July 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics

Posted on August 15, 2011 by Ramon G. Songco Here are selected July 2011 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty and conduct !re#udicial. A com!laint &as filed against t e res!ondent alleging t at e acce!ted em!loyment as " ief Judicial Staff 'fficer of t e Su!reme "ourt, and t us recei(ed salaries and ot er benefits as suc , & ile still remaining an acti(e member and officer of t e P ili!!ine )ational Police *P)P+. , e "ourt found t at res!ondent &as liable for gross dis onesty and conduct !re#udicial to t e best interest of t e ser(ice. His non-disclosure of t e material fact t at e &as still em!loyed as an acti(e member of t e P)P and recei(ing is mont ly salaries during t e !eriod t at e &as already a "ourt em!loyee is considered substantial !roof t at e tried to c eat.defraud bot t e P)P and t e "ourt. Res!ondent transgressed t e "onstitution and t e "i(il Ser(ice la& on t e !ro ibition on dual em!loyment and double com!ensation in t e go(ernment ser(ice. Re: Gross violation of Civil Service Law on the prohibition against dual employment and double compensation in the government service committed by Mr. Eduardo . Escala! etc. ".M. #o. $%&&'%('SC! )uly *! $%&& "ourt !ersonnel% effect of absences &it out a!!ro(ed lea(e. An administrati(e case &as filed against "abrera, a /tility 0or1er in t e 2,"" of 3i!a "ity, & o as failed to file is 4aily ,ime Records *4,Rs+ and to see1 lea(e for any of is absences. , e "ourt eld t at !ursuant to t e 'mnibus Rules on 3ea(e, an em!loyee5s absence &it out official lea(e for at least 60 &or1ing days &arrants is se!aration from t e ser(ice. A !ublic office is a !ublic trust. Public officers must at all times be accountable to t e !eo!le, ser(e t em &it t e utmost degree of res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. 7y going on A0'3, "abrera grossly disregarded and neglected t e duties of is office. He failed to ad ere to t e ig standards of !ublic accountability im!osed on all t ose in go(ernment ser(ice. Re: +ropping from the Rolls of Cornelio Reniette Cabrera! etc. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$-(.. )uly &/! $%&& "ourt !ersonnel% abitual tardiness. Res!ondent, a cler1 of court of t e R," in 3ucena "ity, &as found to a(e been tardy in re!orting for &or1 more t an ten times eac mont from July to 'ctober 2010. "i(il Ser(ice 2emorandum "ircular )o. 26, Series of 1889 !ro(ides t at :any em!loyee s all be considered abitually tardy if e incurs tardiness, regardless of t e number of minutes, ten *10+ times a mont for at least t&o *2+ mont s in a semester or at least t&o *2+ consecuti(e mont s during t e year. Habitual tardiness is an administrati(e offense t at seriously com!romises &or1 efficiency and am!ers !ublic ser(ice. 7y being abitually tardy, res!ondent as fallen s ort of t e stringent standard of conduct demanded from e(eryone connected &it t e administration of #ustice. , e "ler1 of "ourt !lays a (ital role in ensuring t e !rom!t and sound administration of #ustice. 2oral obligations, !erformance of ouse old c ores, traffic !roblems and ealt , domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to e;cuse abitual tardiness. Re: Leave +ivision! 0ffice of "dministrative Services! 0C" v. 1rancisco ". ,ua! )r. Cler2 of Court ! R3C! 4r. **! Lucena City. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$-(*. )uly &/! $%&&

"ourt !ersonnel% abitual tardiness. , e 3ea(e 4i(ision of t e 'ffice of t e "ourt Administrator *'"A+ re!orted on t e tardiness incurred by res!ondent court stenogra! er. , e '"A recommended t at t e case be redoc1eted as a regular administrati(e matter and t at s e be re!rimanded for abitual tardiness &it a &arning t at a re!etition of t e same or similar offense &ould &arrant t e im!osition of a more se(ere !enalty. 2oral obligations, !erformance of ouse old c ores, traffic !roblems, ealt conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to e;cuse abitual tardiness. Res!ondent submitted an ans&er to t e com!laint ac1no&ledging er infraction and begging t e indulgence of t e "ourt. , e "ourt found t e !enalty of se(ere re!rimand to be !ro!er for er infraction. 0ffice of the "dministrative Services! 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Leda 0. 5ri! etc. ".M. #o. ,'&%'$6*$. )uly $7! $%&& "ourt !ersonnel% misconduct. Res!ondent s eriff &as c arged &it negligence and gra(e misconduct as e &as allegedly negligent in le(ying u!on a motor (e icle and !roceeding &it its auction sale &it out loo1ing into t e car5s "ertificate of Registration to determine & et er it &as encumbered or not. , e "ourt eld t at it &as irrele(ant for t e com!lainant to argue t at t e res!ondent failed to c ec1 t e car5s certificate of registration to determine if it &as encumbered because t e encumbrance, until foreclosed, &ill not in any &ay affect t e #udgment debtor5s rig ts o(er t e !ro!erty or e;em!t t e !ro!erty from t e le(y in any e(ent. A s eriff5s duty to e;ecute a &rit is sim!ly ministerial and e is bound to !erform only t ose tas1s stated under t e Rules of "ourt and no more. Any interest a t ird !arty may a(e on t e !ro!erty le(ied u!on by t e s eriff to enforce a #udgment is t e t ird !arty5s res!onsibility to !rotect t roug t e remedies !ro(ided under Rule 68 of t e Rules of "ourt. Golden Sun 1inance Corporation! rep by Rachelle L. Marmito vs. Ricardo R. "lbano! etc! ".M. #o. ,'&&'$666. )uly $7! $%&& "ourt !ersonnel% s eriff5s duty to gi(e notice !rior to demolition. 0it res!ect to S eriff "alsenia, t e "ourt finds t at e failed to strictly com!ly &it t e re<uirement of !rior notice to (acate before demolition as re<uired by t e rules. =t is t e duty of t e s eriff to gi(e notice of suc &rit and demand from t e defendant to (acate t e !ro!erty &it in t ree days. 'nly after suc !eriod can t e s eriff enforce t e &rit by t e bodily remo(al of defendant and is !ersonal belongings. , e la& discourages any form of arbitrary and o!!ressi(e conduct in t e e;ecution of an ot er&ise legitimate act. Any act de(iating from t e !rocedure !rescribed by t e Rules of "ourt is tantamount to misconduct and necessitates disci!linary action. Spouses Sur and Rita illa! et al. v. ,residing )udge Roberto L. "yco! et al. ".M. #o. R3)'&&'$$6(. )uly &/! $%&& Judge% gross ignorance of t e la&. Res!ondent Judge failed to conduct a !re-trial conference contrary to elementary rules of !rocedure & ic e s ould a(e 1no&n all too &ell considering is long years of ser(ice in t e benc . Suc ignorance of a basic rule in court !rocedure, as failing to conduct !re-trial, sadly amounts to gross ignorance and &arrants a corres!onding !enalty. As to t e allegations of !oor #udgment and gross ignorance of basic legal !rinci!les in granting t e motions for e;ecution !ending a!!eal for flimsy and unsu!!orted reasons, t e !articular reasons relied u!on by res!ondent #udge for issuing t e &rit of e;ecution !ending a!!eal are so unreliably &ea1 and feeble t at it ig lig ts t e lac1 of 1no&ledge of res!ondent #udge &it regard to t e !ro!er a!!reciation of arguments. 4ire financial conditions of t e !laintiffs su!!orted by mere self-ser(ing statements as :good reason> for t e issuance of a &rit of e;ecution !ending a!!eal does not stand on solid footing. =t does not e(en stand on its o&n. #ational ,ower Corporation! represented its ,resident Cyril +el Callar vs. )udge Santos 4. "diong! Regional 3rial Court! 4R. 6! Marawi City! ".M. #o. R3)'%7'$%.%. )uly $7! $%&&

Judge% gross misconduct. Judge Rabang, a #udge of t e 2,"" in "otabato "ity, left t e P ili!!ines in 2ay 200? &it out an a!!ro(ed lea(e and as remained abroad and absent from is court for more t an four years. Suc attitude betrays is lac1 of concern for is office. He as abandoned is office and committed gross misconduct. , e "ode of Judicial "onduct decrees t at a #udge s ould administer #ustice im!artially and &it out delay. A #udge s ould li1e&ise be imbued &it a ig sense of duty and res!onsibility in t e disc arge of is obligation to !rom!tly administer #ustice. , e trial court #udges being t e !aradigms of #ustice in t e first instance a(e been e; orted to dis!ose of t e court5s business !rom!tly and to decide cases &it in t e re<uired !eriod because delay results in undermining t e !eo!le5s fait in t e #udiciary from & om t e !rom!t earing of t eir su!!lications is antici!ated and e;!ected, and reinforces in t e minds of t e litigants t e im!ression t at t e & eels of #ustice grind e(er so slo&ly. Re: "pplication for indefinite leave and travel abroad of ,res. )udge 1rancisco ,. Rabang 888! M3CC! Cotabato City. ".M. #o. %7'-'$&('M3CC. )uly $.! $%&& Judge% undue delay in rendering a decision. 0it res!ect to Judge Ayco, t e "ourt stresses t at t e !ro!riety or im!ro!riety of t e motion for reconsideration is #udicial in nature and t erefore, beyond t e sco!e of t is administrati(e !roceedings. He o&e(er, cannot be e;cused for t e delay in resol(ing com!lainants5 motion for reconsideration. @ailure to decide a case or resol(e a motion &it in t e reglementary !eriod constitutes gross inefficiency and &arrants t e im!osition of administrati(e sanction against t e erring #udge. Spouses Sur and Rita illa! et al. v. ,residing )udge Roberto L. "yco! et al. ".M. #o. R3)'&&'$$6(. )uly &/! $%&&

August 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on Se!tember 26, 2011 by Ramon G. Songco Here are selected August 2011 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty and gross neglect of duty. =t must be stressed t at s eriffs are not allo&ed to recei(e any voluntary !ayments from !arties in t e course of t e !erformance of t eir duties. "orollary, a s eriff cannot #ust unilaterally demand sums of money from a !arty-litigant &it out obser(ing t e !rocedural ste!s under Section 8, Rule 1A1 of t e Rules of "ourt$ *1+ !re!are an estimate of e;!enses to be incurred in e;ecuting t e &rit, for & ic e must see1 t e court5s a!!ro(al% *2+ render an accounting% and *6+ issue an official recei!t for t e total amount e recei(ed from t e #udgment debtor. @ailure to obser(e t ese ste!s &ould amount to dis onesty or e;tortion. 2oreo(er, Section 1A, Rule 68 of t e Rules of "ourt clearly !ro(ides t at it is mandatory for s eriffs to e;ecute and ma1e a return on t e &rit of e;ecution &it in 60 days from recei!t of t e &rit and e(ery 60 days t ereafter until it is satisfied in full or its effecti(ity e;!ires. B(en if t e &rits are unsatisfied or only !artially satisfied, s eriffs must still file t e re!orts so t at t e court, as &ell as t e litigants, may be informed of t e !roceedings underta1en to im!lement t e &rit. Here, t e long delay in t e e;ecution of t e #udgments and t e failure to accom!lis t e re<uired !eriodic re!orts demonstrate res!ondent s eriff5s gross neglect and gross inefficiency in t e !erformance of is official duties. 3i1e&ise, res!ondent s eriff5s recei!t of money in is official ca!acity and is failure to turn o(er t e amount to t e cler1 of

court is an act of misa!!ro!riation of funds amounting to dis onesty. ,roserpina . "nico v. Emerson 4. ,ilipi9a! Sheriff 8 ! 0ffice of the Cler2 of Court! Regional 3rial Court! Manila. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$6-.. "ugust $! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% inefficiency and incom!etence in t e !erformance of official duties . , e "ourt found 'fficer-in-" arge *'="+ Bster Asilo administrati(ely liable for er inaccurate !re!aration of mont ly case re!orts, ine!t monitoring of case records, and incom!etent su!er(ision of court !ersonnel. A "ler1 of "ourt is an essential officer in any #udicial system, er office being t e center of acti(ities, bot ad#udicati(e and administrati(e. , us, '=" Asilo must recogniCe t at er administrati(e functions are #ust as (ital to t e !rom!t and !ro!er administration of #ustice. S e cannot !roffer as an e;cuse t at s e merely in erited and continued t e !rocedure follo&ed !rior to er designation. /!on acce!tance of er designation, er first concern &as to 1no& er assumed duties and res!onsibilities es!ecially & en administrati(e circulars, issuances and manual of cler1s of court are at and. #ilda erginesa'Suare: v. )udge Renato ). +ilag and Court Stenographer 888 Concepcion ". ,ascua and 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )udge Renato ). +ilag. Ester ". "silo! 0fficer'in'Charge! Court Stenographer 888! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch 7/! 0longapo City! ;ambales and "tty. Ronald +. Gavino! +eputy Cler2 of Court! 0ffice of the Cler2 of Court! Regional trial Court! 0longapo City. ".M. #o. R3)'%.'$%&( and ".M. #o. R3)'&&'$$-/. "ugust &.! $%&& "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le misconduct. Giganto and DalenCuela, co-&or1ers in t e Personnel 4i(ision of 'AS-'"A, got in(ol(ed in a fistfig t for & ic t ey &ere found guilty of sim!le misconduct by t e "ourt. =n com!uting t eir !enalties, t e "ourt considered t eir lengt of ser(ice, satisfactory !erformance ratings, and number of !re(ious administrati(e c arges as mitigating, aggra(ating and alternati(e circumstances, as t e case may be. ,ime and again, t e "ourt as stressed t e need for t e conduct and be a(ior of e(ery !erson connected &it t e dis!ensation of #ustice to be c aracteriCed by !ro!riety and decorum. , is standard is a!!lied, not only &it res!ect to a court em!loyee5s dealings &it t e !ublic, but also &it is or er co&or1ers in t e ser(ice. "onduct (iolati(e of t is standard <uic1ly and surely erodes res!ect for t e courts. 2isbe a(ior &it in and around t e court5s (icinity diminis es t e court5s sanctity and dignity. Any fig ting or misunderstanding becomes a disgraceful sig t reflecting ad(ersely on t e good image of t e Judiciary. Re: Letter'Complaint of Mr. Recarredo S. alen:uela! Cler2 8 ! ,ersonnel +ivision! 0"S'0C" against Mr. Ricardo R. Giganto! 5tility <or2er 88! ,ersonnel +ivision! 0"S'0C". ".M. #o. $%&&'%&'SC. "ugust $/! $%&&.

September 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on 'ctober 2A, 2011 by Ramon G. Songco Here are selected rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% filing of baseless com!laint. Res!ondents cannot be eld liable for #udiciously !erforming t eir s&orn duty to obser(e and follo& court !roceedings as !ro(ided by t e Rules. "om!lainant a!!arently filed t is com!laint !rimarily to di(ert t e attention of is client from is s ortcomings as its counsel, if not to sim!ly arass t e res!ondents. A la&yer & o files an

unfounded com!laint must be sanctioned because, as an officer of t e court, e does not disc arge is duty by filing fri(olous !etitions t at only add to t e &or1load of t e #udiciary. Suc filing of baseless com!laints is contem!tuous of t e courts. "om!lainant &as ordered to s o& cause & y e s ould not be sub#ected to disci!linary action for filing a fri(olous and baseless com!laint. "tty. Emmanuel R. "ndamo v. )udge Edwin G. Larida! )r.! Cler2 of Court Stanlee +. Calma and Legal Researcher +iana G. Rui:! all of Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch &6 3agytay City. ".M. #o. R3)'&&'$$.*. September $&! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty. , e !ractice of res!ondent in offsetting er collection is not allo&ed under accounting and auditing rules and regulations. 7y failing to !ro!erly remit t e cas collections constituting !ublic funds, s e (iolated t e trust re!osed in er as disbursement officer of t e Judiciary. 3i1e&ise, er claim t at s e did not 1no& t at s e is t e accountable officer for t e court collections does not con(ince t e "ourt. "ler1s of "ourt are !resumed to 1no& t eir duty to immediately de!osit &it t e aut oriCed go(ernment de!ositories t e (arious funds t ey recei(e, for t ey are not su!!osed to 1ee! funds in t eir !ersonal !ossession. Her failure to de!osit t e said amount u!on collection &as !re#udicial to t e court, & ic did not earn interest income on t e said amount or &as not able to ot er&ise use t e said funds. , e "ourt found res!ondent guilty of dis onesty and dismissed er from t e ser(ice. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. Evelyn Elumbaring! Cler2 of Court 88! & st Municipal Circuit 3rial Court! Carmen'Sto. 3omas'4raulio E. +u=ali! +avao del #orte. ".M. #o. ,'&%'$7.*. September &/! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% failure to !erform duty. Res!ondent admitted t at e failed to ser(e t e )otice of Pre-,rial "onference and Pre-,rial to com!lainant, u!on instruction of t e #udge, since t e com!lainant &as already informed of t e sc eduled earing. Res!ondent, as !rocess ser(er, is reminded to !erform is duty diligently for t e orderly administration of #ustice. , ere is a need to ser(e t e notice on t e com!lainant not only to ma1e t e act official but also to enable im to ma1e t e !ro!er return to reflect & at trans!ired. , e !ossibility t at t e com!lainant mig t deny t at e ad been so informed by t e Judge is not remote. Col. Mauricio ". Santiago! )r. v. "rthur M. Camangyan! ,rocess Server! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch $-! 3oledo City. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$-77. September &(! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le misconduct. /!on recei!t of t e !rocess ser(er fee, res!ondent issued an ac1no&ledgment recei!t instead of an official recei!t. , is is in (iolation of t e Su!reme "ourt "ircular )o. 2E-8? & ic mandates t e issuance of official recei!ts for !ayments recei(ed. Her e;!lanation t at t e ac1no&ledgment recei!t &as sufficient since t e !rocess ser(er fee s e collected &as not !art of t e Judiciary 4e(elo!ment @und, S!ecial Allo&ance for t e Judiciary or sub#ected to any fund allocation &as not a (alid #ustification for er noncom!liance &it t e court circular. S e (iolated t e trust and confidence re!osed in er as cas ier and disbursement officer of t e court. , e "ourt &ill not tolerate any conduct, act or omission by any court em!loyee (iolating t e norm of !ublic accountability and diminis ing or tending to diminis t e fait of t e !eo!le in t e Judiciary. +olores C. Seliger v. "lma ,. Licay! Cler2 of Court! Municipal Circuit 3rial Court! San )uan! La 5nion. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$-7%. September &(! $%&&.

October 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on )o(ember 11, 2011 by Ramon G. Songco Here are selected 'ctober 2011 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% dis onesty. =t is clear from t e records t at res!ondent Atty. BdiCa decei(ed t e S!ouses @loran & en e as1ed t em to un1no&ingly sign a deed of sale transferring a !ortion of t eir land to im. Res!ondent also made it a!!ear t at t e original o&ner of t e land con(eyed er rig ts t erto to res!ondent and not to t e S!ouses @loran. 0 en t e sale of t e S!ouses @loran5s land !us ed t roug , res!ondent recei(ed alf of t e !roceeds gi(en by t e buyer and falsely misled t e S!ouses @loran into t in1ing t at e &ill register t e remaining !ortion of t e land. 3amentably, Atty. BdiCa !layed on t e naF(etG of t e S!ouses @loran to de!ri(e t em of t eir (alued !ro!erty. , is is an unsa(ory be a(ior from a member of t e legal !rofession. Aside from gi(ing ade<uate attention, care and time to is client5s case, a la&yer is also e;!ected to be trut ful, fair and onest in !rotecting is client5s rig ts. 'nce a la&yer fails in t is duty, e is not true to is oat as a la&yer. Res!ondent la&yer (iolated Rule 1.01 of "anon 1, "anon 15, and Rule 19.06 of "anon 19 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility for & ic e is sus!ended from t e !ractice of la& for si; mont s. #emesio 1loran and Caridad 1loran v. "tty. Roy ,rule Edi:a. ".C. #o. */$*. 0ctober &-! $%&&. Attorney% gra(e misconduct. Res!ondent attorney &as found to a(e (iolated Rule 1.01 of "anon 1 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. Res!ondent5s actions clearly s o& t at s e decei(ed com!lainant into lending money to er t roug t e use of documents and false re!resentations and by ta1ing ad(antage of er education and com!lainant5s ignorance in legal matters. As manifested by com!lainant, e &ould a(e ne(er granted t e loan to res!ondent &ere it not for res!ondent5s misre!resentation t at s e &as aut oriCed to sell t e !ro!erty and t at com!lainant could register t e :o!en> deed of sale if res!ondent fails to !ay t e loan. 7y er misdeed, res!ondent as eroded not only com!lainant5s !erce!tion of t e legal !rofession but t e !ublic5s !erce!tion as &ell. Her actions constitute gross misconduct for & ic s e may be disci!lined. 3omas ,. 3an! )r. v. "tty. >aide . Gumba. ".C. #o. -%%%. 0ctober *! $%&&. Attorney% misconduct. 0it is admission t at e drafted and notariCed anot er instrument t at did not state t e true consideration of t e sale so as to reduce t e ca!ital gains and ot er ta;es due on t e transaction, res!ondent cannot esca!e liability for ma1ing an untrut ful statement in a !ublic document for an unla&ful !ur!ose. As t e second deed indicated an amount muc lo&er t an t e actual !rice !aid for t e !ro!erty sold, res!ondent abetted in de!ri(ing t e Go(ernment of t e rig t to collect t e correct ta;es due. )ot only did res!ondent assist t e contracting !arties in an acti(ity aimed at defiance of t e la&, e li1e&ise dis!layed lac1 of res!ect for and made a moc1ery of t e solemnity of t e oat in an Ac1no&ledgment . 7y notariCing suc illegal and fraudulent document, e is entitling it full fait and credit u!on its face, & ic it ob(iously does not deser(e considering its nature and !ur!ose. Res!ondent5s actions (iolated not only Rule 1.02, "anon 1 of t e "ode of Res!onsibility, but !ertinent sections of t e 200A Rules on )otarial Practice as &ell. , us, res!ondent is meted t e !enalty of re(ocation of notarial commission and sus!ension from t e !ractice of la& for a !eriod of t&o years. ,acita Caalim' er:onilla v. "tty. ictoriano G. ,ascua. ".C. #o. ..**. 0ctober &&! $%&&.

Attorney% notariCation. , e fact t at t e affiant !re(iously a!!eared in !erson and signed t e 4eed of 4onation before t e res!ondent notary !ublic does not #ustify t e res!ondent5s act of notariCing t e 4eed of 4onation, considering t e affiant5s absence on t e (ery day t e document &as actually notariCed. =n t e notarial ac1no&ledgment of t e 4eed of 4onation, res!ondent attested t at Atty. 3inco !ersonally came and a!!eared before im on July 60, 2006. Het ob(iously, Atty. 3inco could not a(e a!!eared before im on July 60, 2006, because t e latter died on July 28, 2006 I a day before t e 4eed of 4onation &as notariCed, and res!ondent &as a&are of t at fact. "learly, res!ondent made a false statement and (iolated Rule 10.01 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility and is oat as a la&yer. @ait ful obser(ance and utmost res!ect of t e legal solemnity of t e oat in an ac1no&ledgment or #urat is sacrosanct. Res!ondent s ould not notariCe a document unless t e !ersons & o signed t e same are t e (ery same !ersons & o e;ecuted and personally appeared be ore him to attest to t e contents and trut of & at are stated t erein. "tty. 1lorita S. Linco v. "tty. )immy +. Lacebal. ".C. #o. 7$(&. 0ctober &7! $%&&. Attorney% notariCation of illegal document. A notary !ublic s ould not facilitate t e disintegration of a marriage and t e family by encouraging t e se!aration of t e s!ouses and e;tra#udicially dissol(ing t e con#ugal !artners i!, & ic is e;actly & at res!ondent did in t is case. =n !re!aring and notariCing an agreement for e;tra#udicial dissolution of marriage J a (oid document J res!ondent (iolated Rule 1.01, "anon 1 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility & ic !ro(ides t at :KaL la&yer s all not engage in unla&ful, dis onest, immoral or deceitful conduct.> Res!ondent 1ne& fully &ell t at t e : ?asunduan #g ,aghihiwalay> as no legal effect and is against !ublic !olicy. , erefore, res!ondent may be sus!ended from office as an attorney for breac of t e et ics of t e legal !rofession as embodied in t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. Rodolfo ". Espinosa and Ma@imo ". Glindo v. "tty. )ulieta ". 0ma9a. ".C. #o. -%6&. 0ctober &$! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty. , e "ourt deems 7enedictos5s falsification of er bundy cards tantamount to dis onesty. , is "ourt as defined dis onesty as t e :*d+is!osition to lie, c eat, decei(e, or defraud% untrust&ort iness% lac1 of integrity% lac1 of onesty, !robity or integrity in !rinci!le% lac1 of fairness and straig tfor&ardness% dis!osition to defraud, decei(e or betray.> 4is onesty, being in t e nature of a gra(e offense, carries t e e;treme !enalty of dismissal from t e ser(ice &it forfeiture of retirement benefits e;ce!t accrued lea(e credits, and !er!etual dis<ualification for reem!loyment in go(ernment ser(ice. Ho&e(er, considering t e !resence of a mitigating factor I t is being 7enedicto5s first administrati(e case in er nineteen years in go(ernment ser(ice I sus!ension for si; mont s is already a sufficient !enalty. 1alsification of daily time records of Ma. Emcisa ". 4enedictos! "dministrative 0fficer 8! Regional 3rial Court! Malolos City! 4ulacan. ".M. #o. ,'&%'$76(. 0ctober &-! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct. , e act of t e res!ondents in causing t e remo(al of se(eral !ages in a co!y of t e 60 2ay 2011 "genda of t e Su!reme "ourt5s Second 4i(ision is a male(olent transgression of t eir duties as court !ersonnelJ!articularly, as em!loyees detailed at t e 'ffice of "ler1 of "ourt I Second 4i(ision *'""-S4+. Suc act is unaut oriCed and a blatant disregard of t e standard o!erating !rocedures obser(ed by t e office in andling confidential documents, suc as t e "genda. =t com!romised t e ability of t e '""-S4 to efficiently !erform its functions and also im!eriled t e en(ironment of confidentiality t e office is su!!osed to be clot ed &it . Res!ondents clearly committed a &illful breac of t e trust re!osed u!on t em by t e "ourt. Supreme Court v. Eddie . +elgado! 5tility <or2er 88! )oseph Lawrence M. Made=a! Cler2 8 ! and <ilfredo ". 1lorendo! 5tility <or2er 88! all of the 0ffice of the Cler2 of Court! Second +ivision. ".M. #o. $%&&'%7'SC. 0ctober (! $%&&.

