referred to in the second paragraph is a matter of conscience and is addressed primarily to the 1"dges7 sense of fairness and 1"stice.[10] <ndeed! as this -o"rt has held in imentel #. 4alanga![11] 1"dges may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. @o$e#er! $hen s"ggestion is made of record that they might be ind"ced to act $ith bias or pre1"dice against a litigant arising o"t of circ"mstances reasonably capable of inciting s"ch a state of mind! they sho"ld cond"ct a caref"l selfAe,amination. +agistrates sho"ld e,ercise their discretion in a $ay that the people7s faith in the co"rts of 1"stice is not impaired. They sho"ld! therefore! e,ercise great care and ca"tion before ma2ing "p their minds to act or $ithdra$ from a s"it. <f! after reflection! they resol#e to #ol"ntarily desist from sitting in a case in $hich their moti#es or fairness might be serio"sly imp"gned! their action is to be interpreted as gi#ing meaning and s"bstance to the second paragraph of 4ection 1! 8"le 1>( of the 8"les of -o"rt.[1*] Nonetheless! $hile the r"le allo$s 1"dges! in the e,ercise of so"nd discretion! to #ol"ntarily inhibit themsel#es from hearing a case! it pro#ides that the inhibition m"st be based on 1"st or #alid reasons. <n prior cases interpreting this r"le! the most recent of $hich is hilippine -ommercial <nternational Ban2 #. 4po"ses 3ilson :y @ong i! etc.! et al.![1>] the -o"rt noted that the mere imp"tation of bias or partiality is not eno"gh gro"nd for inhibition! especially $hen the charge is $itho"t basis. Acts or cond"ct clearly indicati#e of arbitrariness or pre1"dice has to be sho$n. 9,trinsic e#idence m"st f"rther be presented to establish bias! bad faith! malice! or corr"pt p"rpose! in addition to palpable error $hich may be inferred from the decision or order itself.[1/] 4tated differently! the bare allegations of the 1"dge7s partiality $ill not s"ffice in the absence of clear and con#incing

Assailed in this petition for re#ie$ on certiorari "nder 8"le /& of the 8"les of -o"rt are the )"ne *=! *00( :ecision[1] and the 4eptember 1=! *00( 8esol"tion[*] of the -o"rt of Appeals (-A) in -AAG.8. 4 No. '/01?. The rele#ant antecedent facts and proceedings follo$. <n 1'''! petitioner filed before the 8egional Trial -o"rt (8T-) of M"e6on -ity! Branch *1& a complaint for specific performance $ith damages doc2eted as -i#il -ase No. MA''A>(*1'. ;n motion of respondents! the complaint $as dismissed. The appellate co"rt later affirmed the dismissal in -AAG.8. 4 No. ?'&(>. This -o"rt! ho$e#er! in its decision in G.8. No. 1?0(&> on 4eptember >0! *00/! re#ersed and set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial co"rt $ith the instr"ction that the same be heard and tried $ith deliberate dispatch.[>] ;n )"ne *=! *00&! the -o"rt denied $ith finality the motion for the reconsideration of the said decision.[/] 8T-! Branch *1&! of M"e6on -ity! th"s! proceeded to hear -i#il -ase No. MA''A>(*1'. ;n Febr"ary *>! *00?! ho$e#er! petitioner filed his motion for the inhibition[&] of the presiding 1"dge! +a. G"isa -. M"i1anoA adilla! allegedly to precl"de do"bts or apprehensions of partiality and to gi#e the parties breathing space and peace of mind in the co"rse of the ad1"dication of the proceedings. After respondents filed their opposition! the 8T- 1"dge iss"ed the +arch (! *00? ;rder[?] declaring that she $as #ol"ntarily inhibiting herself from hearing the case and that she $as granting the motion in order to dispel any do"bt and perception of bias! and so that the faith and confidence in the 1"stice system $o"ld not be eroded. :isagreeing $ith the trial 1"dge! respondents! on April 10! *00?! filed before the -A their etition for +andam"s $ith rayer for the <ss"ance of a Temporary 8estraining ;rder and a 3rit of reliminary <n1"nction.[(] 8espondents contended in the main that there $as no s"fficient gro"nd for the trial 1"dge to inhibit herself from hearing the case. ;n )"ne *=! *00(! the -A rendered the assailed :ecision[=] granting the petition for mandam"s! re#ersing and setting aside the inhibitory order iss"ed by the trial co"rt! and directing the said co"rt to hear and decide the ci#il case $ith deliberate dispatch. <t r"led! among others! that the allegations of preconcei#ed bias and partiality thro$n against the trial 1"dge

e#idence to o#ercome the pres"mption that the 1"dge $ill "nderta2e his noble role of dispensing 1"stice in accordance $ith la$ and e#idence! and $itho"t fear or fa#or. 5erily! for bias and pre1"dice to be considered #alid reasons for the in#ol"ntary inhibition of 1"dges! mere s"spicion is not eno"gh.[1&] Get it be f"rther noted that the option gi#en to a 1"dge to choose $hether or not to handle a partic"lar case sho"ld be co"nterbalanced by the 1"dge7s s$orn d"ty to administer 1"stice $itho"t fear of repression.[1?] <n the case at bar! petitioner! aside from his bare allegations! has not sho$n that )"dge M"i1anoA adilla had been biased and partial against a partic"lar party in the proceedings in -i#il -ase No. MA''A>(*1'. The 1"dge e#en ac2no$ledged in the inhibitory order that the motion for her dis."alification contained no statement of specific act or acts that $o"ld sho$ her partiality or bias in the treatment of the case. @er #ol"ntary inhibition $as only on acco"nt of dispelling any do"bt and perception of bias on the part of petitioner. -learly! therefore! no 1"st and #alid reason s"pports the inhibition of )"dge M"i1anoA adilla. The fact that )"dge M"i1anoA adilla r"led ad#ersely against petitioner in the resol"tion of the motion to dismiss! $hich this -o"rt later re#ersed in G.8. No. 1?0(&>! is not eno"gh reason! absent any e,trinsic e#idence of malice or bad faith! to concl"de that the 1"dge $as biased and partial against petitioner. As this -o"rt has emphasi6ed in 3ebb #. eople![1(] the remedy of erroneo"s interloc"tory r"lings in the co"rse of a trial is not the o"tright dis."alification of a 1"dge! for there is yet to come a 1"dge $ith the omniscience to iss"e r"lings that are al$ays infallible. The co"rts $ill close shop if $e dis."alify 1"dges $ho err! for $e all err. Finally! the -o"rt notes that if it $ere to affirm the inhibitory order in this case! then it $o"ld be opening the floodgates to a form of for"mAshopping! in $hich litigants $o"ld be allo$ed to shop for a 1"dge more sympathetic to their ca"ses.[1=] 3@989F;89! premises considered! the petition is :9N<9:. The )"ne *=! *00( :ecision and the 4eptember 1=! *00( 8esol"tion of the -o"rt of Appeals in -AAG.8. 4 No. '/01? are AFF<8+9:.

4; ;8:989:. 'RESEN'.O -ART.NE0, petitioner! #s. LEOPODO B. /.RONELLA, as 1u6#e of the 'ourt of *irst .nstan9e of A=ra, Bran9h .., respondent. Petitioner in his own behalf. Respondent for and his own behalf. 'ON'EP'.ON 1R., J.3 <n -riminal -ase No. *1 of the -o"rt of First <nstance of Abra! Branch <<! -resencio +artine6! as principal! and 5iernes :"clan and Arnold Bayongan! as accessories after the fact! $ere charged $ith the m"rder of one Alfredo Batoon. As the first t$o $ere not apprehended! trial proceeded $ith respect to the third! Arnold Bayongan. Thereafter! decision $as rendered! the pertinent and dispositi#e portions of $hich are as follo$s T ,,, ,,, ,,, <t is $orthy to state! ho$e#er! that the offense of m"rder $as clearly established and $as committed by -resencio +artine6! from the e#idence on record! there is no sho$ing that Arnold Bayongan is an accessory