Judge% failure to file statement of assets and liabilities. Res!ondent clearly (iolated t e AntiGraft and "orru!t Practices Act and t e "ode of "onduct and Bt ical Standards for Public 'fficials and Bm!loyees & en e failed to file is Statement of Assets, 3iabilities and )et 0ort *SA3)+ for t e years 200A-2009. He ga(e no e;!lanation & y e failed to file is SA3) for fi(e consecuti(e years. 0 ile e(ery office in t e go(ernment ser(ice is a !ublic trust, no !osition e;acts a greater demand on moral rig teousness and u!rig tness of an indi(idual t an a seat in t e Judiciary. Hence, #udges are strictly mandated to abide &it t e la&, t e "ode of Judicial "onduct and &it e;isting administrati(e !olicies in order to maintain t e fait of our !eo!le in t e administration of #ustice. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )udge 5yag ,. 5sman! ,residing )udge! ShariAa Circuit Court! ,agadian City. ".M. #o. SCC'%6'&$. 0ctober &-! $%&&. Judge% gross ignorance of t e la&. , e failure of Judge =nfante to conduct a earing !rior to t e grant of bail in a criminal case in(ol(ing a crime !unis able by a ca!ital offense, and is mere reliance on t e recommendation for bail by t e !ublic !rosecutor, &as ine;cusable and reflected gross ignorance of t e la& and t e rules as &ell as a ca(alier disregard of its re<uirement. He &ell 1ne& t at t e determination of & et er or not t e e(idence of guilt is strong &as a matter of #udicial discretion, and t at t e discretion lay not in t e determination of & et er or not a earing s ould be eld, but in t e a!!reciation and e(aluation of t e &eig t of t e Prosecution5s e(idence of guilt against t e accused. His fault &as made &orse by is granting bail des!ite t e absence of a !etition for bail from t e accused. "onse<uently, any order e issued in t e absence of t e re<uisite e(idence &as not a !roduct of sound #udicial discretion but of & im and ca!rice and outrig t arbitrariness. "tty. 1ran2lin G. Gacal v. )udge )aime 8. 8nfante! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch /6! in "label! Sarangani. A.2. )o. R,J-0A-19A5. 'ctober 5, 2011. Judge% undue delay. As early as @ebruary 2?, 2002, t e case ad been submitted for decision, but res!ondent #udge ad yet to render a decision by t e time t e administrati(e com!laint against im &as filed on )o(ember E, 2008. Judges s ould meticulously obser(e t e !eriods !rescribed by t e "onstitution for deciding cases because failure to com!ly &it t e said !eriod transgresses t e !arties5 constitutional rig t to s!eedy dis!osition of t eir cases. , us, failure to decide cases &it in t e ninety *80+-day reglementary !eriod may &arrant im!osition of administrati(e sanctions on t e erring #udge. Ho&e(er, t e "ourt is not unmindful of circumstances t at #ustify t e delay in t e dis!osition of t e cases assigned to #udges. 0 en a #udge sees suc circumstances before t e reglementary !eriod ends, all t at is needed is to sim!ly as1 t e "ourt, &it t e a!!ro!riate #ustification, for an e;tension of time &it in & ic to decide t e case. B(idently, res!ondent Judge failed to do any of t ese o!tions. "ntonio B. Cabasares v. )udge 1ilemon ". 3andinco! )r. Municipal 3rial Court in Cities! 6 th )udicial Region! Calbayog City! <estern Samar. ".M. #o. M3)'&&'&7-/. 0ctober &-! $%&&. S eriff% gross neglect of duty. Res!ondent S eriff &as remiss in !erforming is mandated duties$ first! to gi(e notice of t e &rit and demand t at t e #udgment obligor and all !ersons claiming under im (acate t e !ro!erty &it in t ree *6+ days% second, to enforce t e &rit by remo(ing t e #udgment obligor and all !ersons claiming under t e latter% t ird, to remo(e t e latter5s !ersonal belongings in t e !ro!erty as &ell as destroy, demolis or remo(e t e im!ro(ements constructed t ereon u!on s!ecial court order% and fourt , to e;ecute and ma1e a return on t e &rit &it in 60 days from recei!t of t e &rit and e(ery 60 days t ereafter until it is satisfied in full or until its effecti(ity e;!ires. , e la!se of time I almost t&o years I it too1 for t e res!ondent to unsuccessfully e;ecute t e &rit demonstrates is utter lac1 of diligence in !erforming is duties. 3eresita Guerrero'4oylon v. "niceto 4oyles! Sheriff 888! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities! 4ranch $! Cebu City. ".M. #o. ,'%-'$7&.. 0ctober &&! $%&&.

"o#ember 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on 4ecember 18, 2011 by Ramon G. Songco Here are selected )o(ember 2011 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% aiding illegal !ractice of la&. =t as been establis ed t at 4ela Rosa & o is not a member of t e 7ar misre!resented erself as res!ondent5s collaborating counsel. , ere &as also sufficient e(idence to !ro(e t at res!ondent allo&ed 4ela Rosa to illegally !ractice la&, a!!ear in court, and gi(e legal assistance to res!ondent5s client. , is is in (iolation of "anon 8 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility & ic states t at :KaL la&yer s all not, directly or indirectly, assist in t e unaut oriCed !ractice of la&.> , e term :!ractice of la&> im!lies customarily or abitually olding oneself out to t e !ublic as a la&yer for com!ensation as a source of li(eli ood or in consideration of is ser(ices. Holding one5s self out as a la&yer may be s o&n by acts indicati(e of t at !ur!ose, suc as identifying oneself as attorney, a!!earing in court in re!resentation of a client, or associating oneself as a !artner of a la& office for t e general !ractice of la&. "tty. Edita #oe'Lacsamana v. "tty. Bolando 1. 4usmente. ".C. #o. 7$.-. #ovember $/! $%&&. Attorney% com!etence and diligence re<uired. Res!ondent attorneys &ere engaged to re!resent com!lainant and is son in in a ci(il case for forcible entry and damages. Ho&e(er, res!ondents failed to file an ans&er &it in t e 10-day !eriod re<uired by t e summons and t e Rules of "ourt. Res!ondents claimed t at, to t eir mind, t e ci(il case &as actually for !ossession, not&it standing t at its title is for forcible entry, and t at t ey mista1enly assumed t at t e court &ould first issue an order stating t at t e case falls under t e rules on summary !rocedure before re<uiring t eir clients to ans&er. , ey furt er claimed t at & en no suc order &as issued by t e court, t ey again incorrectly assumed t at t e regular rules of !rocedure &ill a!!ly and t at t ey a(e fifteen days to ans&er. All t ese, &it out see1ing a clarification from t e court or ascertaining e;actly & en t e ans&er s ould be filed and des!ite t e summons issued and ser(ed stating a ten day !eriod to file an ans&er. , e Su!reme "ourt did not find res!ondents5 defenses acce!table as it betrayed a lac1 of necessary com!etence and diligence. , e res!ondents ad in fact been negligent, or &orse, ad failed to e;ercise t e re<uired com!etence and diligence in filing t e ans&er to t e com!laint. Pursuant to Rule 19.06 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility, a la&yer is e;!ected to be ac<uainted &it t e rudiments of la& and legal !rocedure, and a client & o deals &it im as t e rig t to e;!ect not #ust a good amount of !rofessional learning and com!etence but also a & ole- earted fealty to t e client5s cause. Rogelio 1. Estavillo v. "ttys. Gemmo G. Guillermo and Erme S. Labayog. ".C. #o. .6--. #ovember &.! $%&&. Attorney% conflict of interest. Res!ondent attorney drafted a demand letter on be alf of com!lainant in connection &it t e dis onored c ec1s issued by 2s. Moa. =n t e ensuing criminal cases, res!ondent filed a 2otion for "onsolidation on be alf of 2s. Moa and a!!eared at t e !reliminary in(estigation earing as 2s. Moa5s counsel. Res!ondent argued t at no la&yer-client relations i! e;isted bet&een im and com!lainant because t ere &as no !rofessional fee !aid for t e ser(ices e rendered. 2oreo(er, e argued t at e drafted t e demand letter only as a !ersonal fa(or to com!lainant & o is a close friend. A la&yer-client

relations i! can e;ist not&it standing t e close friends i! bet&een com!lainant and res!ondent. , e relations i! &as establis ed t e moment com!lainant soug t legal ad(ice from res!ondent regarding t e dis onored c ec1s. 7y drafting t e demand letter res!ondent furt er affirmed suc relations i!. , e fact t at t e demand letter &as not utiliCed in t e criminal com!laint filed and t at res!ondent &as not e(entually engaged by com!lainant to re!resent er in t e criminal cases is of no moment. 3i1e&ise, t e non-!ayment of !rofessional fee &ill not e;cul!ate res!ondent from liability. Absence of monetary consideration does not e;em!t la&yers from com!lying &it t e !ro ibition against !ursuing cases &it conflicting interests. , e !ro ibition attac es from t e moment t e attorney-client relations i! is establis ed and e;tends beyond t e duration of t e !rofessional relations i!. Lydia Castro')usto v. "tty. Rodolfo Galing. ".C. #o. .&7(. #ovember &.! $%&&. Attorney% gross misconduct. "om!lainant engaged t e legal ser(ices of res!ondent to assist er and er c ild in !ursuing and !rotecting t eir rig ts as eirs of er deceased usband & o &as a 7ritis national, including claiming insurance !roceeds due to t e com!lainant and er c ild, as &ell as !rocessing (isa a!!lications for tra(el to Bngland. Res!ondent solicited (arious sums from t e com!lainant, allegedly for !ur!oses do defraying e;!enses in connection &it t e engagement. Res!ondent admitted a(ing recei(ed money from com!lainant but failed to render an accounting or, at least, a!!rised t e com!lainant of t e actual e;!enses incurred. 0orse, res!ondent e(en inculcated in t e mind of t e com!lainant t at s e ad to ad ere to t e nefarious culture of gi(ing :grease money> or lagay to t e 7ritis Bmbassy !ersonnel! as if it &as an ordinary occurrence in t e normal course of conducting official business transactions as a means to e;!edite t e (isa a!!lications. , is runs afoul t e dictum in Rule 1.01 of "anon 1 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility & ic states t at :a la&yer s all not engage in unla&ful, dis onest, immoral or deceitful conduct.> Res!ondent5s re!eated re!re ensible acts of em!loying c icanery and unbecoming conduct to conceal er &eb of lies, to t e e;tent of mil1ing com!lainant5s finances dry, and deceitfully arrogating u!on erself t e insurance !roceeds t at s ould rig tfully belong to com!lainant, in t e guise of rendering legitimate legal ser(ices, clearly transgressed t e norms of onesty and integrity re<uired in t e !ractice of la&. , is being so, res!ondent s ould be !urged from t e !ri(ilege of e;ercising t e noble legal !rofession. Marites 1reeman v. "tty. ;enaida ,. Reyes. ".C. #o. .$(.. #ovember &*! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct and dis onesty. Res!ondent admitted recei(ing !ay-offs from ,aguinod e(ery time t e "ity Star, t e !a!er !ublis ed by ,aguinod, is a&arded a #udicial notice from 7ranc 21 of t e R," of Santiago "ity for !ublication. Res!ondent5s defense t at e :ne(er demanded any money or any rebate> from ,aguinod does not s!are im from liability. Section 5 of Presidential 4ecree )o. 10?8 not only !ro ibits local court !ersonnel from :demanding> !ay-offs, it also bars recei!t of suc !ay-offs. 7y acce!ting !ay-offs, res!ondent also (iolated Section 2*e+, "anon === of t e "ode of "onduct, mandating t at court !ersonnel s all not :KsLolicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, fa(or, os!itality or ser(ice under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a ma=or purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties .> , ese (iolations of res!ondent constitute gra(e misconduct or corru!t conduct in flagrant disregard of &ell-1no&n legal rules. @urt ermore, by 1ee!ing t e discounts or rebates for imself and t ereby !rofiting from t em, e ad committed a clear case of dis onesty. 1rancisco 3aguinod v. +eputy Sheriff Rolando 3omas! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch $&! Santiago City. ". M. #o. ,'%-'$..%. #ovember $-! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% abitual tardiness. /nder 2emorandum "ircular )o. 26, Series of 1889, :KaLn em!loyee s all be considered abitually tardy if e incurs tardiness, regardless of t e number of

minutes, ten *10+ times a mont for at least t&o *2+ mont s in a semester or at least t&o *2+ consecuti(e mont s during t e year.> =t is clear from t e facts t at "alingasan as been abitually tardy. "onse<uently, as an em!loyee of t e #udiciary, s e failed to li(e u! to t e stringent standard of conduct demanded from e(eryone connected &it t e administration of #ustice. , e e;cuses offered by res!ondent I moral obligations, t e !erformance of ouse old c ores, traffic !roblems, ealt conditions, and domestic and financial concerns I are not sufficient causes to e;cuse abitual tardiness. Leave +ivision'0"S! 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. Laraine 8. Calingasan Stenographer 88! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities! Sta Rosa! Laguna. ".M. #o. ,'&&'/%&%. #ovember $/! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% inefficiency% time for com!letion and submission of ,S). Res!ondent failed to strictly follo& Administrati(e "ircular )o. 2A-80 t at !rescribes a 20-day !eriod from t e time t e notes are ta1en for t e com!letion and submission of t e transcri!t of stenogra! ic notes. Alt oug t e "ourt is solicitous of t e !lig t of court stenogra! ers, being saddled &it ea(y &or1load is not com!elling reason enoug to #ustify res!ondent5s failure to fait fully com!ly &it t e !rescribed !eriod !ro(ided in Administrati(e "ircular )o. 2A-80 and, t us, s e must be faulted. 't er&ise, e(ery go(ernment em!loyee c arged &it inefficiency &ould resort to t e same con(enient e;cuse to e(ade !unis ment, to t e great !re#udice of !ublic ser(ice. Concerned Citi:en v. Maria Concepcion +ivina! Court Stenographer! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch /! 4alanga City! 4ataan. ".M. #o. ,'%7'$/.-. #ovember &.! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le misconduct. Sim!le misconduct as been defined as an unacce!table be a(ior t at transgresses t e establis ed rules of conduct for !ublic officers. Res!ondent5s actions transgressed t e norms of ci(ility e;!ected of #udicial officers, e(en in t eir !ri(ate li(es, and constitute sim!le misconduct t at must be s<uarely !enaliCed. Alt oug beso'beso or air 1issing may be considered a standard greeting bet&een family members, & at res!ondent did &as e not merely greeted is sister-in-la&, but encroac ed into t e territory of un&arranted ad(ances t at offended acce!table standards of decency. Regardless of & et er it reac ed t e le(el of criminal malice or le&dness, is conduct &as unbecoming a court !ersonnel, u!on & om is !laced t e ea(y burden of moral u!rig tness. 4eatri: 4. 0nate v. Severino G. 8matong! )unior ,rocess Server! Municipal Circuit 3rial Court! ,iat! Cagayan. ".M. #o. ,'&&'/%%-. #ovember &.! $%&&. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty. Res!ondent, a security guard at t e "ourt of A!!eals com!ound in 2anila, accidentally fired is ser(ice !istol & ile in t e !rocess of unloading it for turno(er to t e guard on duty for t e ne;t s ift. Res!ondent failed to s o& t at is ser(ice !istol &as not mec anically sound at t at time. =n ruling out mec anical causes, it can only be concluded t at t e undesired disc arge of res!ondent5s ser(ice !istol &as t e result of is o&n negligence% in t e usual course of t ings, a firearm t at is being unloaded s ould not disc arge if gun safety !rocedures ad been strictly follo&ed. Ho&e(er, &e cannot consider t e res!ondent5s negligence as gross in nature because t ere is not ing in t e records to s o& t at t e res!ondent &illfully and intentionally fired is ser(ice !istol. Also, at t e time of t e incident, t e res!ondent did obser(e most of t e safety measures re<uired in unloading is firearm. Court of "ppeals by: C0C 3eresita Marigomen v. EnriCue Manabat )r.! Security Guard 8! Court of "ppeals! Manila. ".M. #o. C"'&&'$(',. #ovember &.! $%&&.

December 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on January 11, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Here are selected 4ecember 2011 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Affida(it of 4esistance% no effect on disci!linary !roceeding. =t bears to stress t at a case of sus!ension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a com!lainant in a ci(il case but is intended to cleanse t e ran1s of t e legal !rofession or its undesirable members in order to !rotect t e !ublic and t e courts. =t is not an in(estigation into t e acts of res!ondent as a usband but on is conduct as an officer of t e "ourt and is fitness to continue as a member of t e 7ar. Hence, t e Affida(it dated 2arc 15, 1885, & ic is a1in to an affida(it of desistance, cannot a(e t e effect of abating t e instant !roceedings. Elpidio ,. 3iong vs. "tty. George M. 1lorendo. ".C. #o. (($6. +ecember &$! $%&& Attorney% gross immorality. Possession of good moral c aracter is not only a condition for admission to t e 7ar but is a continuing re<uirement to maintain one5s good standing in t e legal !rofession. =t is t e bounden duty of la& !ractitioners to obser(e t e ig est degree of morality in order to safeguard t e integrity of t e 7ar. "onse<uently, any errant be a(ior on t e !art of a la&yer, be it in is !ublic or !ri(ate acti(ities, & ic tends to s o& im deficient in moral c aracter, onesty, !robity or good demeanor, is sufficient to &arrant is sus!ension or disbarment. Res!ondent5s act of a(ing an affair &it is client5s &ife manifested is disres!ect for t e la&s on t e sanctity of marriage and is o&n marital (o& of fidelity. =t s o&ed is utmost moral de!ra(ity and lo& regard for is !rofession. He also (iolated t e trust and confidence re!osed on im by t e com!lainant, & ic in itself is !ro ibited under "anon 1? of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. Elpidio ,. 3iong vs. "tty. George M. 1lorendo. ".C. #o. (($6. +ecember &$! $%&& Attorney% gross misconduct% ine;cusable ignorance of &ell-establis ed rules of !rocedures. , e res!ondent, & ile an 2," #udge, acce!ted a !etition for declaratory relief filed by t e 2unici!al "ouncil of San @ernando, Pam!anga, assigned it to imself, and acted on it, all on t e same day and &it out issuing summons or gi(ing notice to t e com!lainant & o &as t e !art ad(ersely affected by t e resolution sub#ect of t e 2unici!al "ouncil5s !etition. , e )e& "ode of Judicial "onduct for t e P ili!!ine Judiciary mandates t at #udges must not only maintain t eir inde!endence, integrity and im!artiality but t ey must also a(oid any a!!earance of im!ro!riety or !artiality, & ic may erode t e !eo!le5s fait in t e #udiciary. =ntegrity and im!artiality, as &ell as t e a!!earance t ereof, are deemed essential not #ust in t e !ro!er disc arge of #udicial office, but also to t e !ersonal demeanor of #udges. , is standard a!!lies not only to t e decision itself, but also to t e !rocess by & ic t e decision is made. As a member of t e bar and former #udge, res!ondent is e;!ected to be &ell-(ersed in t e Rules of Procedure. , is is e;!ected u!on members of t e legal !rofession because members i! in t e bar is in t e category of a mandate for !ublic ser(ice of t e ig est order. 3a&yers are oat -bound ser(ants of society & ose conduct is clearly circumscribed by infle;ible norms of la& and et ics, and & ose !rimary duty is t e ad(ancement of t e <uest for trut and #ustice, for & ic t ey a(e s&orn to be fearless

crusaders. 'ffice of t e "ourt Administrator (s. Atty. 4aniel 7. 3iangco A.". )o. 5655. 4ecember 16, 2011 "ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct. /nder Section 8, Rule 1A1 of t e Rules of "ourt, t e s eriff is re<uired to secure t e court5s !rior a!!ro(al of t e estimated e;!enses and fees needed to im!lement t e court !rocess. =t is im!erati(e t at a s eriff s all obser(e t e follo&ing$ *1+ t e s eriff must ma1e an estimate of t e e;!enses to be incurred by im% *2+ e must obtain court a!!ro(al for suc estimated e;!enses% *6+ t e a!!ro(ed estimated e;!enses s all be de!osited by t e interested !arty &it t e "ler1 of "ourt and E@ 0fficio S eriff% *A+ t e "ler1 of "ourt s all disburse t e amount to t e e;ecuting s eriff% and *5+ t e e;ecuting s eriff s all disburse.li<uidate is e;!enses &it in t e same !eriod for rendering a return on t e &rit. Any uns!ent amount s all be refunded to t e !arty & o made t e de!osit. S eriffs are not aut oriCed to recei(e any voluntary !ayments from !arties in t e course of t e !erformance of t eir duties. A s eriff cannot #ust unilaterally demand sums of money from a !arty-litigant &it out obser(ing t e !ro!er !rocedural ste!s% ot er&ise, it &ould amount to dis onesty or e;tortion. , e duty of s eriffs to !rom!tly e;ecute a &rit is mandatory and ministerial. S eriffs a(e no discretion on & et er or not to im!lement a &rit. , ere is no need for t e litigants to :follo&-u!> its im!lementation. /nless restrained by a court order, t ey s ould see to it t at t e e;ecution of #udgments is not unduly delayed. 0 en res!ondent too1 it u!on imself to mediate bet&een litigants and e(en !ro(ided an e;tension of t e im!lementation of t e &rit, e a!!eared to be lac1ing in t e amount of diligence re<uired of im in t e !erformance of is duties. "tty. Rutillo 4. ,aso2 vs. Carlos ,. +ia:! Sheriff 8 ! R3C 4r $%! 3acurong City . A.2. )o. P-0?-2600. 4ecember 12, 2011 "ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct. All officials and em!loyees in(ol(ed in t e administration of #ustice, from #udges to t e lo&est ran1 and file em!loyees, bear t e ea(y res!onsibility of acting &it strict !ro!riety and decorum at all times in order to merit and maintain t e !ublic5s res!ect for, and trust in, t e Judiciary. Res!ondent5s use of t e letter ead of t e court and of er official designation in t e demand letters s e !re!ared ardly meets t e foregoing standard. 4es!ite er good intentions, s e ga(e !ri(ate indi(iduals an un&arranted !ri(ilege at t e e;!ense of t e name of t e court. "ler1s of "ourt are notaries !ublic e@ officio. , ey may notariCe documents or administer oat s only & en t e matter is related to t e e;ercise of t eir official functions. , us, in t eir e@'officio ca!acity, cler1s of court s ould not ta1e !art in t e e;ecution of !ri(ate documents bearing no relation at all to t eir official functions. "rthur M. Gabon vs. Rebecca ,. Mer2a! Cler2 of Court 88! Municipal 3rial Court! Liloan! Southern Leyte. A.2. )o. P-11-6000. 4ecember 1A, 2011 "ourt !ersonnel% gross negligence in t e !erformance of duty. Res!ondent cler1 of court assigned to a cas cler1 t e collections, remittances, financial re!orts and accountable forms. He later found out t at some are already missing. , e cler1 of court is t e court5s accountable officer, not t e cas cler1. He is t e court5s c ief administrati(e officer. )o amount of good fait can relie(e im of is duty to !ro!erly administer and safeguard t e court5s funds. "ler1s of court are officers of t e la& & o !erform (ital functions in t e !rom!t and sound administration of #ustice. , ey are designated custodians of t e court5s funds, re(enues, records, !ro!erties and !remises. , ey are liable for any loss, s ortage, destruction or im!airment of suc funds and !ro!erty.Res!ondent is liable for gross neglect of duty. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Cler2 of Court >ermenegildo 8. Marasigan! R3C ?abacan! #orth Cotabato A.2. )o. P-052092. 4ecember 12, 2011

"ourt !ersonnel% immoral conduct. Res!ondent5s act of maintaining an illicit relations i! &it a married man comes &it in t e !ur(ie& of disgraceful and immoral conduct, & ic is classified as a gra(e offense. , e image of a court of #ustice is mirrored in t e conduct of t e official and !ersonnel & o &or1 t ereat. "ourt em!loyees a(e been en#oined to ad ere to t e e;acting standards of morality and decency in t eir !rofessional and !ri(ate conduct in order to !reser(e t e good name and integrity of courts of #ustice. , is "ourt as t us consistently !enaliCed court !ersonnel & o ad been found &anting of suc standards, e(en if t ey a(e !reci!itately resigned from t eir !ositions. Resignation s ould not be used eit er as an esca!e or as an easy &ay out to e(ade an administrati(e liability or an administrati(e sanction. Evelina C. 4anaag vs. 0livia C. Espeleta! 8nterpreter 888! 4ranch 6$! R3C. Due:on City . A.2. )o. P-11-6011. 4ecember 1E, 2011 "ourt !ersonnel% lea(e for foreign tra(el &it out aut ority. , e e;ercise of one5s rig t to tra(el or t e freedom to mo(e from one !lace to anot er is not absolute. Section 5 *E+, Article D=== of t e 189? "onstitution !ro(ides t at t e ESupreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.F , is !ro(ision em!o&ers t e "ourt to o(ersee all matters relating to t e effecti(e su!er(ision and management of all courts and !ersonnel under it. Pursuant to t is, t e "ourt issued '"A "ircular )o. A8-2006 to regulate t eir foreign tra(el in an unofficial ca!acity. Suc regulation is necessary for t e orderly administration of #ustice. =f #udges and court !ersonnel can go on lea(e and tra(el abroad at &ill and &it out restrictions or regulations, t ere could be a disru!tion in t e administration of #ustice. A situation & ere t e em!loyees go on mass lea(e and tra(el toget er, des!ite t e fact t at t eir in(aluable ser(ices are urgently needed, could !ossibly arise. , us, #udges and !ersonnel & o s all lea(e t e country &it out tra(el aut ority issued by t e 'ffice of t e "ourt Administrator s all be sub#ect to disci!linary action. A #udge or a member of t e Judiciary, & o is not being restricted by a criminal court or any ot er agency !ursuant to any statutory limitation, can lea(e for abroad &it out !ermission but e or s e must be !re!ared to face t e conse<uences for is or er (iolation of t e "ourt5s rules and regulations. 0C"'0"S vs. <ilma Salvacion ,. >eusdens! etc. A.2. )o. P-11-282?. 4ecember 16, 2011 "ourt !ersonnel% unreasonable delay in remitting cas recei!ts. As custodian of court funds and re(enues, it is t e duty of a cler1 of court to immediately de!osit t e (arious funds recei(ed by t em to t e aut oriCed go(ernment de!ositories for t ey are not su!!osed to 1ee! funds in t eir custody. Atty. "ruC5 belated turno(er of cas de!osited &it im is ine;cusable and &ill not e;onerate im from liability. His failure to remit is cas collections on time is (iolati(e of Administrati(e "ircular )o. 6-2000 & ic mandates t at all fiduciary collections s all be de!osited immediately by t e "ler1 of "ourt concerned, u!on recei!t t ereof, &it t e 3and 7an1 of t e P ili!!ines, t e aut oriCed go(ernment de!ository ban1 . 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. "tty. 3eotimo +. Cru: A.2. )o. P-11-2899. 4ecember 12, 2011 Presum!tion of innocence in disbarment !roceedings% burden of !roof% <uantum of !roof. , e "ourt as consistently eld t at in sus!ension or disbarment !roceedings against la&yers, t e la&yer en#oys t e !resum!tion of innocence, and t e burden of !roof rests u!on t e com!lainant to !ro(e t e allegations in is com!laint. , e e(idence re<uired in sus!ension or disbarment !roceedings is !re!onderance of e(idence. =n case t e e(idence of t e !arties are e<ually balanced, t e e<ui!oise doctrine mandates a decision in fa(or of t e res!ondent. Siao "ba! et al. vs. "ttys. Salvador +e Gu:man! )r.! et al. A.". )o. ?EA8. 4ecember 1A, 2011

January 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on @ebruary 16, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Here are selected January 2012 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% accounting of funds. 0 en a la&yer collects or recei(es money from is client for a !articular !ur!ose, e s ould !rom!tly account to t e client o& t e money &as s!ent. =f e does not use t e money for its intended !ur!ose, e must immediately return it to t e client. His failure eit er to render an accounting or to return t e money *if t e intended !ur!ose of t e money does not materialiCe+ constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 1E.01 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. 2oreo(er, a la&yer as t e duty to deli(er is client5s funds or !ro!erties as t ey fall due or u!on demand. His failure to return t e client5s money u!on demand gi(es rise to t e !resum!tion t at e as misa!!ro!riated it for is o&n use to t e !re#udice of and in (iolation of t e trust re!osed in im by t e client. , e issuance of c ec1s & ic &ere later dis onored for a(ing been dra&n against a closed account indicates a la&yer5s unfitness for t e trust and confidence re!osed on im, s o&s lac1 of !ersonal onesty and good moral c aracter as to render im un&ort y of !ublic confidence, and constitutes a ground for disci!linary action. >ector 3renas vs. ,eople of the ,hilippines. G.R. )o. 185002. January 25, 2012$ Attorney% mista1e of counsel. , e general rule is t at t e mista1e of a counsel binds t e client, and it is only in instances & erein t e negligence is so gross or !al!able t at courts must ste! in to grant relief to t e aggrie(ed client. =t can be gleaned from t e circumstances t at !etitioner &as gi(en o!!ortunities to defend is case and &as granted concomitant reliefs by t e court. , us, it cannot be said t at t e mista1e and negligence of is former counsel &ere so gross and !al!able to a(e de!ri(ed im of due !rocess. Cresencio C. Milla vs. ,eople of the ,hilippines and Carlo . Lope:. G.R. )o. 199?2E. January 25, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty. B(ery em!loyee of t e Judiciary s ould be an e;am!le of integrity, u!rig tness and onesty. 3i1e any !ublic ser(ant, s e must e; ibit t e ig est sense of onesty and integrity not only in t e !erformance of er official duties but in er !ersonal and !ri(ate dealings &it ot er !eo!le, to !reser(e t e court5s good name and standing. , e image of a court of #ustice is mirrored in t e conduct, official and ot er&ise, of t e !ersonnel & o &or1 t ereat, from t e #udge to t e lo&est of its !ersonnel. "ourt !ersonnel a(e been en#oined to ad ere to t e e;acting standards of morality and decency in t eir !rofessional and !ri(ate conduct in order to !reser(e t e good name and integrity of t e courts of #ustice. /nder Section 52*A+*1+ of t e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice, dis onesty is a gra(e offense !unis able by dismissal for t e first offense. /nder Section 59 of t e same rules, dismissal carries &it it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and !er!etual dis<ualification for reem!loyment in t e go(ernment ser(ice. , us, t e res!ondent is dismissed for dis onesty & en s e made someone ta1e t e "i(il Ser(ice Sub-!rofessional B;amination on er be alf. Concerned Citi:en vs. +omingo #awen "bad! etc. A.2. )o. P-11-280?. January 61, 2012$ "ourt !ersonnel% gra(e abuse of aut ority. 7y t e (ery nature of is duties, a s eriff !erforms a (ery sensiti(e function in t e dis!ensation of #ustice. He is duty-bound to 1no& t e basic rules

relati(e to t e im!lementation of &rits of e;ecution, and s ould, at all times s o& a ig degree of !rofessionalism in t e !erformance of is duties. Administrati(e "ircular )o. 12 &as !romulgated in order to streamline t e ser(ice and e;ecution of court &rits and !rocesses in courts and to better ser(e t e !ublic good and facilitate t e administration of #ustice. Paragra! 2 of Administrati(e "ircular )o. 12 !ro(ides t at :All "ler1s of "ourt of t e 2etro!olitan ,rial "ourt and 2unici!al ,rial "ourts in "ities, and.or t eir de!uty s eriffs s all ser(e all court !rocesses and e;ecute all &rits of t eir res!ecti(e courts &it in t eir territorial #urisdiction . @urt ermore, !aragra! 5 of t e same circular !ro(ides t at :)o s eriff or de!uty s eriff s all e;ecute a court &rit outside is territorial #urisdiction &it out first notifying in &riting! and see1ing t e assistance of, t e s eriff of t e !lace & ere t e e;ecution s all ta1e !lace.> =t is clear t at res!ondent5s act of im!lementing t e sub#ect &rits in San @ernando "ity, & en is territorial #urisdiction is confined only to Angeles "ity, is a (iolation of t e "ircular and tantamount to abuse of aut ority. 0 ile res!ondent claimed t at e !ersonally informed t e '"" of San @ernando "ity, e, o&e(er, failed to !ro(e t at e made &ritten notice as re<uired by Administrati(e "ircular )o. 12. A mere submission of t e co!ies of t e court !rocesses to t e '"" &ill not suffice as to t e &ritten notice re<uirement. , e re<uirement of notice is based on t e rudiments of #ustice and fair !lay. =t fro&ns u!on arbitrariness and o!!ressi(e conduct in t e e;ecution of an ot er&ise legitimate act. Luis ,. ,ineda vs. #eil 3. torres! sheriff 88! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities! 4ranch $! "ngeles City. A.2. )o. P-12-602?. January 60, 2012 "ourt !ersonnel% gross neglect of duty. A cler1 of court !erforms a (ery delicate function as t e custodian of t e funds and re(enues, records, !ro!erty, and !remises of t e court. He is liable for any loss, s ortage, destruction, or im!airment of said funds and !ro!erty. B(en t e undue delay in t e remittance of amounts collected by t em at t e (ery least constitutes misfeasance. , e safe1ee!ing of funds and collections is essential to t e goal of an orderly administration of #ustice and no !rotestation of good fait can o(erride t e mandatory nature of t e "irculars designed to !romote full accountability for go(ernment funds. Su!reme "ourt "ircular )o. 1682 mandates t at all fiduciary collections s all be de!osited immediately by t e "ler1 of "ourt concerned, u!on recei!t t ereof, &it an aut oriCed go(ernment de!ository ban1 & ic is t e 3and 7an1 of t e P ili!!ines. , e res!ondents5 failure to remit t eir collection constitutes gross neglect of duty, dis onesty, and gra(e misconduct. 2oreo(er, t e failure of a !ublic officer to remit funds u!on demand by an aut oriCed officer s all be prima facie e(idence t at t e !ublic officer as !ut suc missing funds or !ro!erty to !ersonal use. Re: Report on 1inancial "udit Conducted at MC3C! Santiago'San Esteban! 8locos Sur. A.2. )o. P-11-2850. January 1?, 2012 Judges% administrati(e liability. 4isci!linary !roceedings and criminal actions broug t against any #udge in relation to t e !erformance of is official functions are neit er com!lementary to nor su!!letory of a!!ro!riate #udicial remedies, nor a substitute for suc remedies. Any !arty & o may feel aggrie(ed s ould resort to t ese remedies, and e; aust t em, instead of resorting to disci!linary !roceedings and criminal actions. A #udge5s failure to correctly inter!ret t e la& or to !ro!erly a!!reciate t e e(idence !resented does not necessarily incur administrati(e liability, for to old im administrati(ely accountable for e(ery erroneous ruling or decision e renders, assuming e as erred, &ill be not ing s ort of arassment and &ill ma1e is !osition doubly unbearable. His #udicial office &ill t en be rendered untenable, because no one called u!on to try t e facts or to inter!ret t e la& in t e !rocess of administering #ustice can be infallible in is #udgment. Administrati(e sanction and criminal liability s ould be im!osed only & en t e error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or is committed &it e(ident bad fait , or only in clear cases of (iolations by im of t e standards and norms of !ro!riety and good be a(ior !rescribed by la& and t e rules of !rocedure, or fi;ed and defined by !ertinent

#uris!rudence. Re: erified complaint of Engr. 0scar L. 0ng=oco! Chairman of the 4oardGCE0 etc. against >on. )uan D. EnriCue:! )r.! et al. A.2. )o. 11-19A-"A-J. January 61, 2012$ Judges% court !ersonnel% gross misconduct% neglect of duty. Res!ondent Judge failed to e;ert due diligence re<uired of im to ascertain t e facts of t e case before e came out &it t e 'rder. He s ould be reminded of is !ersonal res!onsibility in t e ma1ing of is decisions and orders. He s ould not rely on anybody else for t e e;amination and study of t e records to !ro!erly ascertain t e facts of eac case t at e andles. He cannot sim!ly !ass t e blame on is staff and ide be ind t e incom!etence of is subordinates. 2oreo(er, res!ondent Judge s ould a(e been more cautious since t e case in(ol(ed &as an old in erited case &it (oluminous records and & at &as soug t to be e;ecuted &as an order issued almost t&enty *20+ years ago. =t is incumbent u!on im to de(ise an efficient court management system since e is t e one directly res!onsible for t e !ro!er disc arge of is functions. Alt oug #udges cannot be eld to account for erroneous #udgments rendered in good fait , good fait in situations of infallible discretion in eres only &it in t e !arameters of tolerable #udgment and does not a!!ly & ere t e issues are so sim!le and t e a!!licable legal !rinci!le e(ident and basic as to be beyond !ermissible margins of error. , e records and !leadings filed a(e establis ed t e administrati(e liability of t e cler1 of court. @irst, res!ondent "ler1 of "ourt failed to inform res!ondent Judge of t e e;istence of t e "ourt of A!!eals and Su!reme "ourt decisions. Second, e failed to inform and send t e !arties t eir res!ecti(e notices and court orders. , ird, e issued t e "ertificate of @inality &it out (erifying if indeed a motion for reconsideration &as filed in connection &it t e case. As custodian of #udicial records, it is incumbent u!on t e cler1 of court to ensure an orderly and efficient court management system, and to su!er(ise t e !ersonnel under is office to function effecti(ely. , ey must be assiduous in !erforming official duty and in su!er(ising and managing court doc1ets and records. =t is also incumbent u!on im to see to it t at court orders &ere sent &it dis!atc to t e !arties concerned. , us, res!ondent "ler1 of "ourt s ould ensure an orderly and efficient record management system to assist all !ersonnel, including res!ondent Judge, in t e !erformance of t eir res!ecti(e duties. Espina and Madarang Company! et al. vs. )udge Cader ,. 8ndar! "l >a= and "bie M. "milil! 0fficer'in'charge! branch Cler2 of Court! both of theRegional 3rial Court! 4r. &(! Cotabato City. A.2. )o. R,J-0?-20E8. 4ecember 1A, 2011.

%ebruary 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on 2arc 12, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Here are select @ebruary 2012 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Administrati(e cases against la&yers% !rescri!ti(e !eriod . , e t&o-year !rescri!ti(e !eriod for initiating a com!laint against a la&yer for disbarment or sus!ension !ro(ided under Section 1, Rule D=== of t e Rules of Procedure of t e =7P "ommission on 7ar 4isci!line s ould be construed to mean t&o years from t e date of disco(ery of t e !rofessional misconduct. #esa 8senhardt vs. "tty. Leonardo M. Real! A.". )o. 925A, @ebruary 15, 2012.

Attorney% dis<ualification as notary !ublic. A notary !ublic s ould not notariCe a document unless t e !erson & o signs it is t e same !erson & o e;ecuted it, !ersonally a!!earing before im to attest to t e contents and t e trut of & at are stated t erein. , is is to enable t e notary !ublic to (erify t e genuineness of t e signature of t e ac1no&ledging !arty and to ascertain t at t e document is t e !arty5s free act. , e duties of a notary !ublic is dictated by !ublic !olicy and im!ressed &it !ublic interest. =t is not a meaningless ministerial act of ac1no&ledging documents e;ecuted by !arties & o are &illing to !ay t e fees for notariCation. =t is of no moment t at t e sub#ect SPA &as not utiliCed by t e grantee for t e !ur!ose it &as intended because t e !ro!erty &as allegedly transferred from com!lainant to er brot er by (irtue of a deed of sale consummated bet&een t em. 0 at is being !enaliCed is res!ondent5s act of notariCing a document des!ite t e absence of one of t e !arties. A notariCed document is by la& entitled to full credit u!on its face and it is for t is reason t at notaries !ublic must obser(e t e basic re<uirements in notariCing documents. 't er&ise, t e confidence of t e !ublic in notariCed documents &ill be undermined. #esa 8senhardt vs. "tty. Leonardo M. Real! A.". )o. 925A, @ebruary 15, 2012. Attorney% go(ernment ser(ice% a!!licability of "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. , e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility does not cease to a!!ly to a la&yer sim!ly because e as #oined t e go(ernment ser(ice. 0 ere a la&yer5s misconduct as a go(ernment official is of suc nature as to affect is <ualification as a la&yer or to s o& moral delin<uency, t en e may be disci!lined as a member of t e bar on suc grounds. Martin Lahn 888 and )ames ,. Concepcion vs. Labor "rbiter )ovencio Li. Mayor! )r.! A.". )o. ?A60, @ebruary 15, 2012. Attorney% gross ignorance of t e la&. , e res!ondent labor arbiter, being !art of t e <uasi#udicial system of our go(ernment, !erforms official functions t at are a1in to t ose of #udges. Accordingly, t e !resent contro(ersy may be a!!ro;imated to administrati(e cases of #udges & ose decisions, including t e manner of rendering t e same, &ere made sub#ect of administrati(e cases. 0 ile a #udge may not al&ays be eld liable for ignorance of t e la& for e(ery erroneous order t at e renders, it is also a;iomatic t at & en t e legal !rinci!le in(ol(ed is sufficiently basic, lac1 of con(ersance &it it constitutes gross ignorance of t e la&. , e unfounded insistence of t e res!ondent on is su!!osed aut ority to issue &rits of !reliminary in#unction and.or tem!orary restraining order, ta1en toget er &it t e delay in t e resolution of t e said motion for reconsideration, &ould clearly s o& t at t e res!ondent deliberately intended to cause !re#udice to t e com!lainants. Martin Lahn 888 and )ames ,. Concepcion vs. Labor "rbiter )ovencio Li. Mayor! )r.! A.". )o. ?A60, @ebruary 15, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty. 4is onesty as been defined as t e dis!osition to lie, c eat, decei(e, or defraud% untrust&ort iness% lac1 of integrity% lac1 of onesty, !robity or integrity in !rinci!le% lac1 of fairness and straig tfor&ardness% dis!osition to defraud, decei(e or betray. 4is onesty, being in t e nature of a gra(e offense, carries t e e;treme !enalty of dismissal from t e ser(ice &it forfeiture of retirement benefits e;ce!t accrued lea(e credits, and !er!etual dis<ualification for reem!loyment in go(ernment ser(ice. Gi(en t e total absence of e(idence to t e contrary, t e !resum!tion t at res!ondent cler1 of court !unc ed is 4,R to ma1e it a!!ear e &as at t e office on @ebruary 2E, 2010 & en e &as in fact absent still !re(ails. 4is onesty is a male(olent act t at as no !lace in t e #udiciary. Public ser(ice re<uires utmost integrity and disci!line. A !ublic ser(ant must e; ibit at all times t e ig est sense of onesty and integrity, for no less t an t e "onstitution declares t at a !ublic office is a !ublic trust, and all !ublic officers and em!loyees must at all times be accountable to t e !eo!le, and ser(e t em &it utmost res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Leave +ivision! 0ffice of the

"drministrative Services! 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Leoncio ?. Gutierre: 888! Cler2 888! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch &&.! ,asay City. A.2. )o. P-11-2851, @ebruary 15, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty, misre!resentation. '"A "ircular )o. A8-2006 !ro(ides t at court !ersonnel & o &is to tra(el abroad must secure a tra(el aut ority from t e 'ffice of t e "ourt Administrator. Section E? of t e 'mnibus Rules on 3ea(e !ro(ides t at any (iolation of t e lea(e la&s, rules or regulations, or any misre!resentation or dece!tion in connection &it an a!!lication for lea(e s all be a ground for disci!linary action. , e res!ondent court stenogra! er tra(eled &it out securing a tra(el aut ority and did not state er foreign tra(el in er lea(e a!!lication. S e is guilty of (iolating at least t&o office rules and regulations. , is s o&s dece!tion amounting to dis onesty. 4is onesty means t e concealment of trut in a matter of fact rele(ant to one5s office or connected &it t e !erformance of is duties. =t is an absence of integrity, a dis!osition to betray, c eat, decei(e or defraud, bad fait . , e discre!ancy in t e res!ondent5s date of birt in er records does not amount to dis onesty, as s e made no false statement. )o deliberate intent to mislead, decei(e or defraud a!!ears from t e cited circumstances of t is case. , e res!ondent5s date of birt is not a fact directly rele(ant to er functions or <ualification to office or connected &it t e !erformance of er duties. Sheila G. +el Rosario! Court Stenographer 888! R3C! 4r. /.! Santiago City! 8sabela vs. Mary "nne C. ,ascua! Court Stenographer 888! same court. A.2. )o. P-11-2888. @ebruary 2?, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% abitual absenteeism. Administrati(e "ircular )o. 1A-2002 !ro(ides t at an em!loyee is considered abitually absent if t e em!loyee incurred unaut oriCed absences e;ceeding t e 2.5 days allo&ed !er mont for t ree mont s in a semester or at least t ree consecuti(e mont s during t e year. =n im!osing !enalty of abitual absenteeism in administrati(e cases, o&e(er, t e court may ta1e into consideration mitigating circumstances. , e !resence of factors suc as lengt of ser(ice in t e #udiciary, ac1no&ledgment of infractions and feeling of remorse, and family circumstances, among ot er t ings, !lay an im!ortant role in t e im!osition of !enalties. )udge Lucina "lpe: +ayaon! etc. vs. )esusa . +e Leon. A.2. )o. P11-282E, @ebruary 1, 2012 Judge% gross ignorance of la& and undue delay. 0ell- settled is t e rule t at an in#unction cannot be issued to transfer !ossession or control of a !ro!erty to anot er & en t e legal title is in dis!ute bet&een t e !arties and t e legal title as not been clearly establis ed. =n t is case, res!ondent #udge e(idently disregarded t is establis ed doctrine & en e granted t e !reliminary in#unction in fa(or of Pagels & ose legal title is dis!uted. 0 en t e la& in(ol(ed is sim!le and elementary, lac1 of con(ersance &it it constitutes gross ignorance of t e la&. Gross ignorance of t e la& is t e disregard of basic rules and settled #uris!rudence. 0 en t e inefficiency s!rings from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a la& or a !rinci!le in t e disc arge of is functions, a #udge is eit er too incom!etent and undeser(ing of t e !osition and title e olds or e is too (icious t at t e o(ersig t or omission &as deliberately done in bad fait and in gra(e abuse of #udicial aut ority. A #udge may also be administrati(ely liable if s o&n to a(e been moti(ated by bad fait , fraud, dis onesty or corru!tion in ignoring, contradicting or failing to a!!ly settled la& and #uris!rudence. "tty. Rene Medina! et al. vs. )udge ictor Canoy! et al. A.2. R,J-11-2289, @ebruary 22, 2012. Judges% delay in conducting summary earing to e;tend t e ?2- r ,R'% gross ignorance of la&% re<uirement of bad fait , fraud, dis onesty, or corru!tion. Judges are not administrati(ely res!onsible for & at t ey may do in t e e;ercise of t eir #udicial functions & en acting &it in

t eir legal !o&ers and #urisdiction. )ot e(ery error or mista1e t at a #udge commits in t e !erformance of is duties renders im liable, unless e is s o&n to a(e acted in bad fait or &it deliberate intent to do an in#ustice. ,o old ot er&ise &ould be to render #udicial office untenable, for no one called u!on to try t e facts or inter!ret t e la& in t e !rocess of administering #ustice can be infallible in is #udgment. ,o constitute gross ignorance of t e la&, it is not enoug t at t e sub#ect decision, order or actuation of t e res!ondent #udge in t e !erformance of is official duties is contrary to e;isting la& and #uris!rudence but, most im!ortantly, e must be mo(ed by bad fait , fraud, dis onesty or corru!tion. "om!lainants failed to adduce !roof to s o& t at res!ondent #udge &as moti(ated by bad fait , ill &ill or malicious moti(e & en e granted t e ,R' and !reliminary in#unction. =n addition, res!ondent #udge s ould not be !enaliCed for failing to conduct t e re<uired summary earing &it in ?2 ours from t e issuance of t e original ,R'. , oug t e Rules re<uire t e !residing #udge to conduct a summary earing before t e e;!iration of t e ?2 ours, it could not be com!lied &it because of t e remoteness and inaccessibility of t e trial court from t e !arties5 addresses. Sps. +emocrito and 0livia Lago vs. )udge Godofredo 4. "bul! )r. R3C! 4r. (/! Gingoog City. A.2. )o. R,J-102255, @ebruary 9, 2012. Judges% immorality (s. sim!le misconduct . , e )e& "ode of "onduct for t e P ili!!ine Judiciary !ro(ides t at, as a sub#ect of constant !ublic scrutiny, #udges must acce!t !ersonal restrictions t at mig t be (ie&ed as burdensome by t e ordinary citiCen. =n !articular, #udges must conduct t emsel(es in a &ay t at is consistent &it t e dignity of t e #udicial office. 'ccu!ying as e does an e;alted !osition in t e administration of #ustice, a #udge must !ay a ig !rice for t e onor besto&ed u!on im. , us, t e #udge must com!ort imself at all times in suc a manner t at is conduct, official or ot er&ise, can bear t e most searc ing scrutiny of t e !ublic t at loo1s u! to im as t e e!itome of integrity and #ustice. , ere &as no e(idence t at res!ondent #udge engaged in scandalous conduct t at &ould &arrant t e im!osition of disci!linary action against im. His admission of omose;uality does not ma1e im automatically immoral. Ho&e(er, res!ondent #udge is guilty of sim!le misconduct in causing t e registration of title in is son5s name &it t e intention of defrauding a !ossible #udgmentobligee. Sim!le misconduct is a transgression of some establis ed rule of action, an unla&ful be a(ior, or negligence committed by a !ublic officer. "ida R. Campos! et al. vs. )udge Eliseo M. Campos! M3C! 4ayugan! "gusan del Sur. A.2. )o. 2,J-10-1?E1, @ebruary 9, 2012. Judges% undue delay in rendering a decision. Judges must resol(e matters !ending before t em !rom!tly and e;!editiously &it in t e constitutionally mandated t ree-mont !eriod. =f t ey cannot com!ly &it t e same, t ey s ould as1 for an e;tension from t e Su!reme "ourt u!on meritorious grounds. , e rule is t at t e reglementary !eriod for deciding cases s ould be obser(ed by all #udges, unless t ey a(e been granted additional time. Judges must dis!ose of t e court5s business !rom!tly. 4elay in t e dis!osition of cases erodes t e fait and confidence of our !eo!le in t e #udiciary, lo&ers its standards, and brings it to disre!ute. Hence, #udges are en#oined to decide cases &it dis!atc . , eir failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and &arrants t e im!osition of administrati(e sanctions on t em. Alt oug t ere are no !romulgated rules on t e conduct of #udicial audit, t e absence of suc rules s ould not ser(e as license to recommend t e im!osition of !enalties to retired #udges & o, during t eir incumbency, &ere ne(er gi(en a c ance to e;!lain t e circumstances be ind t e results of t e #udicial audit. Judicial audit re!orts and t e memoranda & ic follo& t em s ould state not only recommended !enalties and !lans of action for t e (iolations of audited courts, but also gi(e commendations & en t ey are due. ,o a(oid similar scenarios, manual #udicial audits may be conducted at least si; mont s before a #udge5s com!ulsory retirement. 0ffice of the

Court "dministrator vs. )udge Celso L. Mantua! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch &7! ,alompon! Leyte. A.2. )o. R,J-11-2281. @ebruary 9, 2012.

&arch 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on A!ril 19, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Here are select 2arc 2012 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% lifting of indefinite sus!ension. Professional misconduct in(ol(ing t e misuse of constitutional !ro(isions for t e !ur!ose of insulting 2embers of t e Su!reme "ourt is a serious breac of t e rigid standards t at a member of good standing of t e legal !rofession must fait fully com!ly &it . , us, t e !enalty of indefinite sus!ension &as im!osed. Ho&e(er, in t e !ast t&o years during & ic Atty. 3oCano as been sus!ended, e as re!eatedly e;!ressed is &illingness to admit is error, to obser(e t e rules and standards in t e !ractice of la&, and to ser(e t e ends of #ustice if e s ould be reinstated. And in t ese t&o years, t is "ourt as not been informed of any act t at &ould indicate t at Atty. 3oCano ad acted in any unscru!ulous !ractices unsuitable to a member of t e bar. 0 ile t e "ourt &ill not esitate to disci!line its erring officers, it &ill not !rolong a !enalty after it as been s o&n t at t e !ur!ose for im!osing it ad already been ser(ed. Re: subpoena +uces 3ecum dated )anuary &&! $%&% of "cting +irector "leu ". "mante! ,8"4'C! 0ffice of the 0mbudsmanGRe: 0rder of the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman referring the complaint of "ttys. 0liver 0. Lo:ano H Evangeline ). Lo:ano' Endriano against Chief )ustice Reynato S. ,unoIret.J. ".M. #o. &%'&'&/'SC H ".M. #0. &%'-'-' SC! March $%! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% administrati(e case% <uantum of e(idence. , e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice go(ern t e conduct of disci!linary and nondisci!linary !roceedings in administrati(e cases. =n Section 6, it !ro(ides t at, :Administrati(e in(estigations s all be conducted &it out necessarily ad ering strictly to t e tec nical rules of !rocedure and e(idence a!!licable to #udicial !roceedings.> , e &eig t of e(idence re<uired in administrati(e in(estigations is substantial e(idence. @or t ese reasons, only substantial e(idence is re<uired to find 2alunao guilty of t e administrati(e offense c arged against er. =n t e ierarc y of e(identiary (alues, substantial e(idence, or t at amount of rele(ant e(idence & ic a reasonable man mig t acce!t as ade<uate to #ustify a conclusion, is t e lo&est standard of !roof !ro(ided under t e Rules of "ourt. =n assessing & et er t ere is substantial e(idence in administrati(e in(estigations suc as t is case, t e "ourt is not bound by tec nical rules of !rocedure and e(idence. 4ela "ruC5s Sinum!aang Salaysay, t e #oint affida(it of arrest e;ecuted by t e )7= agents, t e 7oo1ing S eet and Arrest Re!ort, ! otoco!y of t e mar1ed money, t e "om!laint S eet, and t e ! otogra! s of 2alunao entering 4ela "ruC5s ouse, and t e contents of 2alunao5s bag after recei!t of t e money, all !ro(e by subsantial e(idence t e guilt of 2alunao for t e offense of gra(e misconduct. Sheryll C. +ela Cru: vs. ,amela ,. Malunao! Cler2 888! R3C! 4ranch $6! 4ayombong! #ueva i:caya. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$%&-! March $%! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct. 2isconduct is a transgression of some establis ed and definite rule of action, more !articularly, unla&ful be a(ior or gross negligence by t e !ublic officer. , e misconduct is gra(e if it in(ol(es any of t e additional elements of corru!tion, &illful intent to (iolate t e la& or to disregard establis ed rules. "orru!tion, as an element of gra(e misconduct, consists in t e act of an official or fiduciary !erson & o unla&fully and &rongfully uses is !osition or office to !rocure some benefit for imself or for anot er !erson, contrary to duty and t e rig ts of ot ers. Section 2, "anon 1 of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel states$ :"ourt !ersonnel s all not solicit or acce!t any gift, fa(or or benefit based on any or e;!licit understanding t at suc gift, fa(or or benefit s all influence t eir official actions.> Res!ondent5s use of er !osition as "ler1 === in 7ranc 29 to solicit money from 4ela "ruC &it t e !romise of a fa(orable decision (iolates Section 2, "anon 1 of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel and constitutes t e offense of gra(e misconduct meriting t e !enalty of dismissal. Sheryll C. +ela Cru: vs. ,amela ,. Malunao! Cler2 888! R3C! 4ranch $6! 4ayombong! #ueva i:caya. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$%&-! March $%! $%&$. Judges% #udicial clemency. =n A.2. )o. 0?-?-1?-S" *Re: Letter of )udge "ugustus C. +ia:! Metropolitan 3rial Court of Due:on City! 4ranch /7! "ppealing for Clemency +, t e "ourt laid do&n t e follo&ing guidelines in resol(ing re<uests for #udicial clemency, t us$ :1. , ere must be !roof of remorse and reformation. , ese s all include but s ould not be limited to certifications or testimonials of t e officer*s+ or c a!ter*s+ of t e =ntegrated 7ar of t e P ili!!ines, #udges or #udges associations and !rominent members of t e community &it !ro(en integrity and !robity. A subse<uent finding of guilt in an administrati(e case for t e same or similar misconduct &ill gi(e rise to a strong !resum!tion of non-reformation. 2. Sufficient time must a(e la!sed from t e im!osition of t e !enalty to ensure a !eriod of reform. 6. , e age of t e !erson as1ing for clemency must s o& t at e still as !roducti(e years a ead of im t at can be !ut to good use by gi(ing im a c ance to redeem imself. A. , ere must be a s o&ing of !romise *suc as intellectual a!titude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal sc olars i! and t e de(elo!ment of t e legal system or administrati(e and ot er rele(ant s1ills+, as &ell as !otential for !ublic ser(ice. 5. , ere must be ot er rele(ant factors and circumstances t at may #ustify clemency.> A!!lying t e foregoing standards to t is case, t e "ourt finds merit in !etitioner5s re<uest. A re(ie& of t e records re(eals t at !etitioner as e; ibited remorse for er !ast misdeeds, & ic occurred more t an ten *10+ years ago. 0 ile s e &as found to a(e belatedly filed er motions for additional time to resol(e t e cases t en !ending in er sala, t e "ourt noted t at s e ad dis!osed of t e same &it in t e e;tended !eriod soug t, e;ce!t in A.2. )o. 88-2-?8-R," & ere s e submitted er com!liance beyond t e a!!ro(ed A5-day e;tended !eriod. )e(ert eless, !etitioner as subse<uently s o&n diligence in t e !erformance of er duties and as not committed any similar act or omission. =n t e 2emorandum of t e 'ffice of t e "ourt Administrator, er !rom!t com!liance &it t e #udicial audit re<uirements of !ending cases &as ac1no&ledged and s e &as e(en commended for er good !erformance in t e effecti(e management of er court and in t e andling of court records.