after the fact. The e#idence as a $hole! ho$e#er! tends to all"de Gregorio Bana$a! the then inc"mbent +ayor of 4allapadan to ha#e 2no$ledge of the perpetrator and commission of the crime b"t did not ta2e any action. <t is f"rther informed that Gregorio Bana$a to date is hiding the principal acc"sed -resencio +artine6. <n #ie$ of the foregoing consideration! the -o"rt hereby dismisses the charge against Arnold Bayongan and is therefore ordered A-MK<TT9:. The ro#incial Fiscal is hereby directed to in#estigate this case f"rther to a#oid miscarriage of 1"stice and the possibility of incl"ding Gregorio Bana$a and for the prompt apprehension of the principal acc"sed -resencio +artine6. (pp. 10A11! rollo). ,,, ,,, ,,, 4"bse."ent to the ac."ittal of Arnold Bayongan! -resencio +artine6 s"rrendered to the hilippine -onstab"lary and later $as arraigned before Branch << of the same -o"rt of First instance. After ha#ing pleaded Onot g"iltyO to the charge! and before the prosec"tion started to present its e#idence! co"nsel for acc"sed -resencio +artine6 mo#ed that the trial )"dge inhibit himself from hearing the case on its merits on the gro"nds O(1) that the respondent had the chance to pass "pon the iss"e and has formed an opinion as to $ho committed the crime of m"rderB (*) that it $o"ld not be fair that he $o"ld sit! hear and pass 1"dgmentB and (>) that the respondent is no longer impartial!O and prayed that the case be transferred to Branch < of the same -o"rt. 8espondent denied the oral motion. etitioner did not mo#e for a reconsideration of the denial of the motion so the trial proceeded. 3hen the trial $as already in the reb"ttal stage for the go#ernment! this etition for rohibition $as filed. <n his petition! -resencio +artine6 as2s for a $rit of prohibition commanding respondent )"dge to desist from hearing and deciding -riminal -ase No. *1 of the -o"rt of First <nstance of AbraB declaring the hearing heretofore had as a mistrialB and ordering that said criminal case be heard ane$ by the presiding )"dge of Branch < of the said -o"rt or any other -o"rt $ithin the )"dicial :istrict. ;n being re."ired to comment! the 4olicitor General did so! and! citing the cases of :ais #s. Torres! et al.! &( hil. ='(! '0>B G"."e #s. Xayanan! *' 4-8A 1?&B and Geotina #s. Gon6ales! /1 4-8A ??! opined Othat it $o"ld be in the best interest of 1"stice and in 2eeping $ith the clear intendment and prono"ncements of the @onorable -o"rt that the case sho"ld be tried ane$ by another 1"dge and that the respondent )"dge sho"ld desist from f"rther ta2ing cogni6ance of the case.O ;n the other hand! respondent )"dge maintains that the trial $as fair! impartial and liberal to the herein acc"sedApetitioner as can be gleaned from the records of -riminal -ase No. *1. 8espondent e,plains that the statement that the Ocrime $as committed by -resencio +artine6O appearing in the decision ac."itting Arnold Bayongan after a separate trial O$as based merely on the prosec"tion e#idence $here petitioner $as not on trial! therefore did not confront $itnesses! did not s"bmit his defense e#idence and s"rely $ill not in any $ay affect or apply to him. The decision to be rendered shall be based "pon the e#idence add"ced and s"bmitted by both parties.O The trial of the case has already been terminated and the -ase s"bmitted for decision. T$o iss"es are presented before "s T first! $hether or not to order a ne$ trial for petitionerB and second! $hether or not respondent 1"dge sho"ld be allo$ed to decide petitionerQs case.

<t cannot be denied that elementary d"e process re."ires that a case be heard by a trib"nal that is impartial and disinterested. And if an acc"sed has been the #ictim of an "nfair and partial trial! this co"rt $ill certainly not hesitate to order a ne$ trial in the interest of 1"stice. & <n as2ing that the case be tried by another )"dge! petitioner alleges in general that respondent sho"ld not be impartial as contemplated in the Ne$ -onstit"tion. No specific resol"tion! order! or r"ling of respondent is cited in partic"lar as one of partiality. <t sho"ld be noted that after petitioner $as arraigned and pleaded not g"ilty! and after respondent had denied petitionerQs motion for the former to inhibit himself from trying the case! petitioner did not mo#e for a reconsideration of the denial of the motion. <nstead the trial proceeded. etitioner too2 no f"rther action to$ards the dis."alification of respondent "ntil the trial $as already in the reb"ttal stage for the go#ernment at $hich time the present etition for rohibition $as filed. The only concl"sion $e can dra$ from these circ"mstances is that the trial $as fair and impartial. 3e are! therefore! not inclined to order a ne$ trial for petitioner. As to the second iss"e% A )"dge has the d"ty not only to render a 1"st and impartial decision! b"t also render it in s"ch a manner as to be free from any s"spicion as to its fairness and impartiality! and also as to the 1"dgeQs integrity. ! 3hile $e grant respondentQs capacity to render a 1"st and impartial decision! his statement in the decision ac."itting Arnold Bayongan to the effect that the Ocrime $as committed by -resencio +artine6O renders it impossible for respondent to be free from the s"spicion that in deciding petitionerQs case! respondent $ill be biased and pre1"diced. 3e therefore hold that "nder these circ"mstances petitioner has the right to ha#e his case decided by another )"dge. 3@989F;89! the petition for prohibition is granted. 8espondent is ordered to transmit the records of -riminal -ase No. *1 of the -o"rt of First <nstance of Abra to Branch <5 of the -o"rt of First <nstance of <locos 4"r! and the )"dge presiding the said co"rt $ill decide the same. 3itho"t prono"ncement as to cost. 4; ;8:989:. 8KG9 1/0 -harges Against )"dges of First <nstance 4ection 1. -omplaint A All -harges against 1"dges of first instance shall be in $riting and shall set o"t distinctly! clearly! and concisely the facts complained of as constit"ting the alleged serio"s miscond"ct or inefficiency of the respondent! and shall be s$orn to and s"pported by affida#its of persons $ho ha#e personal 2no$ledge of the facts therein alleged! and shall be accompanied $ith copies of doc"ments $hich may s"bstantiate said facts. 4ection *. 4er#ice or dismissal. A <f the charges appear to merit action! a copy thereof shall be ser#ed "pon the respondent! re."iring him to ans$er $ithin ten (10) days from the date ser#ice. <f the charges do not merit action! or if the ans$er sho$s to the satisfaction of the co"rt that the charges are not meritorio"s! the same shall be dismissed. 4ection >. Ans$erB hearing. A Kpon the filing of respondents ans$er or "pon the e,piration of the time for its filing! the co"rt shall assign one of its members! a )"stice of the -o"rt of Appeals or a 1"dge of first instance to cond"ct the hearing of the charges. The )"stice or 1"dge so assigned shall set a day for the hearing! and notice thereof shall be ser#ed on both parties. At s"ch hearing the parties may present oral or $ritten e#idence.

4ection /. 8eport A After the hearing! the )"stice or 1"dge shall file $ith the 4"preme -o"rt a report of his findings of fact and concl"sions of la$! accompanied by the e#idence presented by the parties and the other papers in he case. 4ection &. Action A After the filing of the report! the co"rt $ill ta2e s"ch action as the facts and the la$ may $arrant.

4ection ?. -onfidential. A

roceedings against 1"dges of first

instance shall be pri#ate and confidential. A:+<N<4T8AT<59 -<8-KGA8 N;. 1 )ANKA8L *=! 1'== 4K 89+9 -;K8T -<8-KGA84 AN: ;8:984 T;% T@9 -;K8T ;F A 9AG4! T@9 4AN:<GANBALAN! T@9 -;K8T ;F TAF A 9AG4! 89G<;NAG T8<AG -;K8T4! +9T8; ;G<TAN T8<AG -;K8T4! +KN<-< AG T8<AG -;K8T4 <N -<T<94! +KN<-< AG T8<AG -;K8T4! +KN<-< AG T8<AG -;K8T4! AN: 4@A8<QA :<4T8<-T -;K8T4 AN: 4@A8<QA -<8-K<T -;K8T4 4KB)9-T% <+ G9+9NTAT<;N ;F 49-. 1*! A8T. F5<<< ;F T@9 1'=( -;N4T<TKT<;N "rs"ant to 4ec. 1*! Art. F5<<< of the 1'=( -onstit"tion mandating the adoption of a systematic plan to e,pedite the decision or resol"tion of cases or matters pending in the 4"preme -o"rt and the lo$er co"rts prior to the effecti#ity of the -onstit"tion on Febr"ary *! 1'=(! the follo$ing directi#es m"st be complied $ith strictly by all concerned. 1. 9ffecti#e :oc2et -ontrol%

1.1 All presiding 1"dges of trial co"rts m"st! "pon ass"mption of office! and e#ery semester thereafter on )"ne >0th and :ecember >1st of e#ery year cond"ct a physical in#entory of their doc2ets for the p"rpose of determining the act"al n"mber of cases pending in their salas. 1.* An in#entory shall be prepared to indicate the cases pending trial! the cases s"bmitted for decision and the cases that ha#e been archi#ed. -opy of s"ch in#entory shall be s"bmitted to the 4"preme -o"rt thro"gh the -o"rt Administrator $ithin thirty (>0) days from receipt of this -irc"lar and the <n#entory Form. 1.> The residing )"dge and the -ler2 of -o"rt shall initial the 8ecords or 8ollos of each case to indicate the date of act"al in#entory. The in#entory shall incl"de a list of cases s"bmitted for decision! indicating the title and case n"mber and the date of filing of said case. An "pdated in#entory be s"bmitted to the 4"preme -o"rt e#ery si, (?) months thereafter as re."ired in aragraph 1.1 hereof. 1./ reference in :isposition. A All cases of matters s"bmitted for decision or resol"tion before the effecti#ity of the -onstit"tion shall be gi#en preference by the presiding 1"dge in his disposition of his doc2et. *. +a,im"m Kse of )"dge Time and 9ffecti#e -o"rt +anagement%