2oreo(er, t e =ntegrated 7ar of t e P ili!!ines *=7P+ 7o ol " a!ter as s o&n its ig regard for !etitioner !er t e letter of su!!ort signed by a number of its members addressed to t e =7P dated 'ctober 15, 1888 during t e !endency of er administrati(e cases and t e =7P Resolution )o. 11, Series of 2008 endorsing er a!!lication for lateral transfer to t e R," of ,agbilaran "ity. Re: ,etition for =udicial clemency of )udge 8rma ;ita . Masamayor. ".M. #o. &$'$'.'SC! March .! $%&$.

April 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on 2ay 19, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Here are select A!ril 2012 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% falsification. /nder Section 2?, Rule 169 of t e Rules of "ourt, a la&yer may be remo(ed or sus!ended on t e follo&ing grounds$ *1+ deceit% *2+ mal!ractice% *6+ gross misconduct in office% *A+ grossly immoral conduct% *5+ con(iction of a crime in(ol(ing moral tur!itude% *E+ (iolation of t e la&yer5s oat % *?+ &illful disobedience of any la&ful order of a su!erior court% and *9+ corru!tly or &illfully a!!earing as a la&yer for a !arty to a case &it out aut ority so to do. , e crime of falsification of !ublic document is contrary to #ustice, onesty, and good morals and, t erefore, in(ol(es moral tur!itude. 2oral tur!itude includes e(eryt ing & ic is done contrary to #ustice, onesty, modesty, or good morals. =t in(ol(es an act of baseness, (ileness, or de!ra(ity in t e !ri(ate duties & ic a man o&es is fello&men, or to society in general, contrary to t e acce!ted and customary rule of rig t and duty bet&een man and &oman, or conduct contrary to #ustice, onesty, modesty, or good morals. 4isbarment is t e a!!ro!riate !enalty for con(iction by final #udgment for a crime in(ol(ing moral tur!itude. Re: SC +ecision date May $%! $%%6 in G.R. #o. &.&(** under Rule &/-'4 of the Rules of Court vs. "tty. Rodolfo +. ,actolin. ".C. #o. 7-(%! "pril $(! $%&$. Attorney% groundless im!utation of bribery. As officers of t e court, la&yers are duty-bound to obser(e and maintain t e res!ect due to t e courts and #udicial officers. , ey are to abstain from offensi(e or menacing language or be a(ior before t e court and must refrain from attributing to a #udge moti(es t at are not su!!orted by t e record or a(e no materiality to t e case. Atty. PeNa cannot be e;cused for uttering snide and accusatory remar1s at t e e;!ense of t e re!utation and integrity of members of t is "ourt, and for using t ose unsubstantiated claims as basis for t e sub#ect 2otion for =n ibition. )ot only as res!ondent PeNa failed to s o& sincere remorse for is malicious insinuations of bribery and &rongdoing against Justice "ar!io, e in fact continually a(ailed of suc unet ical tactics in mo(ing for t e in ibition of ele(en Justices of t e "ourt. =ndeed, is !attern of be a(ior can no longer be seen as isolated incidents t at t e "ourt can !ardon gi(en certain

mitigating circumstances. Res!ondent PeNa as blatantly and consistently cast unfounded as!ersions against #udicial officers in utter disregard of is duties and res!onsibilities to t e "ourt. Res!ondent PeNa5s actions betray a similar disres!ectful attitude to&ards t e "ourt t at cannot be countenanced es!ecially for t ose !ri(ileged enoug to !ractice la& in t e country. 8n re: Supreme Court Resolution dated $6 "pril $%%/ in G.R. #os. &(*6&7 and &(*6$$. ".C. #o. .//$! "pril &7! $%&$. Attorney% lac1 of diligence. 0 en a la&yer ta1es a client5s cause, e co(enants t at e &ill e;ercise due diligence in !rotecting t e latter5s rig ts. @ailure to e;ercise t at degree of (igilance and attention e;!ected of a good fat er of a family ma1es t e la&yer un&ort y of t e trust re!osed on im by is client and ma1es im ans&erable not #ust to is client but also to t e legal !rofession, t e courts and society. His &or1load does not #ustify neglect in andling one5s case because it is settled t at a la&yer must only acce!t cases as muc as e can efficiently andle. Su:ette +el Mundo vs. "tty. "rnel C. Capistrano. ".C. #o. .-%/! "pril &.! $%&$. Attorney% obligation to old in trust money of is client. A la&yer is obliged to old in trust money of is client t at may come to is !ossession. As trustee of suc funds, e is bound to 1ee! t em se!arate and a!art from is o&n. 2oney entrusted to a la&yer for a s!ecific !ur!ose suc as for t e filing and !rocessing of a case if not utiliCed, must be returned immediately u!on demand. @ailure to return gi(es rise to a !resum!tion t at e as misa!!ro!riated it in (iolation of t e trust re!osed on im. And t e con(ersion of funds entrusted to im constitutes gross (iolation of !rofessional et ics and betrayal of !ublic confidence in t e legal !rofession. Su:ette +el Mundo vs. "tty. "rnel C. Capistrano. ".C. #o. .-%/! "pril &.! $%&$. Attorney% re!resentation of conflicting interests. :, e !roscri!tion against re!resentation of conflicting interests a!!lies to a situation & ere t e o!!osing !arties are !resent clients in t e same action or in an unrelated action.> , e !ro ibition also a!!lies e(en if t e :la&yer &ould not be called u!on to contend for one client t at & ic t e la&yer as to o!!ose for t e ot er client, or t at t ere &ould be no occasion to use t e confidential information ac<uired from one to t e disad(antage of t e ot er as t e t&o actions are & olly unrelated.> ,o be eld accountable under t is rule, it is :enoug t at t e o!!osing !arties in one case, one of & om &ould lose t e suit, are !resent clients and t e nature or conditions of t e la&yer5s res!ecti(e retainers &it eac of t em 'ould a ect t e !erformance of t e duty of undi(ided fidelity to bot clients.> "ni9on vs. Sabistsana. ".C. #o. *%-6! "pril &&! $%&$. Attorney% submission of falsified internal court documents. , e falsification, sub#ect of t e instant administrati(e case, lies in t e fact t at res!ondent PeNa submitted to t e "ourt a document e &as absolutely certain, at t e time of suc submission, &as a co!y of t e Agenda of t e t en ponente. "andor and trut fulness are some of t e <ualities e;acted and e;!ected from members of t e legal !rofession. , us, la&yers s all commit no false ood, nor s all t ey mislead or allo& t e court to be misled by any artifice. As disci!les of trut , t eir lofty (ocation is to correctly inform t e court of t e la& and t e facts of t e case and to aid it in doing #ustice and arri(ing at correct conclusions. "ourts are entitled to e;!ect only com!lete onesty from la&yers a!!earing and !leading before t em. =n t e instant case, t e submission of a document !ur!orting to be a co!y of t e Agenda of a member of t is "ourt is an act of dis onesty t at !uts into doubt t e ability of res!ondent to u! old is duty as a disci!le of trut .

Res!ondent led t e "ourt to belie(e t at & at e submitted &as a fait ful re!roduction of t e ponente5s Agenda, #ust to su!!ort t e sub#ect 2otion to =n ibit. , e original of t e !ur!orted co!y &as later found to a(e been ine;istent in t e court5s records. , e "ourt noted t at respondent Pe(a has not e)plained! to the Court*s satis action! ho' he managed to obtain internal and con idential documents$ Res!ondent PeNa is sanctioned for 1no&ingly using confidential and internal court records and documents, & ic e sus!iciously obtained in bolstering is case. His unbridled access to internal court documents as not been !ro!erly e;!lained. , e ca(alier e;!lanation of res!ondent PeNa t at t is "ourt5s confidential documents &ould sim!ly find t emsel(es con(eniently falling into res!ondent5s la! t roug registered mail and t at t e en(elo!es containing t em could no longer be traced is un&ort y of belief. , is gi(es t e "ourt reason to infer t at la&s and its o&n internal rules a(e been (iolated o(er and o(er again by some court !ersonnel, & om res!ondent PeNa no& aids and abets by feigning ignorance of o& t e internal documents could a(e reac ed im. =t is not unreasonable to e(en conclude t at criminal liabilities a(e been incurred in relation to t e Re(ised Penal "ode and t e Anti-Graft and "orru!t Practices Act, &it Atty. PeNa benefitting from t e same. Res!ondent5s actions clearly merit no ot er !enalty t an disbarment. 8n re: Supreme Court Resolution dated $6 "pril $%%/ in G.R. #os. &(*6&7 and &(*6$$. ".C. #o. .//$! "pril &7! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% conduct unbecoming of a court !ersonnel. Res!ondent is liable for conduct unbecoming a court em!loyee for is continued refusal to coordinate &it com!lainants in t e im!lementation of t e &rit of !ossession, des!ite numerous attem!ts on t eir !art to get in touc &it im. =t may be recalled t at com!lainants endea(ored, no less t an four *A+ times, to communicate &it res!ondent for t e !ro!er and e;!editious e;ecution of t e &rit, but eac time, res!ondent rebuffed t eir efforts. @inally, on25 A!ril 2011, t e day res!ondent finally im!lemented t e &rit, res!ondent refused to allo& 2s. 4e Jesus to inform com!lainants of t e intended im!lementation and o!ted to be accom!anied by an ordinary ban1 em!loyee to &itness t e enforcement of t e &rit. , e !ersistent refusal of res!ondent to coo!erate &it com!lainants in t e im!lementation of t e &rit runs afoul of t e e;acting standards re<uired of t ose in t e #udiciary. ,ime and again, t e "ourt as em! asiCed t e ea(y burden of res!onsibility & ic court officials and em!loyees are mandated to !erform. , ey are constantly reminded t at any im!ression of im!ro!riety, misdeed or negligence in t e !erformance of official functions must be a(oided. , is is so because t e image of t e court of #ustice is necessarily mirrored in t e conduct, official or ot er&ise, of t e men and &omen & o &or1 t ere. , e conduct of e(en minor em!loyees mirrors t e image of t e courts t ey ser(e% t us, t ey are re<uired to !reser(e t e #udiciary5s good name and standing as a true tem!le of #ustice. "ttys. Gon:ale:! et al. vs. Calo. ".M. #o. ,'&$'/%$6! "pril &&! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% disgraceful and immoral conduct. =mmorality as been defined to include not only se;ual matters but also : conduct inconsistent with rectitude! or indicative of corruption! indecency! depravity! and dissolutenessK or is willful! flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community! and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.F , ere is no doubt t at engaging in se;ual relations &it a married man is not only a (iolation of t e moral standards e;!ected of em!loyees of t e #udiciary, but is also a desecration of t e sanctity of t e institution of marriage & ic t is "ourt ab ors and is, t us, !unis able. Evelyn ). )ailorina vs. Richelle 3aneo'Regner! +emo 88! R3C! 0CC! San Mateo! Ri:al. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$-(6! "pril $/! $%&$.

"ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty. @alsification of daily time record constitutes dis onesty. 4is onesty is defined as t e :dis!osition to lie! cheat! deceive! or defraudK untrustworthinessK lac2 of integrityK lac2 of honesty probity or integrity in principleK lac2 of fairness and straightforwardnessK disposition to defraud! deceive or betray.F Section 52*A+, Rule =D of t e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice *2" )o. 18, dated Se!tember 1A, 1888+ classifies dis onesty as a gra(e offense !unis able by dismissal e(en for first time offenses. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. "raya. ".M. #o. ,'&$'/%*/! "pril &&! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% gra(e misconduct. , e be a(ior of all em!loyees and officials in(ol(ed in t e administration of #ustice, from #udges to t e most #unior cler1s, is circumscribed &it a ea(y res!onsibility. , eir conduct must be guided by strict !ro!riety and decorum at all times in order to merit and maintain t e !ublic5s res!ect for and trust in t e #udiciary. )eedless to say, all court !ersonnel must conduct t emsel(es in a manner e;em!lifying integrity, onesty and u!rig tness. Res!ondent5s s outing at com!lainant &it in t e court !remises, re!orting com!lainant to t e !olice after s e &as re!rimanded for er solicitation, and refusing to tal1 &it com!lainant #udge are not only acts of discourtesy and disres!ect but li1e&ise an unet ical conduct sanctioned by Re!ublic Act )o. E?16, ot er&ise 1no&n as 3he Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for ,ublic 0fficials and Employees. Hig -strung and belligerent be a(ior as no !lace in go(ernment ser(ice & ere t e !ersonnel are en#oined to act &it self-restraint and ci(ility at all times e(en & en confronted &it rudeness and insolence. Suc conduct is e;acted from t em so t at t ey &ill earn and 1ee! t e !ublic5s res!ect for and confidence in t e #udicial ser(ice. , is standard is a!!lied &it res!ect to a court em!loyee5s dealings not only &it t e !ublic but also &it is or er co-&or1ers in t e ser(ice. "onduct (iolati(e of t is standard <uic1ly and surely erodes res!ect for t e courts 2isconduct is a transgression of some establis ed and definite rule of action, more !articularly unla&ful be a(ior or gross negligence by a !ublic officer% and t e misconduct is gra(e if it in(ol(es any of t e additional elements of corru!tion, suc as &illful intent to (iolate t e la& or to disregard establis ed rules. , us, considering res!ondent5s transgressions, i.e., disres!ectful conduct, solicitation, and influence !eddling of bail bonds, t ere is no <uestion t at res!ondent is guilty of gra(e misconduct. )udge Salvador R. Santos! )r. vs. Editha R. Mangahas. ".M. #o. ,' %-'$7$%! "pril &7! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% abitual tardiness. /nder Sec. 52 *"+ *A+, Rule D= of "S" 2emorandum "ircular )o. 18, Series of 1888, abitual tardiness is !enaliCed as follo&s$ @irst offense Re!rimand% Second offense Sus!ension for 1-60 days% , ird offense 4ismissal from t e ser(ice. Since it &as !ro(en t at t e !resent case is t e second offense of GareCa for being abitually tardy, t e '"A correctly recommended for t e !enalty of sus!ension for 60 days &it &arning t at a similar offense in t e future &ould be meted a more se(ere !enalty. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Sheriff Gare:a. ".M. #o. ,'&$'/%*6! "pril $*! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% official and !ersonal conduct. Res!ondent too1 more t an si; years to !ay t eir obligation to t e com!lainant. Also, one of t e land titles t at res!ondents ga(e as collateral turned out to a(e been encumbered. 0 ile t ey a(e already !aid t eir obligation, suc !ayment &as conditioned u!on t e com!lainant5s e;ecution of an Affida(it of 4esistance. All t ese facts constitute conduct t at reflects badly on t e #udiciary, diminis ing t e onor and integrity of t e offices t ey old. , is is es!ecially true because res!ondents &ere admittedly

gi(en t e loans because t ey &ere considered !rominent !ersons in t e community% and t at t ey &ere considered as suc , !resumably because t ey &or1ed in t e #udiciary. =n illase9or v. +e Leon, t e "ourt em! asiCed t at :to !reser(e decency &it in t e #udiciary, court !ersonnel must com!ly &it #ust contractual obligations, act fairly and ad ere to ig et ical standards>. =n t at case, t e "ourt said t at res!ondent &as :e;!ected to be a !aragon of u!rig tness, fairness and onesty not only in all er official conduct but also in er !ersonal actuations, including business and commercial transactions, so as to a(oid becoming er court5s albatross of infamy.> Re: Complaint filed by ,a: +e era La:aro against Edna Magallanes and 4onifacio Magallanes. ".M. #o. ,'&&'/%%/! "pril $*! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% neglect of duty. Settled is t e role of cler1s of court as #udicial officers entrusted &it t e delicate function &it regard to collection of legal fees. , ey are e;!ected to correctly and effecti(ely im!lement regulations relating to !ro!er administration of court funds. 4elay in t e remittance of collection constitutes neglect of duty. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. #ini. ".M. #o. ,'&&'/%%$! "pril &&! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% neglect of duty. , e follo&ing are t e duties of a s eriff$ irst! to gi(e notice of t e &rit and demand t at t e #udgment obligor and all !ersons claiming under im (acate t e !ro!erty &it in t ree *6+ days% second! to enforce t e &rit by remo(ing t e #udgment obligor and all !ersons claiming under t e latter% third! to remo(e t e latter5s !ersonal belongings in t e !ro!erty as &ell as destroy, demolis or remo(e t e im!ro(ements constructed t ereon u!on s!ecial court order% and ourth! to e;ecute and ma1e a return on t e &rit &it in 60 days from recei!t of t e &rit and e(ery t irty *60+ days t ereafter until it is satisfied in full or until its effecti(ity e;!ires. Res!ondent &as clearly remiss in t e !erformance of is mandated duties$ e unilaterally ga(e t e occu!ants 6 mont s, instead of t e t ree *6+ days !ro(ided by t e Rules, to (acate t e !ro!erty% & en e did e(ict t e occu!ants from t e !remises, a room containing t eir !ersonal effects &as !adloc1ed, t erefore delaying t e demolition of t e im!ro(ements introduced on t e !ro!erty% finally, res!ondent failed to ma1e a return on t e &rit of !ossession after e im!lemented t e same. "ttys. Gon:ale:! et al. vs. Calo. ".M. #o. ,'&$'/%$6! "pril &&! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty. Sim!le neglect of duty is t e failure to gi(e attention to a tas1, or t e disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Sarmiento! et al. ".M. #o. ,'&&'$-&$! "pril &%! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% unaut oriCed absences. /nder t e "i(il Ser(ice rules, an em!loyee s ould submit in ad(ance, & ene(er !ossible, an a!!lication for a (acation lea(e of absence for action by t e !ro!er c ief of agency !rior to t e effecti(e date of t e lea(e. =t is clear from t e facts t at 4acsig ad failed to ac<uire t e necessary lea(e !ermits. He offers no e;cuse or e;!lanation for failing to obtain t e necessary aut oriCation for is lea(es. , us, e is guilty of ta1ing unaut oriCed absences. Rule =D, Section 52 *A+ *1?+ of t e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice, !ro(ides t at t e !enalty for fre<uent unaut oriCed absences of a first offender is sus!ension for si; mont s and one day to one year. )udge "ndrew ,. +ulnuan vs. Esteban +. +acsig! Cler2 of Court 88! MC3C! Magddela'#agtipunan! Duirinio. ".M. #o. ,'&&' /%%(! "pril &6! $%&$. Judge% gross ignorance. "i(il "ase )o. E62, a case for e#ectment, is co(ered by t e Re(ised Rule on Summary Procedure. =t is e<ually undis!uted t at in summary !rocedure, a !reliminary

conference s ould be eld not later t an 60 days after t e last ans&er as been filed. "onsidering t at no !reliminary conference at all &as eld in "i(il "ase )o. E62, Judge 3iterato e(idently failed to com!ly &it a basic rule of !rocedure for & ic e s ould accordingly be eld accountable. Judge 3iterato5s inaction in "i(il "ase )o. E62 for 622 days constitutes utter disregard for t e summary nature of an e#ectment case. "om!etence is a mar1 of a good #udge. 0 en a #udge dis!lays an utter lac1 of familiarity &it t e rules, e erodes t e !ublic5s confidence in t e com!etence of our courts. =t is ig ly im!erati(e t at #udges be con(ersant &it t e la& and basic legal !rinci!les. 7asic legal !rocedures must be at t e !alm of a #udge5s ands. =n sum, Judge 3iterato is administrati(ely guilty of gross ignorance of t e Rule on Summary Procedure and undue delay in rendering a decision. +r. Ramie G. >ipe vs. )udge Rolando 3. Literato! Municipal 3rial Court! Mainit! Surigao +el #orte. ".M. #o. M3)'&&'&76&! "pril $*! $%&$. Judge% gross misconduct. =n Guerrero vs. )udge +eray, t e "ourt eld t at a #udge :& o deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to com!ly &it t e resolution of Kt e Su!remeL "ourt is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination.> =n t e !resent case, t e "ourt found t at Judge Go failed to eed t e "ourt5s !ronouncements. He did not file t e re<uired comment to t e "ourt5s s o&-cause resolutions des!ite se(eral o!!ortunities granted im. His &illful disobedience and disregard to t e s o&-cause resolutions constitutes gra(e and serious misconduct affecting is fitness and &ort iness of t e onor and integrity attac ed to is office. =t is note&ort y t at Judge Go &as afforded se(eral o!!ortunities to e;!lain is failure to decide t e sub#ect cases long !ending before is court and to com!ly &it t e directi(es of t is "ourt, but e as failed, and continuously refuses to eed t e same. , is continued refusal to abide by la&ful directi(es issued by t is "ourt is glaring !roof t at e as become disinterested to remain &it t e #udicial system to & ic e !ur!orts to belong. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. )udge Go! et al. ".M. #o. M3)'%7'&..7! "pril &%! $%&$. Judge% gross misconduct and dis onesty. =n t is case, Judge =ndar issued decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases & ic do not e;ist in t e records of R,"-S ariff Agua1, 7ranc 15 or t e 'ffice of t e "ler1 of "ourt of t e Regional ,rial "ourt, "otabato "ity. , ere is not ing to s o& t at *1+ !roceedings &ere ad on t e <uestioned cases% *2+ doc1et fees ad been !aid% *6+ t e !arties &ere notified of a sc eduled earing as calendared% *A+ earings ad been conducted% or *5+ t e cases &ere submitted for decision. Judge =ndar, & o ad s&orn to fait fully u! old t e la&, issued decisions on t e <uestioned annulment of marriage cases, &it out any s o&ing t at suc cases under&ent trial and com!lied &it t e statutory and #uris!rudential re<uisites for (oiding marriages. Suc act undoubtedly constitutes gross misconduct. Among t e <uestioned annulment decrees is Judge =ndar5s 4ecision dated 26 2ay 200?, in S!ec. Proc. )o. 0E-591, entitled :Chona Chanco "guiling v. "lan . "guiling. > 4es!ite t e fact t at no !roceedings &ere conducted in t e case, Judge =ndar declared categorically, in res!onse to t e Australian Bmbassy letter, t at t e 4ecision annulling t e marriage is (alid and t at !etitioner is free to marry. =n effect, Judge =ndar confirms t e trut fulness of t e contents of t e annulment decree, ig lig ting Judge =ndar5s a!!alling dis onesty. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. )udge 8ndar. ".M. #o. R3)'&%'$$/$! "pril &%! $%&$. Judge% !erforming or agreeing to !erform functions or ser(ices outside of t eir official functions. Judge 2olato is to be re!rimanded for agreeing to ser(e as one of 3uc1y "or!oration5s alternate ban1 signatories e(en if e may not a(e !erformed suc ser(ice for t e cor!oration. He as no

business agreeing to t e !erformance of suc ser(ice. His offense constitutes a (iolation of Administrati(e "ircular 5 & ic in essence !ro ibits !ublic officials from !erforming or agreeing to !erform functions or ser(ices outside of t eir official functions for t e reason t at t e entire time of t e officials and em!loyees of t e #udiciary s all be de(oted to t eir official &or1 to ensure t e efficient and s!eedy administration of #ustice. Ramoncito and )uliana Luarca vs. )udge 8reneo 4. Molato! M3C! 4ongabong! 0riental MindoroG )eny "gbay vs. )udge 8reneo 4. Molato! M3C! 4ongabong! 0riental Mindoro. ".M. #o. M3)'%6'&7&&G".M. #o. M3)'%6'&7&.! "pril $/! $%&$. )otary !ublic% duty to ascertain t e identities of t e !arties e;ecuting t e document. A notary !ublic is em!o&ered to !erform a (ariety of notarial acts, most common of & ic are t e ac1no&ledgement and affirmation of documents or instruments. =n t e !erformance of t ese notarial acts, t e notary !ublic must be mindful of t e significance of t e notarial seal affi;ed on documents. , e notarial seal con(erts a document from a !ri(ate to a !ublic instrument, after & ic it may be !resented as e(idence &it out need for !roof of its genuineness and due e;ecution. , us, notariCation s ould not be treated as an em!ty, meaningless or routinary act. A notary !ublic5s function s ould not be tri(ialiCed and a notary !ublic must disc arge is !o&ers and duties & ic are im!ressed &it !ublic interest, &it accuracy and fidelity. A notary !ublic e;ercises duties calling for carefulness and fait fulness. )otaries must inform t emsel(es of t e facts t ey certify to% most im!ortantly, t ey s ould not ta1e !art or allo& t emsel(es to be !art of illegal transactions. , e "ourt cautioned all notaries !ublic to be (ery careful and diligent in ascertaining t e true identities of t e !arties e;ecuting t e document before t em, es!ecially & en it in(ol(es dis!osition of a !ro!erty, as t is "ourt &ill deal &it suc cases more se(erely in t e future. Maria vs. Corte:. ".C. #o. 766%! "pril &&! $%&$.

June 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on July 26, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Here are select June 2012 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Administrati(e "om!laint% moot and academic. , e "ourt dismissed t e com!laint filed by =nter-Petal Recreational "or!oration against " ief Justice Renato "orona for being moot and academic after considering t e #udgment of t e Senate sitting as an =m!eac ment "ourt, & ic found t e " ief Justice guilty of t e c arge under Article == of t e Articles of =m!eac ment, &it t e !enalty of remo(al from office and dis<ualification to old any office under t e Re!ublic of t e P ili!!ines as !ro(ided in Section 6*?+, Article O= of t e "onstitution. Re: Complaint "gainst the >onorable Chief )ustice Renato C. Corona dated September &(! $%&& filed by 8nter' ,etal Recreational Corporation, A.2. )o. 12-E-10-S". June 16, 2012

Attorneys% disbarment cases im!rescri!tible. , e defense of !rescri!tion is untenable. , e "ourt as eld t at administrati(e cases against la&yers do not !rescribe. , e la!se of considerable time from t e commission of t e offending act to t e institution of t e administrati(e com!laint &ill not erase t e administrati(e cul!ability of a la&yer. 't er&ise, members of t e bar &ould only be emboldened to disregard t e (ery oat t ey too1 as la&yers, !rescinding from t e fact t at as long as no !ri(ate com!lainant &ould immediately come for&ard, t ey stand a c ance of being com!letely e;onerated from & ate(er administrati(e liability t ey oug t to ans&er for. 1idela 4engco and 3eresita 4engco vs. "tty. ,ablo 4ernardo! A.". )o. E6E9, June 16, 2012. Attorney% @alse and untrut ful statements in !leadings. , e !ractice of la& is a !ri(ilege besto&ed on t ose & o s o& t at t ey !ossess and continue to !ossess t e legal <ualifications for it. 3a&yers are e;!ected to maintain at all times a ig standard of legal !roficiency and morality, including onesty, integrity and fair dealing. , ey must !erform t eir four-fold duty to society, t e legal !rofession, t e courts and t eir clients, in accordance &it t e (alues and norms of t e legal !rofession as embodied in t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. Atty. 2agat5s act clearly falls s ort of t e standards set by t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility, !articularly Rule 10.01, & ic !ro(ides$ Rule 10.01 I A la&yer s all not do any false ood, nor consent to t e doing of any in "ourt% nor s all e mislead, or allo& t e "ourt to be misled by any artifice. , e "ourt ruled t at t ere &as a deliberate intent on t e !art of Atty. 2agat to mislead t e court & en e filed t e motion to dismiss t e criminal c arges on t e basis of double #eo!ardy. Atty. 2agat s ould not ma1e any false and untrut ful statements in is !leadings. =f it &ere true t at t ere &as a similar case for slig t ! ysical in#uries t at &as really filed in court, all e ad to do &as to secure a certification from t at court t at, indeed, a case &as filed. Rodrigo Molina vs. "tty. Ceferino Magat A.". )o. 1800. June 16, 2012. Attorney% )eglect etc.Acce!tance of money from a client establis es an attorney-client relations i! and gi(es rise to t e duty of fidelity to t e client5s cause. 'nce a la&yer agrees to andle a case, it is t at la&yer5s duty to ser(e t e client &it com!etence and diligence. Res!ondent as failed to fulfill t is duty. 0 en t e R," ruled against com!lainant and er usband, t ey filed a )otice of A!!eal. "onse<uently, & at s ould a!!ly is t e rule on ordinary a!!ealed cases or Rule AA of t e Rules on "i(il Procedure. Rule AA re<uires t at t e a!!ellant5s brief be filed after t e records of t e case a(e been ele(ated to t e "A. Res!ondent, as a litigator, &as e;!ected to 1no& t is !rocedure. "anon 5 of t e "ode reads$ "A)') 5 J A la&yer s all 1ee! abreast of legal de(elo!ments, !artici!ate in continuing legal education !rograms, su!!ort efforts to ac ie(e ig standards in la& sc ools as &ell as in t e !ractical training of la& students and assist in disseminating information regarding t e la& and #uris!rudence. , e su!!osed lac1 of time gi(en to res!ondent to ac<uaint imself &it t e facts of t e case does not e;cuse is negligence. Rule 19.02 of t e "ode !ro(ides t at a la&yer s all not andle any legal matter &it out ade<uate !re!aration. 0 ile it is true t at res!ondent &as not com!lainant5s la&yer from t e trial to t e a!!ellate court stage, t is fact did not e;cuse im from is duty to diligently study a case e ad agreed to andle. =f e felt e did not a(e enoug time to study t e !ertinent matters in(ol(ed, as e &as a!!roac ed by com!lainant5s usband only t&o days before t e e;!iration of t e !eriod for filing t e A!!ellant5s 7rief, res!ondent s ould a(e filed a

motion for e;tension of time to file t e !ro!er !leading instead of & ate(er !leading e could come u! &it , #ust to beat t e deadline set by t e "ourt of A!!eals. Also, as counsel, e ad t e duty to inform is clients of t e status of t eir case. His failure to do so amounted to a (iolation of Rule 19.0A of t e "ode, & ic reads$ 19.0A I A la&yer s all 1ee! t e client informed of t e status of is case and s all res!ond &it in a reasonable time to t e client5s re<uest for information. =f it &ere true t at all attem!ts to contact is client !ro(ed futile, t e least res!ondent could a(e done &as to inform t e "A by filing a )otice of 0it dra&al of A!!earance as counsel. He could a(e t us e;!lained & y e &as no longer t e counsel of com!lainant and er usband in t e case and informed t e court t at e could no longer contact t em. His failure to ta1e t is measure !ro(es is negligence. , e failure of res!ondent to file t e !ro!er !leading and a comment on 4uigan5s 2otion to 4ismiss is negligence on is !art. /nder 19.06 of t e "ode, a la&yer is liable for negligence in andling t e client5s case, vi:$ Rule 19.06 I A la&yer s all not neglect a legal matter entrusted to im, and is negligence in connection t ere&it s all render im liable. 3a&yers s ould not neglect legal matters entrusted to t em, ot er&ise t eir negligence in fulfilling t eir duty &ould render t em liable for disci!linary action. Res!ondent as failed to li(e u! to is duties as a la&yer. 0 en a la&yer (iolates is duties to is client, e engages in unet ical and un!rofessional conduct for & ic e s ould be eld accountable. Emilia R. >ernande: vs. "tty. enancio 4. ,adilla! A.". )o. 869?, June 20, 2012. "ontem!t% unaut oriCed !ractice of la&. =n Cayetano v. Monsod, t e "ourt ruled t at :!ractice of la&> means any acti(ity, in or out of court, & ic re<uires t e a!!lication of la&, legal !rocedure, 1no&ledge, training and e;!erience. ,o engage in t e !ractice of la& is to !erform acts & ic are usually !erformed by members of t e legal !rofession. Generally, to !ractice la& is to render any 1ind of ser(ice & ic re<uires t e use of legal 1no&ledge or s1ill. , e '"A &as able to establis t e !attern in Maraan5s unaut oriCed !ractice of la&. He &ould re<uire t e !arties to e;ecute a s!ecial !o&er of attorney in is fa(or to allo& im to #oin t em as one of t e !laintiffs as t eir attorney-in-fact. , en, e &ould file t e necessary com!laint and ot er !leadings :acting for and in is o&n be alf and as attorney-in-fact, agent or re!resentati(e> of t e !arties. , e fact t at Maraan did not indicate in t e !leadings t at e &as a member of t e 7ar, or any P,R, Attorney5s Roll, or 2"3B "om!liance )umber does not detract from t e fact t at, by is actions, e &as actually engaged in t e !ractice of la&. /nder Section 6*e+, Rule ?1 of t e 188? Rules of "i(il Procedure, a !erson assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as suc &it out aut ority, is liable for indirect contem!t of court. /nder Section ? of t e same rules, a res!ondent ad#udged guilty of indirect contem!t committed against a Regional ,rial "ourt or a court of e<ui(alent or ig er ran1 may be !unis ed by a fine not e;ceeding t irty t ousand !esos or im!risonment not e;ceeding si; *E+ mont s, or bot . =f a res!ondent is ad#udged guilty of contem!t committed against a lo&er court, e may be !unis ed by a fine not e;ceeding fi(e t ousand !esos or im!risonment not e;ceeding one *1+ mont , or bot . )uvy ,. Ciocon'Reer! et al.! vs. )udge "ntonio C. Lubao! R3C 4r. $$! General Santos City! A.2. '"A =P= )o. 08-6210-R,J, June 20, 2012.

"ourt !ersonnel% discourtesy. /nless s!ecifically !ro(ided by t e rules, cler1s of court a(e no aut ority to !ass u!on t e substanti(e or formal correctness of !leadings and motions t at !arties file &it t e court. "om!liance &it t e rules is t e res!onsibility of t e !arties and t eir counsels. And & et er t ese conform to t e rules concerning substance and form is an issue t at only t e #udge of t e court as aut ority to determine. , e duty of cler1s of courts to recei(e !leadings, motions, and ot er court-bound !a!ers is !urely ministerial. Alt oug t ey may on ins!ection ad(ise t e !arties or t eir counsels of !ossible defects in t e documents t ey &ant to file, & ic may be regarded as !art of !ublic ser(ice, t ey cannot u!on insistence of t e filing !arty refuse to recei(e t e same. "anon =D, Section 2 of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel !ro(ides t at court !ersonnel s all carry out t eir res!onsibilities as !ublic ser(ants in as courteous a manner as !ossible. Atty. Ramos &as counsel in a case before ,e(es5 branc . He &as an officer of t e court & o e;!ressed a desire to a(e t e !residing #udge, to & om e addressed is motion, see and consider t e same. ,e(es arrogated onto imself t e !o&er to decide &it finality t at t e !residing #udge &as not to be bot ered &it t at motion. He denied Atty. Ramos t e courtesy of letting t e !residing #udge decide t e issue bet&een im and t e la&yer. As eld in Macalua v. 3iu! )r., an em!loyee of t e #udiciary is e;!ected to accord res!ect for t e !erson and rig t of ot ers at all times, and is e(ery act and &ord s ould be c aracteriCed by !rudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. , ese are absent in t is case. "i(il Ser(ice Resolution 88-186E classifies discourtesy in t e course of official duties as a lig t offense, t e !enalty for & ic is re!rimand for t e first offense, sus!ension of 1-60 days for t e second offense, and dismissal for t e t ird offense. =n t&o consolidated administrati(e cases, one for gra(e misconduct and immorality and t e ot er for insubordination, t e "ourt meted out on ,e(es t e !enalty of sus!ension for si; mont s in its resolution of 'ctober 5, 2011. , e "ourt of course decided t ese cases and &arned ,e(es to c ange is &ays more t an a year after t e Se!tember 9, 2009 incident &it Atty. Ramos. "onse<uently, it could not be said t at e ignored &it res!ect to t at incident t e &arnings gi(en im in t e subse<uently decided cases. Still t ose cases s o& ,e(es5 !ro!ensity for misbe a(ior. , us, t e "ourt im!osed on Reynaldo S. ,e(es, 7ranc "ler1 of "ourt of 2unici!al ,rial "ourt in "ities, "ebu "ity, t e !enalty of 60 days sus!ension &it &arning t at a re!etition of t e same or a similar offense &ill be dealt &it more se(erely. "tty. Edward "nthony 4. Ramos vs. Reynaldo S. 3eves! Cler2 of Court 888! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities! 4ranch (! Cebu City. A.2. )o. P-12-60E1, June 2?, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% disgraceful and immoral conduct. , e image of a court of #ustice is mirrored in t e conduct, official or ot er&ise, of t e &omen and men & o &or1 in t e #udiciary, from t e #udge to t e lo&est of its !ersonnel. 3i1e t e rest of t e !ersonnel of t e "ourt, t e s uttle bus dri(ers are e;!ected to obser(e t e norms and et ics of conduct of !ublic officials and em!loyees. Judiciary em!loyees s ould be circums!ect in o& t ey conduct t emsel(es inside and outside t e office. Any scandalous be a(ior or any act t at may erode t e !eo!le5s esteem for t e #udiciary is unbecoming of an em!loyee. "ourt em!loyees are su!!osed to be &ellmannered, ci(il and considerate in t eir actuations. 3aribo Jr.5s utterances, are by t emsel(es, malicious and cast as!ersion u!on 4iomam!o5s c aracter. , e "ourt cannot countenance suc be a(ior. , e "ourt sanctioned 3aribo Jr. for is disgraceful and immoral conduct. Since suc conduct is classified as a gra(e offense, t e !enalty for t e first offense is sus!ension from E mont s and 1 day to one year. 7ut t e "ourt tem!ered '"A5s recommended !enalty and im!osed a !enalty of one mont sus!ension, &it a &arning t at a re!etition of t e same or similar act s all be dealt &it more se(erely, ta1ing into account

t at t is is 3aribo5s Jr. first infraction. Shirley +. +iomampo! Records 0fficer 88! Sandiganbayan vs. 1elipe C. Laribo )r.! Shuttle 4us +river! Sandiganbayan . A.2. )o. S7-12-19-P. June 16, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty. , e "ode of "onduct and Bt ical Standards for Public 'fficials and Bm!loyees enunciates t e State5s !olicy of !romoting a ig standard of et ics and utmost res!onsibility in t e !ublic ser(ice. And no ot er office in t e go(ernment ser(ice e;acts a greater demand for moral rig teousness and u!rig tness from an em!loyee t an t e #udiciary. Persons in(ol(ed in t e dis!ensation of #ustice, from t e ig est official to t e lo&est cler1, must li(e u! to t e strictest standards of integrity, !robity, u!rig tness and diligence in t e !ublic ser(ice. As t e assum!tion of !ublic office is im!ressed &it !aramount !ublic interest, & ic re<uires t e ig est standards of et ics, !ersons as!iring for !ublic office must obser(e onesty, candor and fait ful com!liance &it t e la&. Res!ondent committed dis onesty by causing t e unaut oriCed insertion of an additional sentence in t e trial court5s order. 4is onesty as been defined as a dis!osition to lie, c eat, decei(e or defraud. =t im!lies untrust&ort iness, lac1 of integrity, lac1 of onesty, !robity or integrity in !rinci!le on t e !art of t e indi(idual & o failed to e;ercise fairness and straig tfor&ardness in is or er dealings. 7y er act, s e as com!romised and undermined t e !ublic5s fait in t e records of t e court belo& and, ultimately, t e integrity of t e Judiciary. ,o tolerate suc act &ould o!en t e floodgates to fraud by court !ersonnel. , e insertion of an additional sentence in an order of t e trial court, regardless of t e reason is not among res!ondent5s duties. A legal researc er5s duty focuses mainly on (erifying legal aut orities, drafting memoranda on e(idence, outlining facts and issues in cases set for !re-trial, and 1ee!ing trac1 of t e status of cases. =n Salvador v. Serrano, t e "ourt eld t at courts a(e t e in erent !o&er to amend and control t eir !rocess and orders to ma1e t em conformable to la& and #ustice. 7ut suc !o&er rests u!on t e #udge and not to cler1s of court & o only !erform ad#udicati(e su!!ort functions and non-ad#udicati(e functions. =n t e same (ein, t e !o&er to amend court orders cannot be !erformed by a legal researc er. =t is &ell to remind t at court !ersonnel are obliged to accord t e integrity of court records of !aramount im!ortance, as t ese are (ital instruments in t e dis!ensation of #ustice. )udge "mado Caguioa Iret.J vs. Eli:abeth "ucena! Court Legal Researcher 88! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch (! 4aguio City. A.2. )o. P08-2EAE, June 19, 2012. /nder Section 52 *A+ *1+, Rule =D of t e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice, !romulgated by t e "i(il Ser(ice "ommission t roug Resolution )o. 88-186E dated August 61, 1888 and im!lemented by 2emorandum "ircular )o. 18, series of 1888, dis onesty is a gra(e offense !unis able by dismissal from t e ser(ice for t e first offense. Ho&e(er, t e "ourt, in certain instances, as not im!osed t e !enalty of dismissal due to t e !resence of mitigating factors suc as t e lengt of ser(ice, being a first-time offender, ac1no&ledgment of t e infractions, and remorse by t e res!ondent. , e "ourt as also ruled t at & ere a !enalty less !uniti(e &ould suffice, & ate(er misste!s may be committed by labor oug t not to be (isited &it a conse<uence so se(ere. =t is not only for t e la&5s concern for t e &or1ingman% t ere is, in addition, is family to consider. /nem!loyment brings untold ards i!s and sorro&s on t ose de!endent on &age earners. "onsidering t at t is is res!ondent5s first offense in er t&enty-t&o *22+ years of ser(ice in t e Judiciary, t e admission of er act and er sincere a!ology for er mista1e, er firm resol(e not to commit t e same mista1e in t e future, and ta1ing into account t at s e is a &ido& and t e

only one su!!orting er fi(e c ildren, t e recommended !enalty of sus!ension for a !eriod of si; *E+ mont s is in order. )udge "mado Caguioa Iret.J vs. Eli:abeth "ucena! Court Legal Researcher 88! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch (! 4aguio City. A.2. )o. P-08-2EAE, June 19, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty.@or Aguam to assert t at s e erself too1 and !assed t e e;amination & en in fact somebody else too1 it for er constitutes dis onesty. B(ery em!loyee of t e Judiciary s ould be an e;am!le of integrity, u!rig tness and onesty. 3i1e any !ublic ser(ant, s e must e; ibit t e ig est sense of onesty and integrity not only in t e !erformance of er official duties but also in er !ersonal and !ri(ate dealings &it ot er !eo!le, to !reser(e t e court5s good name and standing. , e image of a court of #ustice is mirrored in t e conduct, official and ot er&ise, of t e !ersonnel & o &or1 t ereat, from t e #udge to t e lo&est of its !ersonnel. "ourt !ersonnel a(e been en#oined to ad ere to t e e;acting standards of morality and decency in t eir !rofessional and !ri(ate conduct in order to !reser(e t e good name and integrity of t e courts of #ustice. Here, Aguam failed to meet t ese stringent standards set for a #udicial em!loyee and does not t erefore deser(e to remain &it t e Judiciary. =n Cru: v. Civil Service Commission, Civil Service Commission v. Sta. "na, and Concerned Citi:en v. +ominga #awen "bad, t e "ourt dismissed t e em!loyees found guilty of similar offenses. =n Cru:, Penaida Paitim mas<ueraded as Gilda "ruC and too1 t e "i(il Ser(ice e;amination in be alf of "ruC. , e "ourt said t at bot Paitim and "ruC merited t e !enalty of dismissal. =n Sta. "na, somebody else too1 t e "i(il Ser(ice e;amination for Sta. Ana. , e "ourt dismissed Sta. Ana for dis onesty. =n "bad, t e e(idence dis!ro(ed Abad5s claim t at s e !ersonally too1 t e e;amination. , e "ourt eld t at for Abad to assert t at s e erself too1 t e e;amination & en in fact somebody else too1 it for er constitutes dis onesty. , us, Abad &as for er offense. , e "ourt found no reason to de(iate from t ese consistent rulings. /nder Section 52*A+*1+ of t e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice, dis onesty is a gra(e offense !unis able by dismissal for t e first offense. /nder Section 59*a+ of t e same rules, t e !enalty of dismissal carries &it it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and !er!etual dis<ualification for reem!loyment in t e go(ernment ser(ice. , e '"A !ro!erly e;cluded forfeiture of accrued lea(e credits, !ursuant to t e "ourt5s ruling in Sta. "na and "bad. , e "ourt also consistently eld t at t e !ro!er !enalty to be im!osed on em!loyees found guilty of an offense of t is nature is dismissal from t e ser(ice. Lourdes Celavite' idal vs. #oraida ". "guam, A.2. )o. S""-10-16-P, June 2E, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% 4isres!ectful be a(ior. Section 2, "anon =D of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel, re<uires t at court !ersonnel s all carry out t eir res!onsibilities as !ublic ser(ants in as courteous a manner as !ossible. , e image of a court of #ustice is necessarily mirrored in t e conduct, official or ot er&ise, of t e men and &omen & o &or1 t ere. "ourt !ersonnel must at all times act &it strict !ro!riety and !ro!er decorum so as to earn and rebuild t e !ublic5s trust in t e #udiciary as an institution. , e "ourt &ould ne(er countenance any conduct, act or omission on t e !art of all t ose in(ol(ed in t e administration of #ustice, & ic &ould (iolate t e norm of !ublic accountability and diminis or e(en #ust tend to diminis t e fait of t e !eo!le in t e #udiciary. /nder Rule O=D, Section 26 of t e 'mnibus Rules =m!lementing 7oo1 D of B;ecuti(e 'rder )o. 282, discourtesy in t e course of official dutiesis classified as a lig t offense. A first-time (iolation of t is rule &arrants t e !enalty of re!rimand. "onsidering a+ res!ondent5s a!ology and admission of is mista1es% b+ is retirement from ser(ice on 1 July 2011 after long years of

em!loyment in t e Judiciary% and c+ t is case being t e first com!laint against im, e s ould be eld liable for discourtesy and be meted out t e !enalty of re!rimand. Res!ondent committed ot er la!ses in t e !erformance of is duties as "ler1 of "ourt. =nstead of strictly obser(ing t e re<uired number of &or1ing ours in t e ci(il ser(ice, e left is !ost in t e middle of t e day to attend a social e(ent. 0orse, e c ose to return to t e office and enter t e #udge5s c ambers & ile under t e influence of alco ol. His be a(ior constitutes a direct (iolation of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel, !articularly Section 1, "anon =D on t e Performance of 4uties, & ic states$ :"ourt !ersonnel s all at all times !erform official duties !ro!erly and &it diligence. , ey s all commit t emsel(es e;clusi(ely to t e business and res!onsibilities of t eir office during &or1ing ours.> )udge Ethelwolda )aravata vs. ,recioso 0rencia! Cler2 of Court! M3C! "goo! La 5nion A.2. )o. P-12-6065, June 16, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% falsification. @alsification of a 4,R by a court !ersonnel is a gra(e offense. , e act of falsifying an official document is in itself gra(e because of its !ossible deleterious effects on go(ernment ser(ice. At t e same time, it is also an act of dis onesty, & ic (iolates fundamental !rinci!les of !ublic accountability and integrity. /nder "i(il Ser(ice regulations, falsification of an official document and dis onesty are distinct offenses, but bot may be committed in one act. , e constitutionaliCation of !ublic accountabilitys o&s t e 1ind of standards of !ublic officers t at are &o(en into t e fabric of our legal system. Public office is a !ublic trust, & ic embodies a set of standards suc as res!onsibility, integrity and efficiency. Reality may de!art from t ese standards, but our society as consciously embedded t em in our la&s, so t at t ey may be demanded and enforced as legal !rinci!les. , is "ourt, in t e e;ercise of its administrati(e #urisdiction, s ould articulate and a!!ly t ese !rinci!les to its o&n !ersonnel, as a &ay of bridging actual reality to t e norms &e en(ision for our !ublic ser(ice. , e Su!reme "ourt e;ercised its administrati(e #urisdiction des!ite res!ondent Masilag5s resignation, more t an t&o years after e &as directed to file is "omment. , e resignation of a !ublic ser(ant does not !reclude t e finding of any administrati(e liability to & ic e or s e s all still be ans&erable. B(en if t e most se(ere of administrati(e sanctionsJ t at of se!aration from ser(ice J may no longer be im!osed, t ere are ot er !enalties & ic may be im!osed namely, t e dis<ualification to old any go(ernment office and t e forfeiture of benefits. , ere are no mitigating circumstances for res!ondent Masilag. 4is onesty and t e act of falsifying detract from t e notion of !ublic accountability, as im!lemented by our la&s. 0e a!!ly t e la& as it is &ritten. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. )aime ?asilag! Sheriff 8 ! Regionatl 3rial Court! 4ranch $7! Manila. A.2. )o. P-09-25?6, June 18, 2012. "ourt Personnel% gross insubordination. Res!ondent failed to e;!lain & y, des!ite er recei!t of t e )otices, s e did not com!ly &it t e directi(es of t is "ourt to submit er comment. , e records s o& t at t e '"A ad sent notices to er at R,"I7ranc 86 of San Pedro, 3aguna, & ere s e is t e branc s eriff. 0 ile s e a!ologiCed to t is "ourt for er failure to submit er comment, s e did not e;!lain t e reasons for er non-submission t ereof and only a(erred t at it &as t e first time s e learned of t e "om!laint against er. , e '"A did not find er e;!lanation satisfactory, because s e did submit er "omment, but only after a S o&-"ause 'rder ad been issued to erI and almost a year after t e first directi(e re<uiring er to file t e "omment. Res!ondent5s !rolonged and re!eated refusal to com!ly &it t e directi(es of t e Su!reme "ourt constituted &illful disres!ect of its la&ful orders, as &ell as t ose of t e '"A. Res!ondent committed t e infraction t&ice, yet failed to fully e;!lain t e circumstances t at led

to t e re!eated omissions. Hence, t ere no reason to o(erturn or mitigate t e !enalty recommended by t e '"A. Ricardo +ela Cru: et al.! vs. Ma. Gross insubordination is t e indifference of a res!ondent to an administrati(e com!laint and to resolutions re<uiring a comment t ereon. , e offense is deemed !unis able, because e(ery em!loyee in t e #udiciary s ould not only be an e;am!le of integrity, u!rig tness, and onesty% more t an anyone else, t ey are bound to manifest utmost res!ect and obedience to t eir su!eriors5 orders and instructions.Ricardo +ela Cru: et al.! vs. Ma. Consuelo )ole ". 1a=ardo! Sheriff 8 ! R3C! 4r. -/! San ,edro! Laguna. A.2. )o. P-12-60EA, June 19, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% gross misconduct and dis onesty. , e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel stresses t at em!loyees of t e #udiciary ser(e as sentinels of #ustice, and any act of im!ro!riety on t eir !art immeasurably affects t e onor and dignity of t e Judiciary and t e !eo!le5s confidence in it. )o ot er office in t e go(ernment ser(ice e;acts a greater demand for moral rig teousness and u!rig tness from an em!loyee t an in t e Judiciary. , us, t e failure of #udicial em!loyees to li(e u! to t eir a(o&ed duty constitutes a transgression of t e trust re!osed in t em as court officers and ine(itably leads to t e e;ercise of disci!linary aut ority. 7y t ese standards, res!ondent &as found &anting, as s e ne(er denied t e allegations t at s e ad stolen and encas ed t e 60,000 c ec1 !ayable to Judge Ro#as. S e did not e(en refute t e allegations of 4auC and "or!uC t at s e misre!resented to bot of t em t at s e ad aut ority to encas t e c ec1. 0orse, neit er did s e e(er deny t e allegations !ertaining to er !re(ious acts of stealing from and !aying off er obligations to ot er trial court #udges. S e as (irtually admitted er &rongdoing. 0 et er or not res!ondent as fully settled er obligation to Judge Ro#as, and to t e ot er trial court #udges for t at matter, &ill not e;onerate er from any administrati(e &rongdoing. , is "ourt in illase9or v. +e Leon as em! asiCed t at full !ayment of an obligation does not disc arge t e administrati(e liability, because disci!linary actions in(ol(e not !urely !ri(ate matters, but acts unbecoming of a !ublic em!loyee. , e "ourt ruled t at res!ondent5s admitted acts of !oc1eting c ec1s and later encas ing t em for er benefit constitute gra(e misconduct. , e "ourt as defined gra(e misconduct as follo&s$ 2isconduct is a transgression of some establis ed and definite rule of action, more !articularly, unla&ful be a(ior or gross negligence by a !ublic officer% and t e misconduct is gra(e if it in(ol(es any of t e additional elements of corru!tion, suc as &illful intent to (iolate t e la& or to disregard establis ed rules, & ic must be establis ed by substantial e(idence. @urt ermore, stealing t e c ec1s and encas ing t em are considered acts of gross dis onesty . 4is onesty is defined as a dis!osition to lie, c eat, decei(e or defraud% untrust&ort iness% lac1 of integrity% lac1 of onesty, !robity or integrity in !rinci!le% lac1 of fairness and straig tfor&ardness% dis!osition to defraud, decei(e or betray. , e image of a court of #ustice is mirrored in t e conduct, official or ot er&ise, of t e !ersonnel & o &or1 t erein. "ourt em!loyees are en#oined to ad ere to t e e;acting standards of morality and decency in t eir !rofessional and !ri(ate conduct in order to !reser(e t e good name and integrity of t e court of #ustice. 7ot gross misconduct and dis onesty are gra(e offenses t at are !unis able by dismissal e(en for t e first offense. Penalties include forfeiture of retirement benefits, e;ce!t accrued lea(e credits, and !er!etual dis<ualification from reem!loyment in go(ernment ser(ice.