*.1 All residing )"dges are directed to comply strictly $ith the g"idelines established in -irc"lar No. 1>! )"ly 1! 1'=(! on p"nct"ality and obser#ance of office ho"rs! effecti#e "se of pretrial and disco#ery proced"res! effecti#e management of trials! the a#ailment of ann"al conferences. *.* A strict policy on postponement sho"ld be obser#ed to a#oid "nnecessary delays in co"rt proceedings. Faithf"l adherence to 4ecs. >! / and & of 8"le **! 8"les of -o"rt sho"ld be obser#ed. *.> The preparation of the co"rt calendar sho"ld not be left entirely in the hands of the cler2 of co"rt! m"st be closely s"per#ised by the residing )"dge. A rational calendar plan sho"ld be follo$ed so that each case in the calendar is ass"red of a hearing on the sched"led day of trial. *./ The residing )"dge m"st ha#e a calendar of cases s"bmitted for decision! noting the e,act day! month and year $hen the '0Aday period is to e,pire. As soon as a case is s"bmitted for decision! this m"st be noted in the calendar of the )"dge! the records d"ly collated $ith the 9,hibits and trial notes of the 1"dge! and placed in the 1"dgeQs chambers. >. rompt Action on :ilatory etitions to :elay 9nforcement of 9,ec"tory )"dgments% >.1 <t has become a common practice for litigants to file dilatory petitions for certiorari and prohibition $ith prayer for a restraining order or $rit of preliminary in1"nction in order to delay or th$art enforcement of final an e,ec"tory 1"dgments of both the regional trial co"rt or of other inferior trial co"rts. >.* 3here s"ch petitions are filed! the co"rt concerned sho"ld e,ercise the greatest restraint to a#oid delay in the enforcement of final and e,ec"tory 1"dgments. Attention is called to 4ec. ?! 8"le ?& of the 8"les of -o"rt $hich pro#ides that s"ch petition may be gi#en d"e co"rse only if Os"fficient in form and s"bstance.O @ence! s"mmons sho"ld not immediately be iss"ed "ntil the -o"rt finds the petition s"fficient in form and s"bstance. ;nly then sho"ld the order iss"e re."iring defendant or defendants to ans$er. 8estraining orders or preliminary in1"nction sho"ld not be iss"ed $itho"t prior notice and hearing and sho$ing of a clear right thereto. /. 8edistrib"tion of ending -ases in +"ltiA4ala 4tation%

&.* All 1"dges are reminded that the 4"preme -o"rt has applied the O8es <psa Go."it"rO r"le in the remo#al of 1"dges e#en $itho"t any formal in#estigation $hene#er a decision! on its face! indicates gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the la$ or gross miscond"ct. (4ee eople #s. 5alen6"ela! 1>& 4-8A (1*B -athay acific Air$ays #s. 8omillo! )r.! 1/* 4-8A *?*B <n re Ga"reta! 1/' 4-8A &(0). &.> )"dges sho"ld ma2e complete findings of facts in their decision! and scr"tini6e closely the legal aspects of the case in the light of the e#idence presented. They sho"ld a#oid the tendency to Ogenerali6e and to form concl"sion $itho"t detailing the facts from $hich s"ch concl"sions are ded"ced.O (4ee eople #s. Al#ero! G.8. No. ?'&?/! )an. *'! 1'==B engson #s. <A-! 1>0 4-8A *='). ?. +otions and ;ther <nterloc"tory +atters%

?.1 All residing )"dges m"st endea#or to act promptly on all motions and interloc"tory matters pending before their co"rts. ?.* Knless a"thori6ed by the 8"le! and only in sit"ations of e,treme "rgency! no motions or other applications for relief sho"ld be acted "pon e, parte. :elays in co"rt proceedings ha#e often times been d"e to s"ch e, parte applications! res"lting in the aggrie#ed party ha#ing to see2 relief from higher co"rts. ?.> All co"rts from the -o"rt of Appeals do$n are reminded of the in1"nction in @abal"yas #s. )"dge )ap6on! and s"bse."ent cases! G.8. No. (0='&! +ay >0! 1'=?! 1/* 4-8A *0' (reiterated in -irc"lar No. 10! A"g"st *=! 1'=?) that no motion for e,tension of time to file a motion for ne$ trial or reconsideration of 1"dgment or final order shall be allo$ed. The granting of s"ch prohibited motion for e,tension shall not preser#e the 1"dgment or order from becoming final and e,ec"tory for lapse of the period to appeal. 4"ch motions for e,tension may be filed only in the 4"preme -o"rt $hich reser#es the right in its discretion to grant or deny the same. (. <nhibitions and :is."alifications%

(.1 All 1"dges are reminded that as already pointed o"t in -irc"lar No. (! dated No#ember 10! 1'=0! inhibitions and dis."alifications are 1"dicial actions $hich do not re."ire prior administrati#e appro#al. (.* Administrati#e inter#ention is necessary only $hen the inhibitions is by a 1"dge of a single sala co"rt! and the case has to be transferred to another 1"dge of another station. (.> Administrati#e inter#ention is also $arranted in case of conflict of opinions among the 1"dges as to the proprietary of the inhibition. =. 8affle of -ases%

/.1 <n m"ltiAsala stations $here former inc"mbents ha#e either retired or $ere promoted lea#ing "ndecided pending cases s"ch #ol"me that the present inc"mbent finds e,treme diffic"lty in attending thereto! the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge sho"ld promptly ma2e a report and recommendation on the e."itable redistrib"tion of these cases to the other salas. /.* As m"ch as practicable! the inc"mbent 1"dges sho"ld arri#e at an agreement on the matterB other$ise! the matter sho"ld be bro"ght to the attention of the -o"rt Administrator for prompt action. &. :ecisionA3riting%

=.1 8affle of cases sho"ld be done in open session in the presence of la$yers and spectators! immediately after the co"rt opens its sessions% =.* The min"tes of the 8affle sho"ld be distrib"ted $ithin */ ho"rs after completion thereof to the 1"dges of the other salas! and a copy sent to the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator.

&.1 All residing )"dges m"st obser#e scr"p"lo"sly the periods prescribed in Art. 5<<<! 4ec. 1& of the -onstit"tion.

=.> 4pecial raffles sho"ld not be permitted e,cept on #erified application of the interested party $ho see2s iss"ance of a pro#isional remedy and only "pon a finding by the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge that "nless the special raffle is cond"cted! irreparable damage shall be s"ffered by the applicant. The special raffle shall be cond"cted by at least t$o 1"dges in a m"ltipleAsala station. =./ There m"st be strict compliance $ith Administrati#e ;rder No. ?! dated )"ne >0! 1'(& and -irc"lar No. ( dated 4eptember *>! 1'(/ re."iring that no case may be assigned in m"ltiAsala co"rts $itho"t raffleB a raffle committee composed of the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge and t$o other 1"dges shall be constit"ted $here practicable! raffle proceedings sho"ld be stenographically recorded! and the res"lts signed by the )"dges or their representati#es and the -ler2 of -o"rt! and the branch assignment shall be recorded in $ords and fig"res on the 8ollo. '. Bar 8elations%

4"preme -o"rt! t$el#e months for all lo$er collegiate co"rts! and three months for all other lo$er co"rts. (*) A case or matter sho"ld be deemed s"bmitted for decision or resol"tion "pon the filing of the last pleading! brief! or memorand"m re."ired by the 8"les of -o"rt or by the co"rt itself. (>) Kpon the e,piration of the corresponding period! a certification to this effect signed by the -hief )"stice or the presiding 1"dge shall forth$ith be iss"ed and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter! and ser#ed "pon the parties. The certification shall state $hy a decision or resol"tion has not been rendered or iss"ed $ithin said period. (/) :espite the e,piration of the applicable mandatory period! the co"rt! $itho"t pre1"dice to s"ch responsibility as may ha#e been inc"rred in conse."ence thereof! shall decide or resol#e the case or matter s"bmitted thereto for determination! $itho"t f"rther delay. 1*. "blication%

'.1 All 9,ec"ti#e )"dges shall cond"ct dialog"es and conferences at least once e#ery semester $ith the officers of the <ntegrated Bar -hapter in their respecti#e 1"risdictional areas. '.* At this conference! the 9,ec"ti#e )"dge shall disc"ss $ith the <B ;fficers problems confronting the la$yers! and e,amine approaches and sol"tions to enable both the co"rt and the bar to assist each other in the speedy resol"tion of pending cases. 10. +aintaining "blic -onfidence in the -o"rts%

12.1

Get the -ler2 of -o"rt distrib"te this -irc"lar among all co"rts and the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines and ca"se the p"blication

10.1 All 1"dicial efforts sho"ld be addressed to$ards maintaining p"blic confidence in the co"rts. 10.* As $e en1oined in -irc"lar No. 1>! dated )"ly 1! 1'=(! Oall trial 1"dges sho"ld endea#or to cond"ct themsel#es strictly in accordance $ith the mandate of e,isting la$s and the -ode of )"dicial 9thics that they be e,emplars in their comm"nities and the li#ing personification of 1"stice and the 8"le of Ga$.O 10.> The red"ction of case loads $o"ld be an efficacio"s design to strengthen p"blic confidence in the -o"rts. All efforts sho"ld be e,erted so that case disposals sho"ld e,ceed case inp"ts. 3hene#er obstacles present themsel#es $hich delay case disposition! the residing )"dge sho"ld immediately call the attention of the 4"preme -o"rt thro"gh the -o"rt Administrator $hen the sit"ation re."ires remedies beyond the control or capability of the 1"dges. 11. :eadlines for :ecisions for all -ases filed after Febr"ary *! 1'=(. er -"riam%

thereof in the ;fficial Ga6ette! as $ell as distrib"te copies thereof to the media for their dissemination.

This is an administrati#e complaint for dishonesty and falsification of a p"blic doc"ment against respondent )"dge 5irgilio G. -aballero! 8egional Trial -o"rt (8T-)! Branch >0! -abanat"an -ity! N"e#a 9ci1a. <n her complaint![1] complainant ;lga +. 4amson alleged that respondent )"dge 5irgilio G. -aballero sho"ld not ha#e been appointed to the 1"diciary for lac2 of the constit"tional ."alifications of pro#en competence! integrity! probity and independence[*]! and for #iolating the 8"les of the )"dicial and Bar -o"ncil ()B-) $hich dis."alifies from nomination any applicant for 1"dgeship $ith a pending administrati#e case.[>] According to the complainant! respondent! d"ring his )B- inter#ie$s! deliberately concealed the fact that he had pending administrati#e charges against him. 4he disclosed that! on behalf of -omm"nity 8"ral Ban2 of G"imba (N"e#a 9ci1a)! <nc.! she had filed criminal and administrati#e charges for gra#e

11.1 All co"rts are reminded of the mandatory pro#isions of Article 5<<<! 4ection 1& of the -onstit"tion setting deadlines for determination and ad1"dication of cases filed there"nder and for iss"ance of a -ertification by the residing )"dge stating the reason $hy a decision or resol"tion has not been rendered or iss"ed $ithin the deadline period. The pro#isions are here in belo$ reprod"ced for ready reference% 4ec. 1&. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effecti#ity of this -onstit"tion m"st be decided or resol#ed $ithin t$entyAfo"r months from date of s"bmission for the 4"preme -o"rt! and! "nless red"ced by the

ab"se of a"thority! cond"ct pre1"dicial to the best interest of the ser#ice and #iolation of Article *0= of the 8e#ised enal -ode against respondent in the ;ffice of the ;mb"dsman on )"ly *>! *00>. At that time a p"blic prosec"tor! respondent allegedly committed certain improprieties[/] and e,ceeded his po$ers by o#err"ling the 4ecretary of )"stice in a rein#estigation he cond"cted. ;n +arch */! *00/! the ;mb"dsman dismissed the charges.[&] <t also denied the complainant7s motion for reconsideration.[?] Thereafter! the complainant filed a petition for re#ie$[(] on ;ctober *=! *00/ in the -o"rt of Appeals (-A). <n a decision[=] dated No#ember *&! *00&! the appellate co"rt held that it co"ld not ta2e cogni6ance of the criminal charges against respondent on the gro"nd that all appeals from the decisions of the ;ffice of the ;mb"dsman pertaining to criminal cases sho"ld be ta2en to the 4"preme -o"rt by $ay of a petition for certiorari.['] As to the administrati#e aspect! the -A re#ersed and set aside the decision and 1oint order of the ;mb"dsman dismissing the charges against respondent. The -A then directed ;mb"dsman to file and prosec"te the administrati#e charges against respondent. 3hile the complainant7s petition $as pending in the -A! respondent $as inter#ie$ed se#eral times in the )B- from Febr"ary *00& to A"g"st *00& for the position of 8T- 1"dge. ;n A"g"st *&! *00&! he $as appointed to the 8T-! Branch >0! -abanat"an -ity! N"e#a 9ci1a. The complainant charged that respondent ne#er informed the )B- of his pending cases. This! she said! made it possible for him to be nominated and! s"bse."ently! appointed. <n his comment![10] respondent admitted that complainant had lodged criminal and administrati#e cases against him in the ;mb"dsman. @e! ho$e#er! insisted that these $ere already dismissed by #irt"e of the immediately effecti#e and e,ec"tory +arch */! *00/ decision of the ;mb"dsman. Th"s! there $ere act"ally no more pending cases against him d"ring his inter#ie$s in the )B- from Febr"ary to A"g"st *00&. Accordingly! there $as no impediment to his nomination to and ass"mption of the position of 1"dge. @o$e#er! he insisted that he informed the )B- of the said cases. The complainant filed a reply![11] stating that the +arch */! *00/ decision of the ;mb"dsman $as not yet final and e,ec"tory as it $as timely appealed by $ay of a petition for re#ie$ filed on ;ctober *=! *00/ in the -A. <n fact! the petition $as e#en granted. To f"rther s"pport her charge of dishonesty against respondent! complainant pointed to the ersonal :ata 4heet ( :4) filed by respondent on +arch *1! *00? in the ;ffice of Administrati#e 4er#icesA;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator (;A4A;-A) 8T- ersonnel :i#ision.[1*] According to her! respondent categorically denied e#er ha#ing been charged formally $ith any infraction. ;n the basis of the pleadings and doc"ments presented by both parties! the ;-A fo"nd respondent administrati#ely liable for dishonesty and falsification of an official doc"ment for his false statement in his :4. <t recommended respondent7s dismissal from the ser#ice $ith forfeit"re of retirement benefits! e,cept accr"ed lea#e credits! and $ith pre1"dice to reAemployment in the go#ernment ser#ice.

3e agree $ith the findings of the ;-A that respondent is g"ilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official doc"ment. 3e ha#e no $ay of 2no$ing $hether respondent $ithheld information from the )B-! as both he and complainant ne#er bac2ed their respecti#e allegations $ith concrete e#idence.[1>] Th"s! no probati#e #al"e can be gi#en either to the charges or to the defenses. @o$e#er! respondent is not to be e,onerated on the basis of the foregoing alone. 8egardless of $hether he disclosed his pending cases d"ring his inter#ie$s! the fact remains that he committed dishonesty $hen he chec2ed the bo, indicating CNoD to the ."estion C@a#e yo" e#er been formally chargedRD in his +arch *1! *00? :4 filed in the ;A4A;-A 8Tersonnel.[1/] 8espondent7s act of ma2ing an ob#io"sly false statement in his :4 $as reprehensible! to say the least. <t $as not mere inad#ertence on his part $hen he ans$ered CNoD to that #ery simple ."estion posed in the :4. @e 2ne$ e,actly $hat the ."estion called for and $hat it meant! and that he $as committing an act of dishonesty b"t proceeded to do it any$ay. To ma2e matters $orse! he e#en so"ght to $riggle his $ay o"t of his predicament by insisting that the charges against him $ere already dismissed! th"s! his negati#e ans$er in the :4. @o$e#er! $hether or not the charges $ere already dismissed $as immaterial! gi#en the phraseology of the ."estion C@a#e yo" e#er been formally chargedR!D meaning! charged at anytime in the past or present. <n 8atti #. +endo6aA:e -astro![1&] $e held that the ma2ing of "ntr"thf"l statements in the :4 amo"nts to dishonesty and falsification of an official doc"ment. :ishonesty! being in the nat"re of a gra#e offense! carries the e,treme penalty of dismissal from the ser#ice $ith forfeit"re of retirement benefits e,cept accr"ed lea#e credits! and perpet"al dis."alification from reemployment in the go#ernment ser#ice. 8espondent! a 1"dge! 2no$s (or sho"ld ha#e 2no$n) f"lly $ell that the ma2ing of a false statement in his :4 co"ld s"b1ect him to dismissal. This -o"rt $ill not allo$ him to e#ade the conse."ences of his dishonesty. Being a former p"blic prosec"tor and a 1"dge no$! it is his d"ty to ens"re that all the la$s and r"les of the land are follo$ed to the letter. @is being a 1"dge ma2es it all the more "nacceptable. There $as an ob#io"s lac2 of integrity! the most f"ndamental ."alification of a member of the 1"diciary. Time and again! $e ha#e emphasi6ed that a 1"dge sho"ld cond"ct himself in a manner $hich merits the respect and confidence of the people at all times! for he is the #isible representation of the la$.[1?] 8egrettably! $e are con#inced of respondent7s capacity to lie and e#ade the tr"th. @is dishonesty misled the )B- and tarnished the image of the 1"diciary. @e does not e#en seem remorsef"l for $hat he did as he sees nothing $rong $ith it. @e deser#es the harsh penalty of dismissal from the ser#ice. This administrati#e case against respondent shall also be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the Bar! in accordance $ith A+. No. 0*A'A0*A4-.[1(] This resol"tion! entitled C8e% A"tomatic -on#ersion of 4ome Administrati#e -ases Against )"stices of the -o"rt of Appeals and the 4andiganbayanB )"dges of 8eg"lar and 4pecial -o"rtsB and -o"rt ;fficials 3ho are Ga$yers as :isciplinary roceedings Against

Them Both as 4"ch ;fficials and as +embers of the hilippine Bar!D pro#ides% 4ome administrati#e cases against )"stices of the -o"rt of Appeals and the 4andiganbayanB 1"dges of reg"lar and special co"rtsB and the co"rt officials $ho are la$yers are based on gro"nds $hich are li2e$ise gro"nds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for #iolation of the Ga$yerQs ;ath! the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility! and the -anons of rofessional 9thics! or for s"ch other forms of breaches of cond"ct that ha#e been traditionally recogni6ed as gro"nds for the discipline of la$yers. <n any of the foregoing instances! the administrati#e case shall also be considered a disciplinary action against the respondent 1"stice! 1"dge or co"rt official concerned as a member of the Bar. The respondent may forth$ith be re."ired to comment on the complaint and sho$ ca"se $hy he sho"ld not also be s"spended! disbarred or other$ise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. )"dgment in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resol"tion. (9mphasis s"pplied) Before the -o"rt appro#ed this resol"tion! administrati#e and disbarment cases against members of the bar $ho $ere li2e$ise members of the co"rt $ere treated separately.[1=] @o$e#er! p"rs"ant to the ne$ r"le! an administrati#e case against a 1"dge of a reg"lar co"rt based on gro"nds $hich are also gro"nds for the disciplinary action against members of the Bar shall be a"tomatically considered as disciplinary proceedings against s"ch 1"dge as a member of the Bar.[1'] This m"st be so as #iolation of the f"ndamental tenets of 1"dicial cond"ct embodied in the ne$ -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct for the hilippine )"diciary! the -ode of )"dicial -ond"ct and the -anons of )"dicial 9thics constit"tes a breach of the follo$ing -anons of the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility (- 8)%[*0] -AN;N 1 H A GA3L98 4@AGG K @;G: T@9 -;N4T<TKT<;N! ;B9L T@9 GA34 ;F T@9 GAN: AN: 8;+;T9 894 9-T F;8 GA3 AN: F;8 G9GAG 8;-94494. 8"le 1.01 A A la$yer shall not engage in "nla$f"l! dishonest! immoral or deceitf"l act. -AN;N ( H A GA3L98 4@AGG AT AGG T<+94 K @;G: T@9 <NT9G8<TL AN: :<GN<TL ;F T@9 G9GAG 8;F944<;NU -AN;N 10 H A GA3L98 ;394 -AN:;8! FA<8N944 AN: G;;: FA<T@ T; T@9 -;K8T. 8"le 10.01 A a la$yer shall not do any falsehood! nor consent to the doing of any in co"rtB nor shall he mislead or allo$ the co"rt to be misled by any artifice. -AN;N 11 H A GA3L98 4@AGG ;B49859 AN: +A<NTA<N T@9 894 9-T :K9 T; T@9 -;K8T4 AN: T; )K:<-<AG ;FF<-984 AN: 4@;KG: <N4<4T ;N 4<+<GA8 -;N:K-T BL ;T@984. 4ince membership in the bar is an integral ."alification for membership in the bench! the moral fitness of a 1"dge also reflects his moral fitness as a la$yer. A 1"dge $ho disobeys the basic r"les of 1"dicial cond"ct also #iolates his oath as a la$yer.[*1] <n this partic"lar case! respondent7s