, e mere e;!edient of resigning from t e ser(ice &ill not e;tricate a court em!loyee from t e conse<uences of is or er acts. , e "ourt as often ruled t at resignation s ould not be used eit er as an esca!e or as an easy &ay out to e(ade an administrati(e liability or an administrati(e sanction. , us, res!ondent &as still eld administrati(ely liable for gross misconduct and dis onesty.Her resignation, o&e(er, &ould affect t e !enalties t e "ourt may im!ose. , e !enalty of dismissal arising from t e offense &as rendered moot by (irtue of er resignation. , us, t e recommendation of t e '"A is a!!ro!riate under t e circumstances. , e "ourt im!osed u!on res!ondent t e !enalty of a fine in t e amount of A0,000 &it forfeiture of all benefits due er, e;ce!t accrued lea(e credits, if any. , e A0,000 fine s all be deducted from any suc accrued lea(e credits, &it res!ondent to be !ersonally eld liable for any deficiency t at is directly !ayable to t e "ourt. S e &as furt er declared dis<ualified from any future go(ernment ser(ice. , e "ourt em! asiCed t at all court em!loyees, being !ublic ser(ants in an office dis!ensing #ustice, must al&ays act &it a ig degree of !rofessionalism and res!onsibility. , eir conduct must not only be c aracteriCed by !ro!riety and decorum, but must also be in accordance &it t e la& and court regulations. ,o maintain t e !eo!le5s res!ect and fait in t e #udiciary, court em!loyees s ould be models of u!rig tness, fairness and onesty. , ey s ould a(oid any act or conduct t at &ould diminis !ublic trust and confidence in t e courts. E@ecutive )udge Melanio C. Ro=as! )r. R3C 4ranch $*! 3agudin! 8locos Sur vs. "na Marivic L. Mina! Cler2 888! R3C! 4racnh $*! 3agudin 8locos Sur. A.2. )o. P-10-29E?, June 18, 2012 "ourt !ersonnel% misconduct defined. =n "rcenio v. ,agorogon! t e "ourt defined misconduct as a transgression of some establis ed and definite rule of action, more !articularly, unla&ful be a(ior or gross negligence by t e !ublic officer. As differentiated from sim!le misconduct, in gra(e misconduct t e elements of corru!tion, clear intent to (iolate t e la& or flagrant disregard of establis ed rule, must be manifest. , e misconduct is gra(e if it in(ol(es any of t e additional elements of corru!tion, &illful intent to (iolate t e la&, or to disregard establis ed rules, & ic must be establis ed by substantial e(idence. =n t is case, res!ondent &as a mere /tility 0or1er & o ad no aut ority to ta1e custody of t e office attendance logboo1, t e 4,Rs of is office mates, let alone case records. Het, res!ondent, ta1ing ad(antage of is !osition as a /tility 0or1er and t e access to t e court records and documents & ic suc !osition afforded im, re!eatedly &roug t a(oc on t e !ro!er administration of #ustice by ta1ing case records outside of t e court5s !remises and !reoccu!ying is office mates &it t e time-consuming tas1 of locating documents. 0it out doubt is actions constitute gra(e misconduct & ic merits t e !enalty of dismissal. Ho&e(er, in (ie& of is resignation, t e "ourt found it !ro!er to instead im!ose on res!ondent t e !enalty of fine in t e amount of P10,000 &it forfeiture of benefits e;ce!t accrued lea(e credits, if any, and &it !re#udice to reem!loyment in any branc or instrumentality of t e go(ernment, including go(ernment-o&ned or controlled cor!orations. , is of course is &it out !re#udice to any criminal liability e may a(e already incurred. As regards t e E9 missing court records to date a(e not yet been found, t e "ourt deemed it !ro!er to order com!lainant to e;!lain & y s e s ould not be disci!linarily dealt &it in (ie& of t e a!!arent failure on er !art to e;ercise due care in t e custody of t e said case records. 'ur courts of #ustice, regarded by t e !ublic as t eir a(en for trut and #ustice, cannot afford and does not a(e t e lu;ury of offering e;cuses to litigants for negligence in its role of safe1ee!ing and !reser(ing t e records of cases !ending before it. , e conse<uences of suc failure or negligence, if t ere be any, are sim!ly too damaging not #ust for t e !arties in(ol(ed but &orse, for our court system as a & ole. Cler2 of Court "rlyn ". >ermano vs. Edwin +. Cardeno! 5tility wor2er 8! Municipal 3rial Court! Cabuyao! Laguna. A.2. )o. P-12-606E, June 20, 2012.

"ourt Personnel% Procedure in t e ser(ice and e;ecution of court &rits and !rocesses. , ere &as a (alid substituted ser(ice of summons in t is case. As a rule, !ersonal ser(ice of summons is !referred as against substituted ser(ice and substituted ser(ice can only be resorted to by t e !rocess ser(er if !ersonal ser(ice cannot be made !rom!tly. 2ost im!ortantly, t e !roof of substituted ser(ice of summons must *a+ indicate t e im!ossibility of ser(ice of summons &it in a reasonable time% *b+ s!ecify t e efforts e;erted to locate t e defendant% and *c+ state t at t e summons &as ser(ed u!on a !erson of sufficient age and discretion & o is residing in t e address, or & o is in c arge of t e office or regular !lace of business, of t e defendant. =t is li1e&ise re<uired t at t e !ertinent facts !ro(ing t ese circumstances be stated in t e !roof of ser(ice or in t e officer5s return. 7ased on t e records, S eriff Dillar e; austed efforts to !ersonally ser(e t e summons to S!ouses ,iu as indicated in is S eriff5s Return of Summons. 0 en it &as a!!arent t at t e summons could not be ser(ed !ersonally on t e s!ouses, S eriff Dillar ser(ed t e summons t roug 7auco, t eir em!loyee, at t e office address of t e cou!le5s business. =t &as e(ident t at 7auco &as com!etent and of sufficient age to recei(e t e summons on t eir be alf as s e re!resented erself to be t eir General 2anager and "areta1er. , e S eriff also com!lied &it t e re<uirement of !rior coordination as mandated in Administrati(e "ircular )o. 12 & ic lays do&n t e guidelines and !rocedure in t e ser(ice and e;ecution of court &rits and !rocesses in t e reorganiCed courts. 4ocumentary e(idence indeed discloses t at S eriff Dillar of Pasay "ity coordinated &it t e S eriff of Pasig "ity before e im!lemented t e &rit of !reliminary attac ment. =n t e "ertification, t e "ler1 of "ourt of Pasig "ity attested to t e fact t at S eriff Dillar formally coordinated &it t eir office in connection &it t e im!lementation of t e &rit of attac ment. Attac ed to said certification is a certified true co!y of S eriff Dillar5s re<uest for coordination on & ic t e &ord :recei(ed> &as stam!ed by t e 'ffice of t e "ler1 of "ourt and B;-officio S eriff, R," Pasig "ity. 7y la&, s eriffs are obligated to maintain !ossession of t e seiCed !ro!erties absent any instruction to t e contrary. =n t is case, t e &rit of !reliminary attac ment aut oriCing t e trial court to legally old t e attac ed items &as set aside by t e R," 'rder dated July 9, 2010 s!ecifically ordering S eriff Dillar to immediately release t e seiCed items to S!ouses ,iu. , e instruction of t e trial court &as clear and sim!le. S eriff Dillar &as to return t e seiCed !ro!erties to S!ouses ,iu. He s ould a(e follo&ed t e court5s order immediately. He ad no discretion to &ait for t e finality of t e court5s order of dismissal before disc arging t e order of attac ment. )e(ert eless, S eriff Dillar s o&ed no deliberate defiance of, or disobedience to, t e court5s order of release. Records s o& t at e too1 t e !ro!er ste! under t e circumstances and filed &it t e trial court is S eriff5s Re!ort &it /rgent Prayer for t e =ssuance of a "larificatory 'rder. , ere &as not ing amiss in consulting t e #udge before ta1ing action on a matter of & ic e is not an e;!ert. Spouses Rainier 3iu and )ennifer 3iu vs. irgilio illar! Sheriff 8 ! R3C! 0CC ,asay City. A.2. )o. P-11-289E, June 16, 2012 Judge% delay in rendering decisions. Judges are continuously reminded to resol(e cases &it dis!atc to a(oid any delay in t e administration of #ustice. , us, under Section 8 *1+, Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious c arge. , e Su!reme "ourt ruled t at t e !rudent course of action &ould a(e been for Judge Asis to re<uest an e;tension for acting on "i(il "ase )o. 05-65016 instead of dis!osing t e case only after being !rom!ted to file a comment on t e !resent "om!laint. , e "ourt ne(ert eless

deemed it !ro!er to reduce t e fine, considering t e e;istence of factors t at mitigated t e commission of t e offense, namely$ *a+ t is is is first infraction, and *b+ is delay in t e dis!osition of t e case resulted from is serious medical conditions. Leticia )acinto vs. )udge )osephus )oannes >. "sis! Me3C! 4r. (%! Due:on City A.2. )o. 2,J-12-1911, June 16, 2012 Judge% delay in rendering decision. Section 15*1+, Article D=== of t e "onstitution, mandates t at cases or matters filed &it t e lo&er courts must be decided or resol(ed &it int ree mont s from t e date t ey are submitted for decision or resolution. 0it res!ect to cases falling under t e Rule on Summary Procedure, first le(el courts are only allo&ed 60 days follo&ing t e recei!t of t e last affida(it and !osition !a!er, or t e e;!iration of t e !eriod for filing t e same, &it in & ic to render #udgment. As a general !rinci!le, rules !rescribing t e time &it in & ic certain acts must be done, or certain !roceedings ta1en, are considered absolutely indis!ensable to t e !re(ention of needless delays and t e orderly and s!eedy disc arge of #udicial business. 7y t eir (ery nature, t ese rules are regarded as mandatory. Judges are oft-reminded of t eir duty to !rom!tly act u!on cases and matters !ending before t eir courts. Rule 6.05, "anon 6 of t e "ode of Judicial "onduct, directs #udges to dis!ose of t e court5s business !rom!tly and decide cases &it in t e re<uired !eriods. "anons E and ? of t e "anons of Judicial Bt ics furt er e; ort #udges to be !rom!t and !unctual in t e dis!osition and resolution of cases and matters !ending before t eir courts. =n addition, Administrati(e "ircular )o. 1 dated January 29, 1899 once more reminds all magistrates to obser(e scru!ulously t e !eriods !rescribed in Section 15, Article D=== of t e "onstitution, and to act !rom!tly on all motions and interlocutory matters !ending before t eir courts. Prom!t dis!osition of cases is attained basically t roug t e efficiency and dedication to duty of #udges. =f t ey do not !ossess t ose traits, delay in t e dis!osition of cases is ine(itable to t e !re#udice of litigants. Accordingly, #udges s ould be imbued &it a ig sense of duty and res!onsibility in t e disc arge of t eir obligation to !rom!tly administer #ustice. /nfortunately, res!ondent failed to li(e u! to t e e;acting standards of duty and res!onsibility t at er !osition re<uires. , e case &as submitted for resolution on July 18, 200E, yet it &as still !ending & en com!lainant filed t e !resent administrati(e com!laint on June A, 2010, and remained unresol(ed !er com!lainant5s manifestation filed on Se!tember 9, 2010. 2ore t an four years after being submitted for resolution, t e case &as still a&aiting decision by res!ondent. Res!ondent irrefragably failed to decide t e case &it in t e 60-day !eriod !rescribed by t e Re(ised Rule on Summary Procedure. , is action is contrary to t e rationale be ind t e Rule on Summary Procedure, & ic &as !recisely ado!ted to !romote a more e;!editious and ine;!ensi(e determination of cases, and to enforce t e constitutional rig ts of litigants to t e s!eedy dis!osition of cases. =ndeed, res!ondent e(en failed to decide t e case &it in t e t ree-mont !eriod mandated in general by t e "onstitution for lo&er courts to decide or resol(e cases. Records do not s o& t at res!ondent made any !re(ious attem!t to re!ort and re<uest for e;tension of time to resol(e t e case. Section 8, Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt, as amended by A.2. )o. 01-9-10-S", classifies undue delay in rendering a decision as a less serious c arge for & ic t e !enalty is sus!ension from office &it out salary and ot er benefits for one mont to t ree mont s, or a fine of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00. Gi(en t at res!ondent ad been !re(iously dismissed from t e ser(ice, t e !enalty of sus!ension is already ina!!licable. =nstead, t e "ourt im!osed u!on res!ondent, for er undue delay in resol(ing t e case, a fine in t e ma;imum amount of P20,000.00, to be deducted

from er accrued lea(e credits 1e alde: vs. )udge Li:abeth Gutierre:'3orres! Metropolitan 3rial Court! 4ranch .%! Mandaluyong City. A.2. )o. 2,J-11-1?8E, June 16, 2012. Judge% gross abuse of aut ority and gross ignorance. =n t is case, t e contem!t c arge &as commenced not t roug a (erified !etition, but by Judge 7elen motu proprio t roug t e issuance of an order re<uiring State Prosecutor "omilang to s o& cause & y e s ould not be cited for indirect contem!t. As suc , t e re<uirements of t e rules t at t e (erified !etition for contem!t be doc1eted, eard and decided se!arately or consolidated &it t e !rinci!al action find no a!!lication. "onse<uently, Judge 7elen &as #ustified in not directing t e contem!t c arge against State Prosecutor "omilang to be doc1eted se!arately or consolidated &it t e !rinci!al action. Ho&e(er, Judge 7elen blatantly (iolated t e in#uncti(e &rit issued by t e "A en#oining t e im!lementation of is 2ay 60, 2005 'rder and 4ecember 12, 2005 4ecision in "A-G.R. SP )o. 8A0E8. As !ointed out by t e '"A, t e "A5s dis<uisition is clear and categorical. =n com!lete disobedience to t e said Resolution, o&e(er, Judge 7elen !roceeded to issue *1+ t e 'rder re<uiring State Prosecutor "omilang to e;!lain is refusal to file t e su!ersedeas bond and to re<uire is !resence in court on Se!tember 2E, 200?, as &ell as to e;!lain & y e s ould not be cited for indirect contem!t% *2+ t e Se!tember 2E, 200? 'rder see1ing State Prosecutor "omilang5s e;!lanation for is defiance of t e subpoena re<uiring is !resence at t e earing of e(en date, and directing, once again, is attendance at t e ne;t earing on 'ctober 1, 200? and to e;!lain once more & y e s ould not be cited for indirect contem!t% and *6+ t e 'ctober 1, 200? 'rder finding State Prosecutor "omilang guilty of indirect contem!t and sentencing im to !ay a fine of P60,000.00 and to suffer t&o days5 im!risonment. =n re<uiring State Prosecutor "omilang to e;!lain is non-filing of a su!ersedeas bond, in issuing subpoenas to com!el is attendance before court earings relati(e to t e contem!t !roceedings, and finally, in finding im guilty of indirect contem!t for is non-com!liance &it t e issued subpoenas, Judge 7elen effecti(ely defeated t e status Cuo & ic t e &rit of !reliminary in#unction aimed to !reser(e. State ,rosecutors 88 )osef "lbert 3. Judges are e;!ected to e; ibit more t an #ust a cursory ac<uaintance &it statutes and !rocedural la&s. , ey must 1no& t e la&s and a!!ly t em !ro!erly in good fait as #udicial com!etence re<uires no less. 2oreo(er, refusal to onor an in#uncti(e order of a ig er court constitutes contem!t, as in t is case, & ere Judge 7elen, in contumaciously defying t e in#uncti(e order issued by t e "A, &as found guilty of indirect contem!t. Judge 7elen5s actuations cannot be considered as mere errors of #udgment t at can be easily brus ed aside. 'bstinate disregard of basic and establis ed rule of la& or !rocedure amounts to ine;cusable abuse of aut ority and gross ignorance of t e la&. 3i1e&ise, citing State Prosecutor "omilang for indirect contem!t not&it standing t e effecti(ity of t e "A-issued &rit of in#unction demonstrated is (e;atious attitude and bad fait to&ards t e former, for & ic e must be eld accountable and sub#ected to disci!linary action. 'ur conce!tion of good #udges as been, and is, of men & o a(e a mastery of t e !rinci!les of la&, & o disc arge t eir duties in accordance &it la&. Hence considering t e foregoing dis<uisitions and Judge 7elen5s !re(ious infractions, & ic are all of serious nature and for & ic e ad been se(erely &arned, t e "ourt ado!ted t e recommendation of t e '"A to mete t e ultimate !enalty of dismissal against Judge 7elen for gra(e abuse of aut ority and gross ignorance of t e la&. , e "ourt can no longer afford to be lenient in t is case, lest it gi(e t e !ublic t e im!ression t at incom!etence and re!eated offenders are tolerated in t e #udiciary. State ,rosecutors 88 )osef "lbert 3. Comilang and Ms. ictoria Sunega'Lagman vs. )udge Medel "rnaldo 4. 4elen! R3C! 4ranch /.! Calamba City. A.2. )o. R,J-10-221E, June 2E, 2012.

Judge% gross ignorance of t e la&. )ot all administrati(e com!laints against #udges merit a corres!onding !enalty. =n t e absence of fraud, dis onesty or corru!tion, t e acts of a #udge in is #udicial ca!acity are not sub#ect to disci!linary action. , e remedy of t e com!lainants in t is case is #udicial in nature. Hence, t e denial of t eir motion for reconsideration of t e Su!reme "ourt5s Resolution dismissing t e administrati(e case against Judge 3ubao is in order. , e records &ould s o& t at Judge 3ubao ad been (ery careful in is actions on t e case, as is branc cler1 of court e(en &rote t e Post 'ffice of General Santos "ity as1ing for certification as to & en t e 'rder, sent under Registry Recei!t, &as recei(ed by t e defendants. , ere &as no e(idence t at Judge 3ubao acted arbitrarily or in bad fait . @urt er, Judge 3ubao could not be faulted for trying to gi(e all t e !arties an o!!ortunity to be eard considering t at t e records of t e case &ould s o& t at t e court a Cuo summarily dismissed t e case &it out issuing summons to t e defendants. )uvy ,. Ciocon'Reer! et al.! vs. )udge "ntonio C. Lubao! R3C 4r. $$! General Santos City! A.2. '"A =P= )o. 08-6210-R,J, June 20, 2012. Judge% gross ignorance of t e la&. , e res!ondent deser(es to be sanctioned for gross ignorance of t e la&. 0it er inaction on t e !etition for contem!t, s e betrayed er unbecoming lac1 of familiarity &it basic !rocedural rules suc as & at &as in(ol(ed in t e contem!t !roceedings before er court. S e s ould a(e 1no&n t at & ile t e !etitioners a(e t e res!onsibility to mo(e e@ parte to a(e t e case sc eduled for !reliminary conference, t e court *t roug t e branc cler1 of court+ as t e duty to sc edule t e case for !re-trial in t e e(ent t at t e !etitioners fail to file t e motion. , e res!ondent cannot !ass t e blame for t e lac1 of mo(ement in t e case to er staff & o, s e claims, &ere monitoring t e case. As !residing #udge, s e s ould account for t e anomaly t at since t e res!ondents filed t eir ans&er, t e !etition for contem!t ad been gat ering dust or ad not mo(ed in t e res!ondent5s court. "learly, t e res!ondent fell s ort of t e standards of com!etence and legal !roficiency e;!ected of magistrates of t e la& in er andling of t e !etition for contem!t. As in Magpali v. ,ardo, s e s ould be fined P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of t e la&. =t bears stressing t at & en t e la& is so elementary, not to 1no& it or to act as if one does not 1no& it constitutes gross ignorance of t e la&.> Eladio +.,erfecto vs. )udge "lma Consuelo +esales'Esideria! A.2. )o. R,J-11-2259, June 20, 2012. Judges% in ibition. Judicial remedies &ere a(ailable to com!lainant in t e main cases. , e allegations in t e instant com!laint are a mere re as of t e allegations in com!lainant5s /rgent 'mnibus 2otion to B;!unge 2otion for "larification and Recall t e Resolution dated )o(ember 16, 2002 and t e /rgent 2otion to =n ibit and t e Resol(e Res!ondent5s /rgent 'mnibus 2otion filed in t e main cases. , ese &ere in fact decided already on 'ctober 18, 2011. , e "om!lainant c arges Justice Sereno of unfairly refusing to in ibit erself from ta1ing !art in t e deliberation in t e main cases not&it standing t at Justice "ar!io5s former la& office su!!osedly &or1ed for er a!!ointment in t e Su!reme "ourt. , e c arge is !urely con#ectural and t e "ourt, in its A!ril 1?, 2012 per curiam decision in A.". )o. E662 as already ruled t at t e c arge as no :e;trinsic factual e(idence to su!!ort it.> Re: Letter'Complaint "gainst >on. )ustices "ntonio 3. Carpio and Maria Loudes ,." Sereno dated September &.! $%&& filed by "tty. Magdaleno M. ,ena! A.2. )o. 12-E-11-S". June 16, 2012. Judges% undue delay in rendering a decision or order. 4elay in case dis!osition is a ma#or cul!rit in t e erosion of !ublic fait and confidence in t e #udiciary and t e lo&ering of its standards. @ailure to decide cases &it in t e reglementary !eriod, &it out strong and #ustifiable reasons, constitutes gross inefficiency &arranting t e im!osition of administrati(e sanction on t e defaulting #udge.