dishonest act $as against the la$yer7s oath to Cdo no falsehood! nor consent to the doing of any in co"rt.D 8espondent7s miscond"ct li2e$ise constit"ted a contra#ention of 4ection *(! 8"le 1>= of the 8"les of -o"rt! $hich strictly en1oins a la$yer from committing acts of deceit! other$ise! he may be s"spended or disbarred. Th"s% 49-. *(. :isbarment and s"spension of attorneys by 4"preme -o"rt! gro"nds therefor. H A member of the bar may be disbarred or s"spended from his office as attorney by the 4"preme -o"rt for any deceit! malpractice! or other gross miscond"ct in s"ch office! grossly immoral cond"ct! or by reason of his con#iction of a crime in#ol#ing moral t"rpit"de! or for any #iolation of the oath $hich he is re."ired to ta2e before admission to practice! or for a $illf"l disobedience of any la$f"l order of a s"perior co"rt! or for corr"ptly or $illf"lly appearing as an attorney for a party to a case $itho"t a"thority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at la$ for the p"rpose of gain! either personally or thro"gh paid agents or bro2ers! constit"tes malpractice. (9mphasis s"pplied) This -o"rt did not hesitate to apply the pro#isions of A.+. No. 0*A'A0*A4- in a plethora of cases.[**] ;f partic"lar importance to this case is o"r decision in -aNada #. 4"erte[*>] $here $e applied the r"le to its f"llest e,tent% a"tomatic disbarment. <n -aNada #. 4"erte! complainant charged respondent )"dge 4"erte $ith gra#e ab"se of a"thority! gra#e miscond"ct! gra#e coercion! dishonesty! harassment! oppression and #iolation of Article *1& of the 8e#ised enal -ode (8 -) and the -anons of )"dicial 9thics. The complaint alleged! among others! that respondent tried to sell a dilapidated cargo pic2A"p tr"c2 and :ae$oo car to complainant. The latter ref"sed. Their friendship later on t"rned so"r $hen they failed to reach an agreement on the commission respondent $as s"pposed to recei#e as agentAbro2er for the contemplated sale of complainant7s beach lot. The complainant #oiced o"t his fear that respondent $o"ld "se his 1"dicial po$er to persec"te him for $hat respondent may ha#e percei#ed as complainant7s infractions against him. <n his comment! respondent denied offering to sell the #ehicles to complainant since! according to him! he ne#er o$ned a dilapidated cargo pic2A"p tr"c2 nor co"ld he recall if he had a :ae$oo car in 1''=. @o$e#er! a per"sal of respondent7s 4tatements of Assets and Giabilities for the years 1''=A*001 re#ealed that among his personal properties $ere a :ae$oo car ac."ired in 1''? and an GA*00 do"ble cab ac."ired in 1''=. Accordingly! $e fo"nd respondent g"ilty of dishonesty for ha#ing falsely denied that he e#er o$ned the aforementioned #ehicles. For his infraction! respondent 1"dge $as fined in the amo"nt of /0!000. @e $o"ld ha#e been dismissed from the ser#ice $ere it not for the fact that he had already been dismissed therefrom beca"se of an earlier case.[*/] 4ignificantly! p"rs"ant to A.+. No. 0*A'A0*A4-! $e deemed respondent )"dge 4"erte7s administrati#e case as disciplinary proceedings for disbarment as $ell! and proceeded to strip him of his membership in the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines. Knder the same r"le! a respondent Omay forth$ith be re."ired to comment on the complaint and sho$ ca"se $hy he sho"ld not also be s"spended!

disbarred or other$ise disciplinary sanctioned as member of the Bar.O The r"le does not ma2e it mandatory! before respondent may be held liable as a member of the bar! that respondent be re."ired to comment on and sho$ ca"se $hy he sho"ld not be disciplinary sanctioned as a la$yer separately from the order for him to comment on $hy he sho"ld not be held administrati#ely liable as a member of the bench.[*&] <n other $ords! an order to comment on the complaint is an order to gi#e an e,planation on $hy he sho"ld not be held administrati#ely liable not only as a member of the bench b"t also as a member of the bar. This is the fair and reasonable meaning of Ca"tomatic con#ersionD of administrati#e cases against 1"stices and 1"dges[*?] to disciplinary proceedings against them as la$yers. This $ill also ser#e the p"rpose of A.+. No. 0*A'A0*A4- to a#oid the d"plication or "nnecessary replication of actions by treating an administrati#e complaint filed against a member of the bench[*(] also as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a la$yer by mere operation of the r"le. Th"s! a disciplinary proceeding as a member of the bar is impliedly instit"ted $ith the filing of an administrati#e case against a 1"stice of the 4andiganbayan! -o"rt of Appeals and -o"rt of Ta, Appeals or a 1"dge of a firstA or secondAle#el co"rt.[*=] <t cannot be denied that respondent7s dishonesty did not only affect the image of the 1"diciary! it also p"t his moral character in serio"s do"bt and rendered him "nfit to contin"e in the practice of la$. ossession of good moral character is not only a prere."isite to admission to the bar b"t also a contin"ing re."irement to the practice of la$.[*'] <f the practice of la$ is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals! those co"nted $ithin its ran2s sho"ld not only master its tenets and principles b"t sho"ld also accord contin"ing fidelity to them. The re."irement of good moral character is of m"ch greater import! as far as the general p"blic is concerned! than the possession of legal learning.[>0] A parting $ord. The first step to$ards the s"ccessf"l implementation of the -o"rt7s relentless dri#e to p"rge the 1"diciary of morally "nfit members! officials and personnel necessitates the imposition of a rigid set of r"les of cond"ct on 1"dges. The -o"rt is e,traordinarily strict $ith 1"dges beca"se! being the #isible representation of the la$! they sho"ld set a good e,ample to the bench! bar and st"dents of the la$. The standard of integrity imposed on them is H and sho"ld be H higher than that of the a#erage person for it is their integrity that gi#es them the right to 1"dge. 3@989F;89! $e find respondent )"dge 5irgilio G. -aballero of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch >0! -abanat"an -ity! GK<GTL of dishonesty and falsification of an official doc"ment. @e is ordered :<4+<449: from the ser#ice! $ith forfeit"re of all benefits and pri#ileges! e,cept accr"ed lea#e credits! if any! $ith pre1"dice to reemployment in any branch or instr"mentality of the go#ernment! incl"ding go#ernmentAo$ned or controlled corporations. 8espondent is li2e$ise :<4BA889: for #iolation of -anons 1 and 11 and 8"les 1.01 and 10.01 of the -ode of rofessional 8esponsibility and his name 4T8<-X9N from the 8oll of Attorneys. Get a copy of this resol"tion be entered into respondent7s records in the ;ffice of the Bar -onfidant and notice of the same be ser#ed on the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines and on the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator for circ"lation to all co"rts in the co"ntry.

4; ;8:989:. AK4T8<AA+A8T<N9I! ).% <n a #erified letter complaint dated +ay 1&! *00*![1] Gabriel dela a6! ;fficerAinA-harge of F"nd for Assistance to ri#ate 9d"cation (FA 9)![*] charged )"dge 4antos B. Adiong of the 8egional Trial -o"rt (8T-) of +ara$i -ity! Branch = of gross ignorance of the la$ andJor ab"se of a"thority. acas"m -ollege! <nc.! represented by 4aripada Ali acas"m! filed $ith the 8T-! a petition for mandam"s $ith application for a preliminary mandatory in1"nction! doc2eted as 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0*! against FA 9! represented by 8oberto T. Borromeo! 4ecretary 8a"l 4. 8oco! 8amon -. Bacani and -arolina -. orio. ;n +arch /! *00*! respondent 1"dge iss"ed an ;rder! to $it% 38<T ;F 89G<+<NA8L +AN:AT;8L <N)KN-T<;N -onsidering that the petition herein is s"fficient in form and s"bstance! a 3rit of reliminary +andatory <n1"nction is hereby iss"ed re."iring the respondents! specifically FA 9 and its officials! incl"ding its -hairman respondent 8AKG 4. 8;-;! to prepare and iss"e a chec2 in the amo"nt of /!000!000.00 representing the entitlement of the petitioner for 4chool Lear *001A*00*! payable to its residentJ-hairman :ATK 4A8< A:A AG< A-A4K+! "nder pain of arrest and contempt.[>] The follo$ing day! +arch &! *00*! respondent iss"ed another ;rder! th"s% Finding the e,Aparte motion of the petitioner to be impressed $ith merit! it is hereby appro#ed. 3@989F;89! the appropriate 4heriffs of +a2ati and +andal"yong! +etro +anila! are hereby ordered to ser#e the attached 3rit of reliminary +andatory <n1"nction "pon the respondents! and ma2e a ret"rn on their actions ta2en thereon. [/] ;n +arch 1*! *00*! FA 9! thro"gh co"nsel! filed an omnib"s motion set aside orders of +arch / and &! *00* and to dismiss the case.[&] <n its motion! FA 9 claimed that it $as not ser#ed $ith s"mmons b"t recei#ed copies of the ."estioned orders on +arch =! *00*B that the $rit of preliminary mandatory in1"nction $hich $as intended to be enforced in +a2ati is o"tside the 1"risdiction of the T$elfth )"dicial 8egion of 8T+ara$i -ityB that 4ection *1 of Batas ambansa (B. .) Blg. 1*'! as amended! pro#ides that the 8T- has 1"risdiction to iss"e $rit of in1"nction $hich may be enforced in any part of its respecti#e regionsB that the $rit $as granted $itho"t hearing and noticeB neither $as there a sho$ing of an affida#it that $o"ld establish that great or irreparable in1"ry $o"ld res"lt to the applicant before the matter can be heard nor $as there a sho$ing that a bond had been filed. ;n +ay ?! *00*! another ;rder $as iss"ed by the respondent! th"s% <t appears on record that despite ser#ice to the respondents copies of the 3rit of reliminary +andatory <n1"nction iss"ed by this -o"rt on +arch /! *00* and "ntil date respondents failed to obey or comply (sic) the 3rit as