=n t is case, t e decision &as !ur!ortedly issued on ? A!ril 2011, or more t an four mont s since t e last submission of t e !arties5 !osition !a!er. , e !retrial 'rder &as !ur!ortedly issued on 2E January 2010, or more t an t ree mont s since t e !retrial. Section 9 of t e Rules on Summary Procedure !ro(ides t at &it in fi(e days after t e termination of t e !reliminary conference, t e court s all issue an order stating t e matters ta1en u! t erein. @urt er, !aragra! 9, ,itle =*A+ of A.2. )o. 06-1-08-S", entitled :Guidelines to be 'bser(ed by ,rial "ourt Judges and "ler1s of "ourt in t e "onduct of Pre-,rial and /se of 4e!osition4isco(ery 2easures,> mandates t at a #udge must issue a !retrial order &it in 10 days after t e termination of t e !retrial. Since t e e#ectment case fell under t e Rules on Summary Procedure, res!ondent #udge s ould a(e andled it &it !rom!tness and aste. , e reason for t e ado!tion of t ose Rules is !recisely to !re(ent undue delays in t e dis!osition of cases, an offense for & ic res!ondent #udge may be eld administrati(ely liable. Section 8, Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious c arge, & ic under Section 1*b+ of t e same Rule is !unis able &it sus!ension from office, &it out salary and ot er benefits, for not less t an one *1+ nor more t an t ree *6+ mont s% or a fine of more t an 10,000, but not e;ceeding 20,000. "onsidering t at t e instant administrati(e c arge is only t e t ird against res!ondent #udge *t e first as been dismissed, & ile t e second is still !ending+, and considering is relati(ely long tenure in t e #udiciary starting in 188?, e may be reasonably meted out a !enalty of 5,000 for being administrati(ely liable for undue delay in rendering a decision. ,ilar S. 3anoco vs. )udge 8nocencio 4. Saguin! )r. M3CC 4r. /! Cabanatuan City. A.2. )o. 2,J-12-1912. June 20, 2012. Judge% unreasonable delay in t e dis!osition of cases. Judges a(e t e s&orn duty to administer #ustice &it out undue delay, for #ustice delayed is #ustice denied. , ey a(e al&ays been e; orted to obser(e strict ad erence to t e rule on s!eedy dis!osition of cases, as delay in case dis!osition is a ma#or cul!rit in t e erosion of !ublic fait and confidence in t e #udicial system. /nder t e 189? "onstitution, trial #udges are mandated to decide and resol(e cases &it in 80 days from submission. "orollary to t is constitutional mandate, Section 5, "anon E of t e )e& "ode of Judicial "onduct for t e P ili!!ine Judiciary re<uires #udges to !erform all #udicial duties efficiently, fairly, and &it reasonable !rom!tness. =n 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )avellana, t e "ourt eld t at a #udge cannot c oose is deadline for deciding cases !ending before im. 0it out an e;tension granted by t e "ourt, t e failure to decide e(en a single case &it in t e re<uired !eriod constitutes gross inefficiency t at merits administrati(e sanction. =f a #udge is unable to com!ly &it t e !eriod for deciding cases or matters, e can, for good reasons, as1 for an e;tension. An ine;cusable failure to decide a case &it in t e !rescribed 80-day !eriod constitutes gross inefficiency, &arranting t e im!osition of administrati(e sanctions suc as sus!ension from office &it out !ay or fine on t e defaulting #udge. , e fines im!osed (ary in eac case, de!ending c iefly on t e number of cases not decided &it in t e reglementary !eriod and ot er factors, suc as t e !resence of aggra(ating or mitigating circumstances, t e damage suffered by t e !arties as a result of t e delay, t e ealt and age of t e #udge, and ot er analogous circumstances. =n t is case, records are bereft of s o&ing t at Judge 7uena(ista soug t for an e;tension of time to decide and resol(e most of t e cases !ending before im, sa(e only for one instance. Ha(ing t erefore failed to decide cases and resol(e incidents &it in t e re<uired !eriod constituted gross inefficiency, &arranting t e im!osition of a fine of P10,000.00 & ic t e "ourt finds reasonable

under t e circumstances. Re: Report of the )udicial "udit Conducted in the Regional trial Court! 4ranches 7$ and $$! #arvacan 8locos Sur. A.2. )o. 0E-8-525-R,", June 16, 2012. Public 'fficials% SA3)s. 0 ile no !ro ibition could stand against access to official records, suc as t e SA3), t e same is undoubtedly sub#ect to regulation. Section 9 *c+ and *d+ of R.A. )o. E?16 !ro(ides for t e limitation and !ro ibition on t e regulated access to SA3)s of go(ernment officials and em!loyees as &ell as t e =m!lementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. )o. E?16. , e !o&er to regulate t e access by t e !ublic to t ese documents stems from t e in erent !o&er of t e "ourt, as custodian of t ese !ersonal documents, to control its (ery office to t e end t at damage to, or loss of, t e records may be a(oided% t at undue interference &it t e duties of t e custodian of t e boo1s and documents and ot er em!loyees may be !re(ented% and t at t e rig t of ot er !ersons entitled to ma1e ins!ection may be insured. =n t is connection, Section 11 of t e R.A E1?6 !ro(ides for t e !enalties in case t ere s ould be a misuse of t e SA3) and t e information contained t erein. , e "ourt found no reason to deny t e !ublic access to t e SA3), P4S and "D of t e Justices of t e "ourt and ot er magistrates of t e Judiciary sub#ect, of course, to t e limitations and !ro ibitions !ro(ided in R.A. )o. E?16, its im!lementing rules and regulations, and in t e guidelines set fort in t e decretal !ortion. , e "ourt noted t e (alid concerns of t e ot er magistrates regarding t e !ossible illicit moti(es of some indi(iduals in t eir re<uests for access to suc !ersonal information and t eir !ublication. Ho&e(er, custodians of !ublic documents must not concern t emsel(es &it t e moti(es, reasons and ob#ects of t e !ersons see1ing access to t e records. , e moral or material in#ury & ic t eir misuse mig t inflict on ot ers is t e re<uestor5s res!onsibility and loo1out. Any !ublication is made sub#ect to t e conse<uences of t e la&. 0 ile !ublic officers in t e custody or control of !ublic records a(e t e discretion to regulate t e manner in & ic records may be ins!ected, e;amined or co!ied by interested !ersons, suc discretion does not carry &it it t e aut ority to !ro ibit access, ins!ection, e;amination, or co!ying of t e records. After all, !ublic office is a !ublic trust. Public officers and em!loyees must, at all times, be accountable to t e !eo!le, ser(e t em &it utmost res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act &it !atriotism and #ustice, and lead modest li(es. , e Su!reme "ourt also !ro(ided t e follo&ing guidelines$ 1. All re<uests s all be filed &it t e 'ffice of t e "ler1 of "ourt of t e Su!reme "ourt, t e "ourt of A!!eals, t e Sandiganbayan, t e "ourt of ,a; A!!eals% for t e lo&er courts, &it t e 'ffice of t e "ourt Administrator% and for attac ed agencies, &it t eir res!ecti(e eads of offices. 2. Re<uests s all co(er only co!ies of t e latest SA3), P4S and "D of t e members, officials and em!loyees of t e Judiciary, and may co(er only !re(ious records if so s!ecifically re<uested and considered as #ustified, as determined by t e officials mentioned in !ar. 1 abo(e, under t e terms of t ese guidelines and t e =m!lementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. )o. E?16. 6. =n t e case of re<uests for co!ies of SA3) of t e Justices of t e Su!reme "ourt, t e "ourt of A!!eals, t e Sandiganbayan and t e "ourt of ,a; A!!eals, t e aut ority to disclose s all be made by t e "ourt Bn 7anc. A. B(ery re<uest s all e;!lain t e re<uesting !arty5s s!ecific !ur!ose and t eir indi(idual interests soug t to be ser(ed% s all state t e commitment t at t e re<uest s all only be for t e

stated !ur!ose% and s all be submitted in a duly accom!lis ed re<uest form secured from t e S" &ebsite. , e use of t e information secured s all only be for t e stated !ur!ose. 5. =n t e case of re<uesting indi(iduals ot er t an members of t e media, t eir interests s ould go beyond !ure or mere curiosity. E. =n t e case of t e members of t e media, t e re<uest s all additionally be su!!orted by !roof under oat of t eir media affiliation and by a similar certification of t e accreditation of t eir res!ecti(e organiCations as legitimate media !ractitioners. ?. , e re<uesting !arty, & et er as indi(iduals or as members of t e media, must a(e no derogatory record of a(ing misused any re<uested information !re(iously furnis ed to t em. Re: ReCuest for copy of $%%6 Statement of "ssets! Liabilities and #etworth LS"L#M and ,ersonal +ata Sheet or Curriculum itae of the )ustices of the Supreme Court and 0fficers and Employees of the )udiciaryG ReK ReCuest of the ,hilippine Center for 8nvestigative )ournalism L,C8)M for the $%%6 Statement of "ssets! Liabilities and #etworth LS"L#M and ,ersonal +ata Sheets of the Court of "ppeals )ustices, A.2. )o. 08-9-E-S".A.2. )o. 08-9-0?-"A. June 16, 2012. Retirement under R.A 810% Retirement (s. Resignation. Resignation and retirement are t&o distinct conce!ts carrying different meanings and legal conse<uences in our #urisdiction. 0 ile an em!loyee can resign at any time, retirement entails t e com!liance &it certain age and ser(ice re<uirements s!ecified by la& and #uris!rudence. Resignation stems from t e em!loyee5s o&n intent and (olition to resign and relin<uis is. er !ost. Retirement ta1es effect by o!eration of la&. =n terms of se(erance to one5s em!loyment, resignation absolutely cuts-off t e em!loyment relations i! in general% in retirement, t e em!loyment relations i! endures for t e !ur!ose of t e grant of retirement benefits. RA )o. 810, as amended allo&s t e grant of retirement benefits to a #ustice or #udge & o as eit er retired from #udicial ser(ice or resigned from #udicial office. =n case of retirement, a #ustice or #udge must s o& com!liance &it t e age and ser(ice re<uirements as !ro(ided in RA )o. 810, as amended. , e second sentence of Section 1 im!oses t e follo&ing minimum re<uirements for o!tional retirement$ *a+ must a(e attained t e age of si;ty *E0+ years old% and *b+ must a(e rendered at least fifteen *15+ years ser(ice in t e Go(ernment, t e last t ree *6+ of & ic s all a(e been continuously rendered in t e Judiciary. Strict com!liance &it t e age and ser(ice re<uirements under t e la& is t e rule and t e grant of e;ce!tion remains to be on a case to case basis. , e "ourt allo&s seeming e;ce!tions to t ese fi;ed rules for certain #udges and #ustices only and & ene(er t ere are am!le reasons to grant suc e;ce!tion. 'n t e ot er and, resignation under RA )o. 810, as amended must be by reason of inca!acity to disc arge t e duties of t e office. =n 4ritanico, it &as eld t at t e resignation contem!lated under RA )o. 810, as amended must a(e t e element of in(oluntariness on t e !art of t e #ustice or #udge. 2ore t an ! ysical or mental disability to disc arge t e #udicial office, t e in(oluntariness must s!ring from t e intent of t e #ustice or #udge & o &ould not a(e !arted &it is. er #udicial em!loyment &ere it not for t e !resence of circumstances and.or factors beyond is. er control.

=n eit er of t e t&o instances abo(e-mentioned, Judge 2acarambon5s case does not render im eligible to retire under RA )o. 810,as amended. @irst, Judge 2acarambon failed to satisfy t e age re<uirement since e &as less t an E0 years of age & en e resigned from is #udicial office before transferring to t e "'2B3B". 3i1e&ise, e failed to satisfy t e ser(ice re<uirement not a(ing been in continuous ser(ice &it t e Judiciary for t ree *6+ years !rior to is retirement. Second, Judge 2acarambon5s resignation &as not by reason of inca!acity to disc arge t e duties of t e office. His se!aration from #udicial em!loyment &as of is o&n accord and (olition. , us, t e ruling in 4ritanico cannot be !ro!erly a!!lied to is case since is resignation &as (oluntary. , ird, t ere are no e;ce!tional reasons to #ustify Judge 2acarambon5s re<uest. Judge 2acarambon failed to !resent similar circumstances, i.e., t e !resence of a(ailable and sufficient accumulated lea(e credits & ic &e may tac1 in to com!ly &it t e age re<uirement. A (erification from t e 3ea(e 4i(ision, '"A s o&s t at at t e time e left t e "ourt Judge 2acarambon only ad 51A (acation lea(es and ?8 sic1 lea(es & ic are insufficient to co(er t e ga! in t e age of retirement. 2oreo(er, t ese accumulated lea(e credits &ere all for&arded to t e "'2B3B" u!on is transfer. @inally, unli1e in 4ritanico, t e nature of is se!aration from is #udicial office &as (oluntary. Ho&e(er, alt oug Judge 2acarambon is not <ualified to retire under RA )o. 810, as amended, e may retire under RA )o. 1E1E based on t e documents e ad !resented before t e "ourt & ic meets t e age and ser(ice re<uirements under t e said la&. Re: "pplication for Retirement of )udge Moslemen Macarambon under Republic "ct #o. -&%! as amended by Republic "ct #o. --(., A.2. )o. 1A0E1-RB,, June 18, 2012.

July 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on August 15, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Here are select July 2012 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% bigamy% gross immorality. A disbarment case is sui generis. =ts focus is on t e <ualification and fitness of a la&yer to continue members i! in t e bar and not t e !rocedural tec nicalities in filing t e case.Res!ondent5s regard for marriage contracts as ordinary agreements indicates eit er is &anton disregard of t e sanctity of marriage or is gross ignorance of t e la& on & at course of action to ta1e to annul a marriage under t e old "i(il "ode !ro(isions. Res!ondent entered into marriage t&ice & ile is first marriage &as still subsisting. He e; ibited a de!lorable lac1 of t at degree of morality re<uired of im as a member of t e bar. He made a moc1ery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding res!ect and dignity.His acts of committing bigamy t&ice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 2?, Rule 169 of t e Re(ised Rules of "ourt. Manuel G. illatuya vs. "tty. 4ede S. 3abalingcos ".C. #o. ..$$! )uly &%! $%&$. Attorney% con(iction of a crime in(ol(ing moral tur!itude is a ground for disbarment. "on(iction of a crime in(ol(ing moral tur!itude is a ground for disbarment. 2oral tur!itude is defined as an act of baseness, (ileness, or de!ra(ity in t e !ri(ate duties & ic a man o&es to is fello& men,

or to society in general, contrary to #ustice, onesty, modesty, or good morals.Section 2?, Rule 169 !ro(ides t at :a member of t e bar may be disbarred or sus!ended from is office as attorney by t e Su!reme "ourt for any deceit, mal!ractice, or ot er gross misconduct in suc office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of is con(iction of a crime in(ol(ing moral tur!itude, or for any (iolation of t e oat & ic e is re<uired to ta1e before admission to !ractice, or for a &illful disobedience of any la&ful order of a su!erior court, or for corru!tly or &illfully a!!earing as an attorney for a !arty to a case &it out aut ority so to do. , e !ractice of soliciting cases at la& for t e !ur!ose of gain, eit er !ersonally or t roug !aid agents or bro1ers, constitutes mal!ractice.> =n a disbarment case, t e "ourt &ill no longer re(ie& a final #udgment of con(iction. , e crime of direct bribery is a crime in(ol(ing moral tur!itude. , e la&yer5s final con(iction of t e crime of direct bribery clearly falls under one of t e grounds for disbarment under Section 2? of Rule 169. 4isbarment follo&s as a conse<uence of t e la&yer5s con(iction of t e crime. "tty. ,olicarpio 8. Catalan! )r. vs. "tty. )oselito M. Silvosa. ".C. #o. 7/.%! )uly $(! $%&$. Attorney% ine;cusable negligence. , e failure of counsel to file t e re<uisite a!!ellant5s brief amounted to ine;cusable negligence in (iolation of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. =n ,erla Compania de Seguros! 8nc. v. SaCuilabon , it &as eld t at an attorney is bound to !rotect is client5s interest to t e best of is ability and &it utmost diligence. 'n account of res!ondent5s failure to !rotect t e interest of com!lainant, res!ondent indeed (iolated Rule 19.06, "anon 19 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. , e !ractice of la& is a s!ecial !ri(ilege besto&ed only u!on t ose & o are com!etent intellectually, academically and morally. , is "ourt as been e;acting in its e;!ectations for t e members of t e 7ar to al&ays u! old t e integrity and dignity of t e legal !rofession and refrain from any act or omission & ic mig t lessen t e trust and confidence of t e !ublic. 8saac C. 4asilio! ,erlita ,edro:o and )un 4asilio vs. "tty. irgil R. Castro ".C. #o. .-&%. )uly &&! $%&$ Attorney% re!resentation of conflicting interest. Atty. Sil(osa (iolated Rule E.06. Rule 15.06 also !ro(ides t at :A la&yer s all not re!resent conflicting interests e;ce!t by &ritten consent of all concerned gi(en after a full disclosure of facts.> in >ilado v. +avid, t e "ourt eld t at :an attorney is em!loyed J t at is, e is engaged in is !rofessional ca!acity as a la&yer or counselor J & en e is listening to is client5s !reliminary statement of is case, or & en e is gi(ing ad(ice t ereon, #ust as truly as & en e is dra&ing is client5s !leadings, or ad(ocating is client5s !leadings, or ad(ocating is client5s cause in o!en court.> Hence t e necessity of setting do&n t e e;istence of t e bare relations i! of attorney and client as t e yardstic1 for testing incom!atibility of interests. , is stern rule is designed not alone to !re(ent t e dis onest !ractitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as &ell to !rotect t e onest la&yer from unfounded sus!icion of un!rofessional !ractice. =t is founded on !rinci!les of !ublic !olicy, on good taste. , e <uestion is not necessarily one of t e rig ts of t e !arties, but as to & et er t e attorney as ad ered to !ro!er !rofessional standard. 0it t ese t oug ts in mind, it be oo(es attorneys, li1e "aesar5s &ife, not only to 1ee! in(iolate t e client5s confidence, but also to a(oid t e a!!earance of treac ery and double-dealing. 'nly t us can litigants be encouraged to entrust t eir secrets to t eir attorneys & ic is of !aramount im!ortance in t e administration of #ustice. , e !ro ibition against re!resentation of conflicting interests a!!lies alt oug t e attorney5s intentions &ere onest and e acted in good fait . "tty. ,olicarpio 8. Catalan! )r. vs. "tty. )oselito M. Silvosa. ".C. #o. 7/.%! )uly $(! $%&$.

Attorney% s aring of fees. A la&yer is !roscribed by Rule 8.02 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility to di(ide or agree to di(ide t e fees for legal ser(ices rendered &it a !erson not licensed to !ractice la&. =n 3an 3e2 4eng v. +avid , it &as rule t at an agreement bet&een a la&yer and a lay!erson to s are t e fees collected from clients secured by t e lay!erson is null and (oid, and t at t e la&yer in(ol(ed may be disci!lined for unet ical conduct. Manuel G. illatuya vs. "tty. 4ede S. 3abalingcos ".C. #o. ..$$! )uly &%! $%&$. Attorney% solicitation of clients. 7ased on t e facts of t e case, res!ondent (iolated Rule 2.06 of t e "ode, & ic !ro ibits la&yers from soliciting cases for t e !ur!ose of !rofit. A la&yer is not !ro ibited from engaging in business or ot er la&ful occu!ation. =m!ro!riety arises, t oug , & en t e business is of suc a nature or is conducted in suc a manner as to be inconsistent &it t e la&yer5s duties as a member of t e bar. , is inconsistency arises & en t e business is one t at can readily lend itself to t e !rocurement of !rofessional em!loyment for t e la&yer% or t at can be used as a cloa1 for indirect solicitation on t e la&yer5s be alf% or is of a nature t at, if andled by a la&yer, &ould be regarded as t e !ractice of la& Rule 15.09 of t e "ode mandates t at t e la&yer is mandated to inform t e client & et er t e former is acting as a la&yer or in anot er ca!acity. , is duty is a must in t ose occu!ations related to t e !ractice of la&. , e reason is t at certain et ical considerations go(erning t e attorney-client relations i! may be o!erati(e in one and not in t e ot er. Manuel G. illatuya vs. "tty. 4ede S. 3abalingcos ".C. #o. ..$$! )uly &%! $%&$. "ourt Personnel% conduct !re#udicial to t e best interest of t e ser(ice. "onduct !re#udicial to t e best interest of t e ser(ice refers to acts or omissions t at (iolate t e norm of !ublic accountability and diminis I or tend to diminis I t e !eo!le5s fait in t e Judiciary. =f an em!loyee5s <uestioned conduct tarnis ed t e image and integrity of is !ublic office, e is liable for conduct !re#udicial to t e best interest of t e ser(ice. , e basis for is liability is Re!ublic Act IR.".J )o. E?16 or t e "ode of "onduct and Bt ical Standards for Public 'fficials and Bm!loyees. , e "ode, !articularly its Section A*c+, commands t at !ublic officials and em!loyees s all at all times res!ect t e rig ts of ot ers, and s all refrain from doing acts contrary to !ublic safety and !ublic interest. , e strictest standards a(e al&ays been (alued in #udicial ser(ice. B(eryone in(ol(ed in t e dis!ensation of #ustice, from t e !residing #udge to t e lo&liest cler1, is e;!ected to li(e u! to t e strictest norm of com!etence, onesty and integrity in t e !ublic ser(ice. , e conduct of e(ery court !ersonnel must be beyond re!roac and free from sus!icion t at may cause to sully t e image of t e Judiciary. , ey must totally a(oid any im!ression of im!ro!riety, misdeed or misdemeanor not only in t e !erformance of t eir official duties but also in conducting t emsel(es outside or beyond t e duties and functions of t eir office. "ourt !ersonnel are en#oined to conduct t emsel(es to&ard maintaining t e !restige and integrity of t e Judiciary for t e (ery image of t e latter is necessarily mirrored in t eir conduct, bot official and ot er&ise. , ey must not forget t at t ey are an integral !art of t at organ of t e go(ernment sacredly tas1ed in dis!ensing #ustice. , eir conduct and be a(ior, t erefore, s ould not only be circumscribed &it t e ea(y burden of res!onsibility but at all times be defined by !ro!riety and decorum, and abo(e all else beyond any sus!icion. , e "ourt does not esitate to condemn and sanction suc im!ro!er conduct, act or omission of t ose in(ol(ed in t e administration of #ustice t at (iolates t e norm of !ublic accountability and diminis es or tends to diminis t e fait of t e !ublic in t e Judiciary. 1ilomena 4. Consolacion vs. Lydia S. Gambito! Court Stenographer! MC3C! 4inalonan! ,angasinanG)udge Emma S. 8nes',ara=as vs. Lydia S.

Gambito! Court Stenographer! MC3C! 4inalonan! ,angasinan ".M. #o. ,'%.'$&6. H ".M. #o. ,'&$'/%$.. )uly /! $%&$ "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty and gra(e misconduct. =n "lenio v. Cunting, t e "ourt defined dis onesty and gra(e misconduct as t e :dis!osition to lie, c eat, decei(e, defraud or betray% untrust&ort iness% lac1 of integrity% lac1 of onesty, !robity, or integrity in !rinci!le% and lac1 of fairness and straig tfor&ardness.> 2isconduct, on t e ot er and, is a transgression of some establis ed and definite rule of action, more !articularly, unla&ful be a(ior or gross negligence by t e !ublic officer. ,o &arrant dismissal from t e ser(ice, t e misconduct must be gra(e, serious, im!ortant, &eig ty, momentous, and not trifling. , e misconduct must im!ly &rongful intention and not a mere error of #udgment. , e misconduct must also a(e a direct relation to and be connected &it t e !erformance of t e !ublic officer5s official duties amounting eit er to maladministration or &illful, intentional neglect, or failure to disc arge t e duties of t e office. ,a1ing monetary e(idence &it out !ro!er aut ority constitutes t eft. =n )udge San )ose! )r. v. Camurongan! t e "ourt eld t at, :, e act of ta1ing monetary e; ibits &it out aut ority from t eir custodian constitutes t eft. , ie(ery, no matter o& !etty, as no !lace in t e #udiciary.> 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Ma. 8rissa G. Musni! Court Legal Researcher 88 R3C! )udicial Region 888! 4ranch /.! Gapan City! #ueva Eci=a ".M. #o. ,'&&'/%$(! )uly &7! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty, gross neglect, gra(e misconduct. Section 1, Article O= of t e "onstitution declares t at a !ublic office is a !ublic trust, and all !ublic officers and em!loyees must at all times be accountable to t e !eo!le, ser(e t em &it utmost res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act &it !atriotism and #ustice, and lead modest li(es. , e demand for moral u!rig tness is more !ronounced for t e members and !ersonnel of t e #udiciary & o are in(ol(ed in t e dis!ensation of #ustice. , e conduct of court members and !ersonnel must not only be c aracteriCed &it !ro!riety and decorum but must also be abo(e sus!icion, for any act of im!ro!riety ca seriously erode or diminis t e !eo!le5s confidence in t e #udiciary. As frontliners in t e administration of #ustice, t ey s ould li(e u! to t e strictest standards of onesty and integrity in t e !ublic ser(ice. "ler1s of "ourt act as custodians of t e court5s funds, re(enues, records, !ro!erty and !remises and are t us, liable for any loss, s ortage, destruction or im!airment of suc funds and !ro!erty. =n Re: Report on the )udicial and 1inancial "udit of R3C'4r. (! ,anabo! +avao +el #orte! it &as eld t at t e failure of t e "ler1 of "ourt to remit t e court funds constitutes gross neglect of duty, dis onesty, and gra(e misconduct !re#udicial to t e best interest of t e ser(ice. =n t is case, Peradilla is guilty of dis onesty, gross neglect of duty, and gra(e misconduct for er$ *1+ nonremittance of collections of #udiciary funds% *2+ non-issuance of official recei!ts and non re!orting in t e 2ont ly Re!orts and "ollections and 4e!osits of some of t e collections% and *6+ erroneous re!orting in t e 2ont ly Re!orts and "ollections and 4e!osits of some of t e collections. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. Lunalinda M. ,eradilla! Cler2 of Court 88! MC3C! E& #ido'Linapacan! ,alawan ".M. #o. ,'%-'$.(7! )uly &7! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le misconduct. , e S eriff disregarded t e !rocedure for t e e;ecution of #udgments as mandated by Section 10, Rule 1A1 of t e Rules of "ourt. A s eriff is mandated to ma1e an estimate of t e e;!enses & ic s all be a!!ro(ed by t e court. =t is only after t e a!!ro(al of t e court t at an interested !arty s all de!osit t e amount &it t e cler1 of court. /!on t e return of t e &rit, t e s eriff must submit a li<uidation and return to t e interested !arty any uns!ent amount. , e S eriff5s act of recei(ing money from t e !arty for t e e;!enses

to be incurred in t e e;ecution of t e &rits, &it out first ma1ing an estimate and securing !rior a!!ro(al from t e 2,"", as &ell as is failure to render accounting after its e;ecution, are clear (iolations of t e rule. B(en if conceding t at t e sum demanded by S eriff is reasonable, t is does not #ustify is de(iation from t e !rocedure laid do&n by t e rule. )eit er t e ac<uiescence nor consent of t e com!lainant, before or after t e im!lementation of t e &rit &ill absol(e im from liability. , e mere act of recei(ing t e money &it out t e !rior a!!ro(al of t e court and &it out im issuing a recei!t t erefor is considered as a misconduct in office. S eriffs are reminded t at t ey are not allo&ed to recei(e any (oluntary !ayments from !arties in t e course of t e !erformance of t eir duties. "orollarily, a s eriff cannot #ust unilaterally demand sums of money from a !arty-litigant &it out obser(ing t e !ro!er !rocedural ste!s. B(en assuming t at suc !ayments &ere indeed gi(en and recei(ed in good fait , suc fact alone &ould not dis!el t e sus!icion t at suc !ayments &ere made for less t an noble !ur!oses. S eriffs and t eir de!uties are t e front-line re!resentati(es of t e #ustice system, and if, t roug t eir lac1 of care and diligence in t e im!lementation of #udicial &rits, t ey lose t e trust re!osed on t em, t ey ine(itably diminis t e fait of t e !eo!le in t e Judiciary. , e image of a court of #ustice is mirrored in t e conduct, official and ot er&ise, of t e !ersonnel & o &or1 t ere, from t e #udge to t e lo&est em!loyee. As suc , t e "ourt &ill not tolerate or condone any conduct of #udicial agents or em!loyees & ic &ould tend to or actually diminis t e fait of t e !eo!le in t e Judiciary. Lambayong 3eachers and Employees Cooperative! represented in this act by its Manager! Gudelio S. aleroso vs. Carlos ,. +ia:! in his capacity as Sheriff 8 ! R3C! 4ranch $%! 3acurong City ".M. #o. ,'%.'$$(.! )uly &&! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty. , e manner in & ic a &rit of e;ecution is to be returned to t e court, as &ell as t e re<uisite re!orts to be made by t e s eriff or officer, is e;!licitly outlined in Section 1A, Rule 68 of t e Rules of "ourt. =n accordance &it t is rule, !eriodic re!orting must be done by t e s eriff regularly and consistently e(ery t irty *60+ days until t e #udgment is fully satisfied. =t is mandatory for t e s eriff to ma1e a return of t e &rit of e;ecution, so t at t e court and t e litigants may be a!!rised of t e !roceedings underta1en in t e enforcement of t e &rit. , e return &ill enable t e courts to ta1e t e necessary ste!s to ensure t e s!eedy e;ecution of decisions. , e failure of a s eriff to ma1e !eriodic re!orts on t e status of a &rit of e;ecution &arrants administrati(e liability. , e "ourt faults res!ondent for not submitting is !eriodic re!orts on t e !rogress of is im!lementation of t e &rit. He is guilty of sim!le neglect of duty, defined as :t e failure of an em!loyee to gi(e one5s attention to a tas1 e;!ected of im, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.>As officers of t e court, s eriffs are c arged &it t e 1no&ledge of & at !ro!er action to ta1e in case t ere are <uestions on t e &rit needing to be clarified% t ey are c arged as &ell &it t e 1no&ledge of & at t ey are bound to com!ly &it .S eriffs are e;!ected to 1no& t e rules of !rocedure !ertaining to t eir functions as officers of t e court,relati(e to t e im!lementation of &rits of e;ecution, and s ould at all times s o& a ig degree of !rofessionalism in t e !erformance of t eir duties. Any act de(iating from t e !rocedure laid do&n by t e Rules of "ourt is misconduct t at &arrants disci!linary action. Rhea "irene ,. ?atague! et al. vs. )erry ". Ledesma! Sheriff 8 ! R3C! 4r. (6! 4acolod City ".M. #o. ,'&$'/%.7. )uly (! $%&$. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty. , e duty administration of #ustice. A !rocess ser(er5s !rimary !recisely re<uires utmost care on is !art by ensuring t ser(ed on t e !arties. /n#ustified delay in !erforming t of a !rocess ser(er is (ital to t e duty is to ser(e court notices & ic at all notices assigned to im are duly is tas1 constitutes neglect of duty and