directed and considering that f"nds d"e to the petitioner has been deposited in the ban2! the assigned 4heriff of +a2ati -ity is ordered to ta2e c"stody of the said f"ndsJchec2 in the name of A-A4K+ -;GG9G9 <N-.! in the amo"nt of / million pesos. -ollectible for the school year *001A*00* and release the same to 4A8< A:A AG< A-A4K+! residentJ-hairman of the said school thr" garnishment proceedings at the (B <)! Ban2 of hilippine <slands! Bena#ide6 4t.! Gegaspi 5illage! +a2ati -ity or B < main at Ayala A#e.! +a2ati -ity andJor any other ban2s incl"ding GAN:BANX of the hilippines! ;rtigas -enter Branch $hich is the official depositary ban2 of the :9-4 o"t of the deposit of F"nds for Assistance for (sic) ri#ate 9d"cation (FA 9) in order not to defeat the p"rpose of the said 3rit. [?] ;n +ay =! *00*! +a2ati 4heriff +elchor -. Gaspar iss"ed notices of garnishment to Gand Ban2 @ead ;ffice in ;rtigas -enter Branch and B <A Far 9ast Ban2 in asay 8oad Branch! +a2ati.[(] 4"bse."ently! FA 9! thro"gh co"nsel! $rote 4heriff Gaspar a letter as2ing the latter to rectify his act of iss"ing notices of garnishment considering that the same $as made p"rs"ant to a patently illegal and #oid order of the respondent.[=] <n his letterAcomplaint! dela a6 claims as follo$s% 8espondent7s iss"ance of the $rit of preliminary mandatory in1"nction dated +arch /! *00* $as in glaring disregard and defiance of 4ection *1 of B. . Blg. 1*' $hich limits the a"thority of 8T-s to iss"e $rits of mandam"s $ithin their respecti#e regions. The iss"ance of the $rit $as in disregard of the notice and hearing re."irements "nder 8"le &= of the 8"les of -o"rt. 8espondent contin"es to iss"e orders directing FA 9 to release the amo"nt of /!000!000.00 to :at" 4aripada Ali acas"m e#en in a case $here it $as not a party thereto as in -orporate -ase No. 010 filed by 4"ltan 4abd"llah Ali acas"m against :at" 4aripada Ali acas"m!['] et al.! respondent iss"ed an ;rder dated April **! *00*! $herein he stated the follo$ing% <n #ie$ of this order there e,ists no legal impediment to the enforcement of the pre#io"s orders of this -o"rt partic"larly a 3rit of reliminary +andatory <n1"nction iss"ed in 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0* dated +arch /! *00* directing the respondent FA 9 to release to the petitioner the s"m of /!000!000.00 representing the petitioner7s entitlement for the 4chool Lear *001A*00* and the order of the -o"rt in 4pecial -i#il -ase No. =(= dated +arch /! *00* directing the defendant :8. -A8+9N :;++<T;8<; to immediately release to the plaintiff 4A8< A:A A-A4K+ the s"m of 1!000!000.00 "nder pain of arrest and contempt.[10] 8espondent e,plains in his second indorsement dated )"ly *'! *00* that he had ordered the dismissal of 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0* per his resol"tion dated )"ne *1! *00* and that he had recalled and set aside his ."estioned orders dated +arch / and &! *00*. @e s"bmits that $ith the dismissal of the said case! the herein complaint has become moot and academic and sho"ld no longer be gi#en d"e co"rse.[11] -omplainant! in a letter dated A"g"st *>! *00*![1*] informed "s that FA 97s co"nsel $as not f"rnished $ith a copy of the respondent7s resol"tion dismissing the caseB and that there is still a pending motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the said case and FA 97s manifestation $ith comment and opposition thereto. -omplainant claims that aside from the ;rders dated +arch / and &! *00* ignorantly iss"ed by respondent 1"dge! his order dated +ay ?! *00* $hich directed the garnishment of the f"nds of their office and follo$ed by a $rit of garnishment iss"ed by a +a2ati sheriff really paraly6ed FA 97s operations "ntil a temporary restraining order $as iss"ed by the -o"rt of Appeals.[1>] -omplainant

prays that their complaint be treated better than 1"st being dismissed for being moot and academic as respondent $o"ld $ant it to be. Both parties manifested that they are s"bmitting the case for resol"tion based on the pleadings filed.[1/] The -o"rt Administrator s"bmitted his 8eport finding respondent 1"dge g"ilty of gross ignorance of la$ and gra#e ab"se of a"thority and recommending that he be meted $ith the penalty of s"spension from office for a period of si, (?) months $itho"t pay $ith a $arning that the commission of a similar act in the f"t"re $ill $arrant his dismissal from the ser#ice. <n arri#ing at his findings and recommendations! the -o"rt Administrator stated% As correctly claimed by the complainant! respondent 1"dge had indeed iss"ed the t$o (*) orders of +arch / V &! *00* $itho"t complying $ith the mandatory re."irement of notice and hearing "nder 4ection &! 8"le &= of the 1''( 8"les of -i#il roced"re! $hich pro#ides that% CNo preliminary in1"nction shall be granted $itho"t hearing and prior notice to the party or person so"ght to be en1oined , , ,.D Beca"se of his total disregard of the r"les! respondent 1"dge is clearly ignorant of the r"les. The s"bse."ent dismissal of 4pecial roceeding No. =1>A0* per order dated *1 )"ne *00*! $hich also recalled and set aside the orders of +arch / and &! *00*! does not render the instant administrati#e complaint moot and academic considering that the iss"e in#ol#ed in the instant case is administrati#e and not 1"dicial in character. 4pecifically! the iss"e is $ith regard to respondent 1"dge7s #iolation of the la$ or proced"re $hich is tantamo"nt to ignorance of the la$ or proced"re. Kndo"btedly! respondent 1"dge #iolated the abo#eA cited r"les beca"se the records are bare that prior to the iss"ance of the s"b1ect $rit! he notified the respondent FA 9 and cond"cted a hearing. For this reason! there is no do"bt that respondent 1"dge is g"ilty of ignorance of the r"les. -oncerning respondent 1"dge7s iss"ance of an order dated ** April *00* in -orporate -ase No. 010 directing FA 9 to iss"e a chec2 in the s"m of / million pesos p"rs"ant to the order dated 0/ +arch *00* in 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0*! s"ch an act is tantamo"nt to an ab"se of his a"thority. 8ecords re#ealed that FA 9 $as not a party to -orporate -ase No. 010. Nonetheless! respondent 1"dge still directed FA 9 to comply $ith an order in a case! $hich they ha#e nothing to do. Aside from the fact that respondent 1"dge iss"ed an order against a nonA party to -orporate -ase No. 010! he also had no a"thority to iss"e said order beca"se he already inhibited himself from trying the case. 8ecords re#ealed that on *1 No#ember *001 respondent 1"dge inhibited himself from trying and hearing -orporate -ase No. 010 (49- -ase No. 10A''A?/>(). 8espondent 1"dge e#en ca"sed the for$arding of the records of the said case to the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator so that the co"rt in <ligan -ity! $hich $as designated as special co"rt to try and decide corporate cases (49-Arelated cases) $o"ld be designated in lie" of respondent 1"dge. Acting on the said re."est! the -o"rt! per 8esol"tion of 10 )"ne *00* in A.+. No. 0*A/A*0(A8T-! designated )"dge Amer 8. <brahim! airing )"dge! 8T-! +ara$i -ity to try and decide -orporate -ase No. 010. :espite said inhibition and the s"bse."ent designation of another 1"dge! respondent 1"dge still iss"ed the order of ** April *00*. 8espondent 1"dge7s 1"stification for the iss"ance of the said order $as beca"se the ;ffice of the -o"rt Administrator ret"rned the records of -orporate -ase

No. 010 to his sala for f"rther proceedings. 3hile it is tr"e that the records $ere indeed ret"rned to his sala! there is no sho$ing that respondent 1"dge $as gi#en the a"thority to handle the case. The -o"rt7s directi#e $as for )"dge <brahim! the pairing 1"dge of Branch =! to contin"e the trial and hearing of -orporate -ase No. 010. Th"s! respondent 1"dge $as f"lly a$are of his lac2 of a"thority to handle the case. For lac2 of a"thority to do so! respondent 1"dge is g"ilty of gra#e ab"se of a"thority. 3orse! respondent 1"dge iss"ed the s"b1ect e,traordinary $rit to be enforced o"tside his 1"dicial region! in gross #iolation of 4ection *1 of B. . Blg. 1*' $hich pro#ides that 8egional Trial -o"rts e,ercise original 1"risdiction in the iss"ance of $rits of certiorari! prohibition! mandam"s! ."o $arranto! habeas corp"s and in1"nction $hich may be enforced in any part of their respecti#e 1"dicial regions. The @onorable -o"rt in the case of NB #ers"s ineda! 1'( 4-8A 1 (1''1)! held that% C8egional Trial -o"rts can only enforce their $rits of in1"nction $ithin their respecti#e designated territories.D Gi2e$ise! in the case of 9mbassy Farms! <nc. #s. -o"rt of Appeals (1''0)! it $as held that% CGenerally! an in1"nction "nder 4ection *1 of the Batas ambansa Bilang 1*' is enforceable $ithin the region. The reason is that the trial co"rt has no 1"risdiction to iss"e a $rit of preliminary in1"nction to en1oin acts being performed or abo"t to be performed o"tside its territorial bo"ndaries.D 4imilarly! the -o"rt! in the case of +artin #s. G"errero! >1( 4-8A 1?? (1''')! penali6ed then Assisting )"dge 9le"terio F. G"errero! 8T-! Branch 1=! Tagaytay -ity $ith a fine of 1!000 pesos and admonition $ith $arning for iss"ing a $rit against a party $ho is a resident of araNa."e -ity! an area $hich is o"tside of his 1"dicial 1"risdiction. 4pecifically! the -o"rt held that% CKnder the foregoing clear pro#isions of B. . 1*' and the 8"les of -o"rt! regional trial co"rts ha#e 1"risdiction to iss"e $rits of habeas corp"s only $hen s"ch $rits can be enforced $ithin their respecti#e 1"dicial districts! as e,traordinary $rits iss"ed by them are limited to and operati#e only $ithin s"ch areas. -learly then! respondent 1"dge had no a"thority to iss"e $rit of habeas corp"s against herein complainant! $ho $as a resident of araNa."e! an area o"tside his 1"dicial 1"risdictionD. Th"s! consistent $ith the aforesaid r"lings of the co"rt! it follo$s then that respondent 1"dge! being a presiding 1"dge of 8T-! +ara$i -ity! has no a"thority to enforce the s"b1ect preliminary mandatory in1"nction in +a2ati -ity. The s"b1ect $rit of preliminary mandatory in1"nction 1"st li2e the s"b1ect $rit of habeas corp"s in the aforesaid case of )"dge G"errero cannot be enforced by respondent 1"dge against a party $ho is in +a2ati -ity! an area o"tside of his 1"dicial 1"risdiction. -learly! respondent 1"dge had grossly #iolated the pro#isions of 4ection *1 of B. . Blg. 1*'. From all the foregoing! $e find respondent 1"dge g"ilty of gross ignorance of the la$ and gra#e ab"se of a"thority. Knder 8"le 1/0! as amended by A.+. No. 01A=A10A4- dated 11 4eptember *001! gross ignorance of the la$ or proced"re is considered a serio"s charge $ith the follo$ing sanctions% (a) dismissal from the ser#iceB or (b) s"spension from office $itho"t pay for more than > months b"t not e,ceeding si, monthsB or (c) a fine of more than *0!000.00 pesos b"t not e,ceeding /0!000.00 pesos. 8ecord in the :oc2et and -learance :i#ision! ;-A sho$s that respondent 1"dge had been pre#io"sly penali6ed in the follo$ing cases%

1. F<N9: in the s"m of *0!000.00 pesos (sic) for <gnorance of the Ga$ in A.+. No. 8T)A'=A1/0( per 8esol"tion of *0 )"ly 1''=B *. F<N9: in the s"m of &!000.00 pesos (sic) for Gross <gnorance of the Ga$ and Gra#e Ab"se of :iscretion in A.+. No. 8T)A00A1&=1 per 8esol"tion of 0* )"ly *00*. <n determining the penalty to be imposed! it is important to note that this is respondent 1"dge7s >rd offense in#ol#ing the same act! $hich is gross ignorance of the la$! hence he may be meted $ith a se#ere penalty of either :<4+<44AG from the ser#ice or 4K4 9N4<;N from office $itho"t pay for more than > months b"t not e,ceeding ? months! at the discretion of the -o"rt.[1&] The ;-A7s findings and recommendations are $ellAta2en. The r"le on in1"nction as fo"nd "nder 8"le &= of the 8"les of -o"rt pro#ides that the same can only be granted "pon a #erified application sho$ing facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded and "pon the filing of a bond e,ec"ted to the party or person en1oined.[1?] <t is also pro#ided that no preliminary in1"nction shall be granted $itho"t hearing and prior notice to the party or person so"ght to be en1oined "nless sho$n that great or irreparable in1"ry $o"ld res"lt to the applicant before the matter can be heard on noticeB that a temporary restraining order may be iss"ed effecti#e for a period of t$enty (*0) days from ser#ice on the party so"ght to be en1oined.[1(] A per"sal of the ;rder dated +arch /! *00* failed to sho$ that respondent cond"cted a hearing before the in1"nction $as granted or that complainant $as gi#en prior notice thereof. <n fact! complainant stressed that FA 9 $as not at all ser#ed $ith s"mmons before the $rit of preliminary mandatory in1"nction $as iss"ed. <t $as not also sho$n $hether the applicant posted a bond and the same $as appro#ed before the order granting the preliminary mandatory in1"nction $as iss"ed. A bond is re."ired "nless e,empted by the co"rt. The ;rder merely stated that the petition $as s"fficient in form and s"bstance $itho"t e#en stating the facts $hich $o"ld s"pport the granting of the in1"nction. This is a clear #iolation of the r"le. +oreo#er! 4ection *1 of B. . Blg. 1*'! pro#ides% 49-. *1. ;riginal )"risdiction in other cases. H 8egional Trial -o"rts shall e,ercise original 1"risdiction% (1) <n the iss"ance of $rits of certiorari! prohibition! mandam"s! ."o $arranto! habeas corp"s and in1"nction $hich may be enforced in any part of their respecti#e regionsB ... ... ...

8espondent7s co"rt is in +ara$i -ity $hich falls $ithin the t$elfth 1"dicial region. The $rit of preliminary mandatory in1"nction iss"ed by respondent re."iring FA 9! $hich is holding office in +a2ati -ity! and its officials $ho ha#e their residences in +etro +anila! to iss"e a chec2 in the amo"nt of /!000!000.00 payable to :at" 4aripada Ali acas"m! is o"tside the territorial 1"risdiction of respondent7s co"rt. Th"s! the $rit of preliminary mandatory in1"nction iss"ed by the respondent is #oid considering that his

a"thority to iss"e an in1"nction is limited only to and operati#e only $ithin his respecti#e pro#inces or districts.[1=] -onse."ently! the ;rder dated +arch &! *00* directing the sheriff of +a2ati and +andal"yong to ser#e the $rit of preliminary mandatory in1"nction to FA 9! et al. is a 1"risdictional fa", pas as the respondent can only enforce his orders $ithin the territorial 1"risdiction of his co"rt.[1'] Gi2e$ise! respondent has also sho$n ab"se of his a"thority in iss"ing his ;rder dated April **! *00* in -orporate -ase No. 010 re."iring FA 9! a nonAparty to the case! to comply $ith the $rit of preliminary mandatory in1"nction iss"ed in 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0*. Notably! respondent in his ;rder dated No#ember *1! *001 inhibited himself from hearing the corporate case and for$arded the entire records to the ;-A for f"rther assignment to other designated corporate co"rts of the 8T- in Ganao and -agayan de ;ro -ity. :espite this pending matter! respondent acted on a motion to set aside his ;rder of inhibition citing the fact that the records of the case $hich he for$arded to the ;-A $ere ret"rned to his co"rt for f"rther proceedings. @e then concl"ded that there e,ists no legal impediment to the enforcement of the pre#io"s orders of this -o"rt partic"larly a 3rit of reliminary +andatory <n1"nction iss"ed in 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0* dated +arch /! *00* directing the respondent FA 9 to release to the petitioner the s"m of /!000!000.00 representing the petitioner7s entitlement for the 4chool Lear *001A*00*. Altho"gh the respondent in -orporate -ase No. 010 is the petitioner in 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0*! ($here the s"b1ect preliminary mandatory in1"nction $as iss"ed and no$ the basis of this administrati#e complaint) FA 9! ho$e#er! $as not a party in the -orporate -ase. +oreo#er! respondent has no a"thority to iss"e the ;rder in -orporate -ase No. 010 since the matter of his inhibition $as still pending $ith the ;-A. <n fact! beca"se of respondent7s ;rder of inhibition $ith f"rther assignment to other corporate co"rts of 8T-! Ganao and -agayan de ;ro -ity! the plaintiff in -orporate -ase No. 010 filed $ith ;-A a motion to retain the corporate case $ith the 8T- of +ara$i -ity! $hich $e granted in o"r 8esol"tion dated )"ne 10! *00*. <n the same resol"tion! $e a"thori6ed )"dge Amer 8. <brahim![*0] airing )"dge! 8T- of +ara$i -ity! Ganao del 4"r! Branch '! to try and decide -orporate -ase No. 010B and reminded respondent of 4"preme -o"rt -irc"lar No. 10. -irc"lar No. 10[*1] pro#ides that $ith respect to single sala co"rts! only the order of inhibition shall be for$arded to the 4"preme -o"rt for appropriate actionB the records of the case shall be 2ept in the doc2et of the co"rt concerned $hile a$aiting the instr"ction andJor action of the 4"preme -o"rt thereon. This aims to a#oid needless mo#ing of the records in order to pre#ent the possibility of the records being lost in transit. Th"s! the ret"rn of the records of -orporate -ase No. 010 to respondent7s co"rt is not an a"thority for respondent to proceed $ith the case. <t has been held that in the absence of fra"d! dishonesty or corr"ption! erroneo"s acts of a 1"dge in his 1"ridical capacity are not s"b1ect to disciplinary action! for no magistrate is infallible. The lac2 of malicio"s intent ho$e#er! cannot completely free the respondent from liability specially so $hen the la$ is so elementary! th"s not to 2no$ it constit"tes gross ignorance of the la$.[**] 3e reiterate $hat $e said in a case[*>] $hich also in#ol#ed the herein respondent! th"s%

A 1"dge sho"ld be faithf"l to the la$ and maintain professional competence. 3hen a 1"dge displays an "tter lac2 of familiarity $ith the r"les! he erodes the confidence of the p"blic in the co"rts. A 1"dge o$es the p"blic and the co"rt the d"ty to be proficient in the la$ and is e,pected to 2eep abreast of la$s and pre#ailing 1"rispr"dence. <gnorance of the la$ by a 1"dge can easily be the mainspring of in1"stice. <n his -omment! respondent contends that 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0* had already been dismissed per his 8esol"tion dated )"ne *1! *00*! th"s the instant administrati#e complaint has become moot and academic. <n dismissing the case! respondent e,plained that in the co"rse of the in#entory of all his pending cases! he fo"nd an "nresol#ed omnib"s motion to set aside the orders dated +arch / and &! *00* and to dismiss the case filed by FA 97s co"nsel and since the allegations $ere fo"nd to be $ellA ta2en! he granted the motion by setting aside his earlier orders and dismissed the case. 3e are not pers"aded. 3e find the belated action on complainant7s omnib"s motion as a mere aftertho"ght beca"se the same $as filed as early as +arch 1*! *00*. 8espondent co"ld ha#e easily reconsidered his pre#io"s ;rders dated +arch / and &! *00*. <n fact! the ;rder dated April **! *00* in -orporate -ase No. 010! $hich $e fo"nd to ha#e been iss"ed $hen respondent had no a"thority to do so beca"se of his ;rder of inhibition! had e#en reiterated his pre#io"s order for FA 9 to release the /!000!000.00 to :at" 4aripada Ali acas"m. +oreo#er! the iss"ance of respondent7s ;rder dated +ay ?! *00*! directing the sheriff of +a2ati -ity to ta2e c"stody of the f"ndsJchec2 in the name of A-A4K+ -;GG9G9! <N-.! in the amo"nt of / million pesos for release to 4A8< A:A AG< A-A4K+! residentJ-hairman of the said school thro"gh garnishment proceedings! $as already tantamo"nt to a denial of the omnib"s motion. Th"s! the fact that the omnib"s motion $as s"bse."ently granted by respondent and 4pecial -i#il Action No. =1>A0* $as dismissed! $o"ld not absol#e respondent from administrati#e liability. Finally! this is respondent7s third offense. @e had pre#io"sly been fined and sternly $arned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the f"t"re $ill be dealt $ith most se#erely. 3e find the penalty recommended by ;-A to be reasonable for respondent7s offense. 3@989F;89! respondent )"dge 4antos B. Adiong of the 8egional Trial -o"rt! Branch =! +ara$i -ity! is hereby fo"nd GK<GTL of gross ignorance of the la$ and ab"se of a"thority and is hereby s"spended for a period of si, (?) months $itho"t pay! effecti#e immediately! $ith a $arning that the commission of a similar act in the f"t"re $ill $arrant his dismissal from the ser#ice.

4; ;8:989:.

GA8-<A! ).% <n the petition of )an"ary >1! *00? filed $ith the <ntegrated Bar of the hilippines (<B )! Atty. 9lly 5. amatong! representing the <nternational +ilitia of eople against -orr"ption and Terrorism! see2s the disbarment of retired -hief )"stice @ilario G. :a#ide! )r.

Kpon receipt of the petition! doc2eted at the <B as -B: -ase No. 0?A1?/?! the <B -ommission on Bar :iscipline (-B:)! thro"gh :irector 8ogelio A. 5inl"an! iss"ed on Febr"ary *! *00? an ;rder directing the respondent to s"bmit an ans$er $ithin fifteen (1&) days from receipt of the ;rder. The ;rder $as apparently not sent to the correct address of the respondent! for the -B: s"bse."ently directed the petitioner to f"rnish the -ommission $ith the respondent7s appropriate address. ;n A"g"st *! *00?! :irector 5inl"an for$arded to the -o"rt the records of -B: -ase No. 0?A1?/?. 8ecords sho$ that respondent :a#ide came to 2no$ of the e,istence of the petition to disbar only after being ser#ed a copy of the -o"rt7s 8esol"tion dated )"ly 1=! *00?! noting (a) the +ay *'! *00? 1st <ndorsement of then -hief )"stice Artemio 5. anganiban referring to the -o"rt a copy of the ;rder of Febr"ary *! *00?! s"pra! of the <B :irector on Bar :iscipline! and b) the said ;rder. 4hortly after obtaining a copy of the petition in ."estion! respondent filed on No#ember ?! *00?! a +;T<;N T; :<4+<44 $ith a prayer that! in relation to his ;rder of Febr"ary *! *00? ad#erted to! :irector 5inl"an be ordered to sho$ ca"se $hy he sho"ld not be held in contempt of co"rt for "s"rpation of po$er. A per"sal of the petition readily sho$s that the ca"ses of action en"merated therein! namely% 1. ;#erthro$ of a d"ly elected presidentB *. Abandonment of impeachment proceedings against resident 9stradaB >. Ks"rpation of the re#en"eAraising po$er of -ongressB /. Fail"re to cooperate in gi#ing d"e co"rse to impeachment proceedings against himB &. Negligence in handling the electionArelated case of the petitionerB and ?. ersec"tion of the petitioner! are not gro"nds for disbarment. They are! as the respondent correctly obser#ed! all related to incidents or proceedings $hile he $as -hief )"stice and are related to or connected $ith the e,ercise of his a"thority or the performance of his official d"ties. <t cannot be o#erAemphasi6ed that the bona fides of s"ch discharge of d"ty and a"thority are pres"med. Not lost to the -o"rt is the fact that the petition is s"mmary in form and consists! for the most part! of selfAser#ing and grat"ito"s concl"sions and offensi#e inn"endoes! $hen the 8"les of -o"rt re."ires that a complaint for disbarment shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be s"pported by affida#its of persons ha#ing personal 2no$ledge of the facts therein alleged andJor by s"ch doc"ments as may s"bstantiate s"ch facts.[1] The -o"rt also notes that the petitioner filed this case o"t of ignorance of the a"thority of the -o"rt and ho$ it operates! as typified by his condemnation of the respondent and a gro"p of 1"stices for imposing $hat he percei#es to be e,orbitant filing fees $hen! according to him! the re#en"e raising po$er of the go#ernment is e,cl"si#ely #ested "pon the legislati#e branch.

<n both form and s"bstance! the instant petition deser#es to be dismissed o"tright. ;n the matter of citing -B: :irector 8ogelio A. 5inl"an for contempt! $e note that the petition! as pointed o"t by the respondent! $as filed $ith the -o"rt! albeit thro"gh the <B . <n effect! the petition $as directly in#o2ing the primary 1"risdiction of the -o"rt. Accordingly! the -B: sho"ld ha#e immediately referred the petition to the -o"rt for s"ch action it may deem appropriate to ta2e! instead of ass"ming initial 1"risdiction thereon by ordering the respondent to s"bmit an ans$er. The foregoing not$ithstanding! the -o"rt loathes to initiate contempt proceedings against :irector 5inl"an on acco"nt alone of his ha#ing iss"ed the ;rder of Febr"ary *! *00?. As it $ere! there is no indication that he harbored illA$ill to$ard the respondent or $as mo#ed by a malicio"s desire to "ndermine the a"thority and 1"risdiction of the -o"rt. Far from it. For :irector 5inl"an! do"btless after reali6ing his mista2e or being apprised of e,tant r"les relating to disbarment proceedings! iss"ed! on )"ne ?! *00?! an ;rder recalling his earlier ;rder of Febr"ary *! *00? and re."ired Atty. amatong to file his petition to disbar directly $ith the -o"rt p"rs"ant to its e,isting r"les and g"idelines relating to retired 1"stices and 1"dges. <ndeed! as an immediate offAshoot of the matter at hand! the -o"rt! by 8esol"tion dated 4eptember &! *00?! appro#ed in principle the amendment of 4-irc"lar No. >A=' s"ch that the <B is henceforth re."ired to for$ard to the -o"rt for appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment and discipline filed $ith the <B against all 1"stices and 1"dges! sitting or retired! for acts andJor omissions committed d"ring their ten"re in the 1"diciary. 3@989F;89! the -o"rt resol#es as follo$s% 1. The instant petition for disbarment against retired -hief )"stice @ilario G. :a#ide! )r. is hereby :<4+<449: for "tter lac2 of meritB and *. The motion to cite <B -ommission on Bar :iscipline :irector 8ogelio A. 5inl"an for contempt is :9N<9:. @e or his s"ccessor! as the case may be! is admonished! ho$e#er! to be more circ"mspect in disposing of similar petition or complaint to disbar in the f"t"re.

4; ;8:989:.