&arrants t e im!osition of administrati(e sanctions. All em!loyees in t e #udiciary s ould be e;am!les of res!onsibility, com!etence and efficiency. =t is t roug t e !rocess ser(er t at defendants learn of t e action broug t against t em by t e com!lainant. =t is also t roug t e ser(ice of summons by t e !rocess ser(er t at t e trial court ac<uires #urisdiction o(er t e defendant. =t is t erefore im!ortant t at summonses, ot er &rits and court !rocesses be ser(ed e;!editiously. Hea(y &or1load is not an ade<uate e;cuse to be remiss in t e diligent !erformance of one5s !ublic duties as a !ublic ser(ant. 't er&ise, e(ery go(ernment em!loyee c arged &it negligence and dereliction of duty &ill al&ays use t is as a con(enient e;cuse to esca!e !unis ment to t e great !re#udice of !ublic ser(ice , e "ourt as defined dis onesty as t e Qdis!osition to lie, c eat, decei(e, or defraud% untrust&ort iness% lac1 of integrity% lac1 of onesty, !robity or integrity in !rinci!le% lac1 of fairness and straig tfor&ardness% dis!osition to defraud, decei(e or betray.5 4is onesty is not sim!ly bad #udgment or negligence. 4is onesty is a <uestion of intention. =n ascertaining t e intention of a !erson accused of dis onesty, consideration must be ta1en not only of t e facts and circumstances & ic ga(e rise to t e act committed by t e res!ondent, but also of is state of mind at t e time t e offense &as committed, t e time e mig t a(e ad at is dis!osal for t e !ur!ose of meditating on t e conse<uences of is act, and t e degree of reasoning e could a(e ad at t at moment. =t &as ne(er alleged, muc less establis ed, t at 4ela "ruC &as im!elled by some e(il design or corru!t moti(es to commit said errors or to fa(or any !arty or litigant. Hence, e &as found guilty only of negligence in t e !erformance of is tas1s, and not of dis onesty. Sim!le neglect of duty is defined as :t e failure of an em!loyee to gi(e !ro!er attention to a re<uired tas1 or to disc arge a duty due to carelessness or indifference.> )udge ,elagia +almacio')oaCuin vs. #icomedes +ela Cru:! ,rocess Server! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities! San )ose del Monte! 4ulacan. ".M. #o. ,'%.'$$(&. )uly &%! $%&$ Judge% gross ignorance of t e la&. Judge "la!is is also liable for gross ignorance of t e la& for conducting bail earings &it out a !etition for bail being filed by t e accused and &it out affording t e !rosecution an o!!ortunity to !ro(e t at t e guilt of t e accused is strong. His 'rder granting bail indicates t at e merely used as basis t e affida(it of one !rosecution &itness t at &as submitted earlier. "learly, e failed to obser(e t e !ro!er !rocedure in granting bail. His act is not a mere deficiency in !rudence, discretion and #udgment but a !atent disregard of &ell-1no&n rules. 0 en an error is so gross and !atent, suc error !roduces an inference of bad fait , ma1ing t e #udge liable for gross ignorance of t e la&. =f #udges are allo&ed to &antonly misuse t e !o&ers (ested in t em by t e la&, t ere &ill not only be confusion in t e administration of #ustice but also o!!ressi(e disregard of t e basic re<uirements of due !rocess. Judges are reminded t at a(ing acce!ted t e e;alted !osition of a #udge, t ey o&e it to t e !ublic to u! old t e e;acting standard of conduct demanded from t em. Criselda C. Gacad vs. )udge >ilarion ,. Clapis! )r.! R3C! 4r. /! #abunturan! Compostela alley ".M. #o. R)'&%'$$*7. )uly &7! $%&$ Judge% gross misconduct. =n ?aw v. 0sorio, t e "ourt eld t at & ile t e res!ondent #udge, in t at case, may not be eld liable for e;tortion and corru!tion as it &as not substantially !ro(en, e s ould be made accountable for gross misconduct. , e acts of t e Judge in meeting a litigant in a case !ending before is sala, and telling er, :Sige, 1ay a1o na ba ala gamuson nato ni sila> *'1ay, lea(e it all to me, &e s all crus t em+ constitute gross misconduct. 2isconduct means intentional &rongdoing or deliberate (iolation of a rule of la& or standard of be a(ior in

connection &it one5s !erformance of official functions and duties. @or gra(e or gross misconduct to e;ist, t e #udicial act com!lained of s ould be corru!t or ins!ired by t e intention to (iolate t e la&, or a !ersistent disregard of &ell-1no&n rules. , e misconduct must im!ly &rongful intention and not a mere error of #udgment. , e arbitrary actions of res!ondent #udge, ta1en toget er, gi(e doubt as to is im!artiality, integrity and !ro!riety. His acts amount to gross misconduct constituting (iolations of t e )e& "ode of Judicial "onduct, !articularly Sections 1 and 2 of "anon 2 and Sections 2 and A of "anon 6 and Section 1 of "anon A =t is an ironclad !rinci!le t at a #udge must not only be im!artial% e must also a!!ear to be im!artial at all times. 7eing in constant scrutiny by t e !ublic, is language, bot &ritten and s!o1en, must be guarded and measured lest t e best of intentions be misconstrued. )eedless to state, any gross misconduct seriously undermines t e fait and confidence of t e !eo!le in t e #udiciary. Criselda C. Gacad vs. )udge >ilarion ,. Clapis! )r.! R3C! 4r. /! #abunturan! Compostela alley ".M. #o. R)'&%'$$*7. )uly &7! $%&$ Judge% undue delay. , e Re(ised Rules on Summary Procedure &as !romulgated to ac ie(e an e;!editious and ine;!ensi(e determination of t e cases t at it co(ers. , e res!ondent failed to abide by t is !ur!ose in t e &ay t at e andled and acted on t e sub#ect unla&ful detainer case. /nder Section ? of t e 1881 Re(ised Rules on Summary Procedure, a !reliminary conference s ould be eld not later t an t irty *60+ days after t e last ans&er is filed. , e res!ondent set t e case for !reliminary conference at a time &ay beyond t e re<uired t irty *60+-day !eriod. Anot er of t e res!ondent5s !rocedural la!ses relates to t e fre<uent resetting of t e date of t e !reliminary conference. "learly, t e res!ondent failed to e;ert is aut ority in e;!editing t e !roceedings of t e unla&ful detainer case. Sound !ractice re<uires a #udge to remain, at all times, in full control of t e !roceedings in is court and to ado!t a firm !olicy against unnecessary !ost!onements. =n numerous occasions, t e "ourt admonis ed #udges to be !rom!t in t e !erformance of t eir solemn duty as dis!ensers of #ustice because undue delay in t e administration of #ustice erodes t e !eo!le5s fait in t e #udicial system. 4elay not only reinforces t e belief of t e !eo!le t at t e & eels of #ustice in t is country grind slo&ly, it also in(ites sus!icion, o&e(er unfair, of ulterior moti(es on t e !art of t e Judge. Judges s ould al&ays be mindful of t eir duty to render #ustice &it in t e !eriods !rescribed by la&. Murphy Chu! et al. vs. >on. Mario 4. Capellan! "ssisting )udge! Me3C! 4r. (%! Due:on City. ".M. #o. M3)'&&'&77-! )uly &.! $%&$.

August 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on Se!tember 1?, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Here are select August 2012 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% failure to account for money. , e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility !ro(ides$

"anon 1E-A la&yer s all old in trust all moneys and !ro!erties of is client t at may come into is !ossession. Rule 1E.01-A la&yer s all account for all money or !ro!erty collected or recei(ed for or from t e client. Rule 1E.02-A la&yer s all 1ee! t e funds of eac client se!arate and a!art from is o&n and t ose of ot ers 1e!t by im. Rule 1E.06-A la&yer s all deli(er t e funds and !ro!erty of is client & en due or u!on demand. 2oney entrusted to a la&yer for a s!ecific !ur!ose but not used for t e !ur!ose, s ould be immediately returned. A la&yer5s failure to return u!on demand t e funds eld by im on be alf of is client gi(es rise to t e !resum!tion t at e as a!!ro!riated t e same for is o&n use in (iolation of t e trust re!osed in im by is client. Suc act is a gross (iolation of general morality as &ell as of !rofessional et ics. =t im!airs !ublic confidence in t e legal !rofession and deser(es !unis ment. Emilia 0. +haliwal vs. "tty. "belardo 4. +umaguing. A.". )o. 8680, August 1, 2012. Attorney% gra(e misconduct and dis onesty. , e !ur!ose of disbarment is to !rotect t e courts and t e !ublic from t e misconduct of t e officers of t e court and to ensure t e administration of #ustice by re<uiring t at t ose & o e;ercise t is im!ortant function s all be com!etent, onorable and trust&ort y men in & om courts and clients may re!ose confidence. , e "ourt cited t e case of =n Re$ Sotto and ruled t at :'ne of t e <ualifications re<uired of a candidate for admission to t e bar is t e !ossession of good moral c aracter, and, & en one & o as already been admitted to t e bar clearly s o&s, by a series of acts, t at e does not follo& suc moral !rinci!les as s ould go(ern t e conduct of an u!rig t !erson, and t at, in is dealings &it is clients and &it t e courts, e disregards t e rule of !rofessional et ics re<uired to be obser(ed by e(ery attorney, it is t e duty of t e court, as guardian of t e interests of society, as &ell as of t e !reser(ation of t e ideal standard of !rofessional conduct, to ma1e use of its !o&ers to de!ri(e im of is !rofessional attributes & ic e so un&ort ily abused. Rule 1.01 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility states t at :a la&yer s all not engage in unla&ful, dis onest, immoral or deceitful conduct.> , e "ode e;acts from la&yers not only a firm res!ect for la&, legal !rocesses but also mandates t e utmost degree of fidelity and good fait in dealing &it clients and t e moneys entrusted to t em !ursuant to t eir fiduciary relations i!. Pursuant to Section 2?, Rule 169 of t e Rules of "ourt, res!ondent may eit er be disbarred or sus!ended for committing deceitful and dis onest acts. , is rule !ro(ides t at in any of t e follo&ing circumstances, to &it$ *1+ deceitK *2+ malpractice% *6+ gross misconduct% *A+ grossly immoral conduct%I*J conviction of a crime involving moral turpitudeK I.J violation of the lawyerAs oathK I7J wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior courtK or I6J corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do soK t e "ourt is (ested &it t e aut ority and discretion to im!ose eit er t e e;treme !enalty of disbarment or mere sus!ension. Grace M. "nacta vs. "tty. Eduardo +. Resurrecction. A.". )o. 80?A, August 1A, 2012. Attorney% immorality. , e !ractice of la& is considered a !ri(ilege besto&ed by t e State on t ose & o s o& t at t ey !ossess and continue to !ossess t e legal <ualifications for t e

!rofession. As suc , la&yers are e;!ected to maintain at all times a ig standard of legal !roficiency, morality, onesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must !erform t eir four-fold duty to society, t e legal !rofession, t e courts and t eir clients, in accordance &it t e (alues and norms embodied in t e "ode. 3a&yers may, t us, be disci!lined for any conduct t at is &anting of t e abo(e standards & et er in t eir !rofessional or in t eir !ri(ate ca!acity. , e settled rule is t at betrayal of t e marital (o& of fidelity or se;ual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of t e sanctity of marriage and t e marital (o&s !rotected by t e "onstitution and affirmed by our la&s. Res!ondent (iolated t e 3a&yer5s 'at 1A and Rule 1.01, "anon 1 of t e "ode & ic !roscribes a la&yer from engaging in :unla&ful, dis onest, immoral or deceitful conduct.> Engr.Gilbert 3umbo2on vs. "tty. Mariano R. ,efianco. A.". )o. E11E, August 1, 2012 Attorney% re!resenting conflicting interest. "anon 15, Rule 15.06 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility !ro(ides t at a la&yer cannot re!resent conflicting interests e;ce!t by &ritten consent of all concerned gi(en after a full disclosure of t e facts. An attorney o&es is client undi(ided allegiance. 7ecause of t e ig ly fiduciary nature of t eir relations i!, sound !ublic !olicy dictates t at e be !ro ibited from re!resenting conflicting interests or disc arging inconsistent duties. An attorney may not, &it out being guilty of !rofessional misconduct, act as counsel for a !erson & ose interest conflicts &it t at of is !resent or former client. , is rule is so absolute t at good fait and onest intention on t e erring la&yer5s !art does not ma1e it ino!erati(e. , e reason for t is is t at a la&yer ac<uires 1no&ledge of is former client5s doings, & et er documented or not, t at e &ould ordinarily not a(e ac<uired &ere it not for t e trust and confidence t at is client !laced on im in t e lig t of t eir relations i!. =t &ould sim!ly be im!ossible for t e la&yer to identify and erase suc entrusted 1no&ledge &it faultless !recision or loc1 t e same into an iron bo; & en suing t e former client on be alf of a ne& one. Santos entura >ocorma 1oundation! 8nc.! represented by Gabriel >. "bad vs. "tty. Richard . 1un2. A.". )o. 808A, August 15, 2012 Attorney% s aring of fees &it non- la&yers. Res!ondent5s defense t at forgery ad attended t e e;ecution of t e August 11, 1885 letter &as belied by is July 1E, 188? letter admitting to a(e underta1en t e !ayment of com!lainant5s commission but !assing on t e res!onsibility to S!s. Ha!. "learly, res!ondent as (iolated Rule 8.02, "anon 8 of t e "ode & ic !ro ibits a la&yer from di(iding or sti!ulating to di(ide a fee for legal ser(ices &it !ersons not licensed to !ractice la&, e;ce!t in certain cases & ic do not obtain in t e case at bar. Engr. Gilbert 3umbo2on vs. "tty. Mariano R. ,efianco. A.". )o. E11E, August 1, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% disgraceful and immoral conduct. =mmorality as been defined to include not only se;ual matters but also conduct inconsistent &it rectitude, or indicati(e of corru!tion, indecency, de!ra(ity, and dissoluteness% or is &illful, flagrant or s ameless conduct s o&ing moral indifference to o!inions of res!ectable members of t e community, and an inconsiderate attitude to&ard good order and !ublic &elfare. Res!ondent engaged in se;ual relations &it a married man & ic not only (iolate t e moral standards e;!ected of em!loyees of t e Judiciary but is also a desecration of t e sanctity of t e institution of marriage. , e "ode of Judicial Bt ics mandates t at t e conduct of court !ersonnel must be free from any & iff of im!ro!riety, not only &it res!ect to is duties in t e #udicial branc but also to is be a(ior outside t e court as a !ri(ate indi(idual. , ere is no dic otomy of morality% a court em!loyee is also #udged by is !ri(ate morals. , e e;acting standards of morality and decency

a(e been strictly ad ered to and laid do&n by t e "ourt to t ose in t e ser(ice of t e Judiciary. Res!ondent, as a court stenogra! er, did not li(e u! to er commitment to lead a moral life. Public office is a !ublic trust. , e good of t e ser(ice and t e degree of morality, & ic e(ery official and em!loyee in t e !ublic ser(ice must obser(e, if res!ect and confidence are to be maintained by t e Go(ernment in t e enforcement of t e la&, demand t at no unto&ard conduct affecting morality, integrity, and efficiency & ile olding office s ould be left &it out !ro!er and commensurate sanction, all attendant circumstances ta1en into account. )udge "rmando S. "dlawan! ,residing )udge! .th MC3C! 4onifacio'+on Mariano Marcos! Misamis 0ccidental vs. Estrella ,. Capilitan! .th MC3C! 4onifacio'+on Mariano Marcos! Misamis 0ccidental. A.2. )o. P-12-6090. August 28, 2012 "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty and falsification of !ublic document. 0illful concealment of facts in t e Personal 4ata S eet *P4S+ constitutes mental dis onesty amounting to misconduct. 3i1e&ise, ma1ing a false statement in one5s P4S amounts to dis onesty and falsification of an official document. 4is onesty as been defined as intentionally ma1ing a false statement on any material fact. 4is onesty e(inces a dis!osition to lie, c eat, decei(e or defraud% untrust&ort iness% lac1 of integrity, lac1 of onesty, !robity or integrity in !rinci!le% lac1 of fairness and straig tfor&ardness% dis!osition to defraud, decei(e or betray. "i(il ser(ice rules mandate t e accom!lis ment of t e P4S as a re<uirement for em!loyment in t e go(ernment. Hence, ma1ing false statements in one5s P4S is ultimately connected &it one5s em!loyment in t e go(ernment. , e em!loyee ma1ing false statements in is or er P4S becomes liable for falsification. 2oreo(er, for res!ondent to be meted t e !enalty of dismissal, er dis onesty need not be committed in t e !erformance of official duty. As t e "ourt as !re(iously ruled$ :, e rationale for t e rule is t at if a go(ernment officer or em!loyee is dis onest or is guilty of o!!ression or gra(e misconduct, e(en if said defects of c aracter are not connected &it is office, t ey affect is rig t to continue in office. , e Go(ernment cannot tolerate in its ser(ice a dis onest official, e(en if e !erforms is duties correctly and &ell, because by reason of is go(ernment !osition, e is gi(en more and am!le o!!ortunity to commit acts of dis onesty against is fello& men, e(en against offices and entities of t e go(ernment ot er t an t e office & ere e is em!loyed% and by reason of is office, e en#oys and !ossesses a certain influence and !o&er & ic renders t e (ictims of is gra(e misconduct, o!!ression and dis onesty less dis!osed and !re!ared to resist and to counteract is e(il acts and actuations. 0 en official documents are falsified, intent to in#ure a t ird !erson is irrele(ant because t e !rinci!al t ing !unis ed is t e (iolation of !ublic fait and t e destruction of t e trut as claimed in t at document., e act undermines t e integrity of go(ernment records and t erein lies t e !re#udice to !ublic ser(ice. , e act need not result in disru!tion of ser(ice or loss to t e go(ernment. =t is t e act of dis onesty itself t at taints t e integrity of go(ernment ser(ice. A go(ernment officer5s dis onesty affects t e morale of t e ser(ice, e(en & en it stems from t e em!loyee5s !ersonal dealings. Suc conduct s ould not be tolerated from go(ernment officials, e(en & en official duties are !erformed &ell. Bm!loyment in t e #udiciary demands t e ig est degree of res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency from its !ersonnel. All #udiciary em!loyees are e;!ected to conduct t emsel(es &it !ro!riety and decorum at all times. An act t at falls s ort of t e e;acting standards set for !ublic officers, es!ecially t ose in t e #udiciary, s all not be countenanced. Manolito C. illordon vs.

Marilyn C. "vila! Court 8nterpreter 8! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities. 4ranch /! Cebu City. A.2. )o. P-10-2908, August 10, 2012 "ourt !ersonnel% neglect of duty. Sim!le neglect of duty is defined as t e failure to gi(e attention to a tas1 or t e disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. , e "ourt ruled in Pili!ina (. Ro;as$ :, e "ourt cannot countenance neglect of duty for e(en sim!le neglect of duty lessens t e !eo!le5s confidence in t e #udiciary and ultimately in t e administration of #ustice. 7y t e (ery nature of t eir duties and res!onsibilities, !ublic ser(ants must fait fully ad ere to, old sacred and render in(iolate t e constitutional !rinci!le t at a !ublic office is a !ublic trust% t at all !ublic officers and em!loyees must at all times be accountable to t e !eo!le, ser(e t em &it utmost res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Memoranda of )udge Eli:a 4. Bu issued to Legal Researcher Marie )oy ,. Lagman and to Court Stenographer Soledad ). 4assig! all of Metropolitan 3rial Court! 4ranch (7! ,asay City. A.2. )o. P-12-6066, August 15, 2012. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty. Rule 68, Section 1A of t e Rules of "ourt clearly mandates t e s eriff or ot er !ro!er officer to file a return and & en necessary, !eriodic re!orts, &it t e court & ic issued t e &rit of e;ecution. , e &rit of e;ecution s all be returned to t e court immediately after t e #udgment ad been !artially or fully satisfied. =n case t e &rit is still unsatisfied or only !artially satisfied 60 days after t e officer5s recei!t of t e same, said officer s all file a re!ort &it t e court stating t e reasons t erefor. Subse<uently, t e officer s all !eriodically file &it t e court a re!ort on t e !roceedings ta1en to enforce t e &rit e(ery 60 days until said &rit is fully satisfied or its effecti(ity e;!ires. , e officer is furt er re<uired to furnis t e !arties &it co!ies of t e return and !eriodic re!orts. 4ifficulties or obstacles in t e satisfaction of a final #udgment and e;ecution of a &rit do not e;cuse res!ondent5s total inaction. )eit er t e Rules nor #uris!rudence recogniCes any e;ce!tion from t e !eriodic filing of re!orts by s eriffs =t is almost trite to say t at e;ecution is t e fruit and end of t e suit and is t e life of la&. A #udgment, if left une;ecuted, &ould be not ing but an em!ty (ictory for t e !re(ailing !arty. , erefore, s eriffs oug t to 1no& t at t ey a(e a s&orn res!onsibility to ser(e &rits of e;ecution &it utmost dis!atc . 0 en &rits are !laced in t eir ands, it is t eir ministerial duty to !roceed &it reasonable celerity and !rom!tness to e;ecute t em in accordance &it t eir mandate. /nless restrained by a court order, t ey s ould see to it t at t e e;ecution of #udgments is not unduly delayed. Accordingly, t ey must com!ly &it t eir mandated ministerial duty as s!eedily as !ossible. As agents of t e la&, ig standards are e;!ected of s eriffs "anon =D, Section 1 of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel t at reads, :"ourt !ersonnel s all at all times !erform official duties !ro!erly and &it diligence.> "storga and Repol Law 0ffices! represented by "tty. "rnold 4. Lugares vs. Leodel #. Ro@as! Sheriff 8 ! Regional 3rial Court! 4ranch ..! Ma2ati City. A.2. )o. P-12-6028, August 15, 2012. Attorney% re!resentation of non-client. Atty. Bs!e#o5s claim t at e drafted and signed t e !leading #ust to e;tend assistance to Rodica deser(es scant consideration. =t is true t at under Rules 2.01and 2.02, "anon 2 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility, a la&yer s all not re#ect, e;ce!t for (alid reasons, t e cause of t e defenseless or t e o!!ressed, and in suc cases, e(en if e does not acce!t a case, s all not refuse to render legal ad(ise to t e !erson concerned if only to t e e;tent necessary to safeguard t e latter5s rig t. Ho&e(er, in t is case, Rodica cannot be considered as defenseless or o!!ressed considering t at s e is !ro!erly re!resented by counsel in t e R," case. )eedless to state, er rig ts are am!ly safeguarded. =t &ould a(e been different ad Rodica not been re!resented by any la&yer, & ic , o&e(er, is not t e case.

, e "ourt &onders & y Atty. Bs!e#o, 1no&ing fully &ell t at Rodica is not t eir la& firm5s client and &it out t e 1no&ledge and consent of is su!eriors, ga(e in to Rodica5s re<uest for im to indicate in t e said motion t e names of is la& firm, Atty. 2anuel and Atty. 2ic elle for t e !ur!ose of :gi(ing more &eig t and credit to t e !leading.> As a member of t e bar, Atty. Bs!e#o oug t to 1no& t at motions and !leadings filed in courts are acted u!on in accordance &it t eir merit or lac1 of it, and not on t e re!utation of t e la& firm or t e la&yer filing t e same. 2ore im!ortantly, e s ould a(e t oug t t at in so doing, e &as actually assisting Rodica in misre!resenting before t e R," t at s e &as being re!resented by t e said la& firm and la&yers, & en in trut s e &as not. =t is &ell to remind Atty. Bs!e#o t at before being a friend to Rodica, e is first and foremost an officer of t e court. Hence, e is e;!ected to maintain a ig standard of onesty and fair dealings and must conduct imself beyond re!roac at all times. He must li1e&ise ensure t at e acts &it in t e bounds of reason and common sense, al&ays a&are t at e is an instrument of trut and #ustice. )asper )unno 1. Rodica vs. "tty. Manuel M. La:aro! et al . A.". )o. 8258, August 26, 2012

January 201+ Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on @ebruary 20, 2016 by Ramon G. Songco R Posted in 3egal Bt ics, P ili!!ines - "ases R 3ea(e a comment Here are select January 2016 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% forum s o!!ing as contem!t of court. A disbarment com!laint against Atty. GonCales &as filed for (iolating t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility for t e forum s o!!ing e allegedly committed. , e court eld t at t e res!ondent &as guilty of forum s o!!ing. 3a&yers s ould be reminded t at t eir !rimary duty is to assist t e courts in t e administration of #ustice. Any conduct t at tends to delay, im!ede or obstruct t e administration of #ustice contra(enes t is obligation. , e "ourt as re!eatedly &arned la&yers against resorting to forum s o!!ing since t e !ractice clogs t e "ourt doc1ets and can lead to conflicting rulings. 0illful and deliberate forum s o!!ing as been made !unis able eit er as direct or indirect contem!t of court. =n engaging in forum s o!!ing, Atty. GonCales (iolated "anon 1 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility & ic directs la&yers to obey t e la&s of t e land and !romote res!ect for t e la& and legal !rocesses. He also disregarded is duty to assist in t e s!eedy and efficient administration of #ustice, and t e !ro ibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court !rocesses. , us, t e court sub#ected Atty. GonCales to censure. "nastacio #. 3eodoro 888 vs. "tty. Romeo S. Gon:ales. A.". )o. E?E0. January 60, 2016 Attorney% neglect. "om!lainant filed a disbarment com!laint against Atty. Gacott & o allegedly decei(ed t e com!lainant and er usband into signing a :!re!aratory> 4eed of Sale t at res!ondent con(erted into a 4eed of Absolute Sale in fa(or of is relati(es.

, e res!ondent is reminded t at is duty under "anon 1E is to : old in trust all moneys and !ro!erties of is client t at may come into is !ossession.> Allo&ing a !arty to ta1e t e original ,",s of !ro!erties o&ned by anot er I an act t at could result in damage I s ould merit a finding of legal mal!ractice. 0 ile it &as is legal staff & o allo&ed t e com!lainant to borro& t e ,",s and it does not a!!ear t at t e res!ondent &as a&are or !resent & en t e com!lainant borro&ed t e ,",s, t e court still eld t e res!ondent liable, as t e ,",s &ere entrusted to is care and custody% e failed to e;ercise due diligence in caring for is client5s !ro!erties t at &ere in is custody. 2oreo(er, "anon 19, Rule 19.06 re<uires t at a la&yer s all not neglect a legal matter entrusted to im, and is negligence in connection t ere&it s all render im liable. 0 at amounts to carelessness or negligence in a la&yer5s disc arge of is duty to is client is inca!able of an e;act formulation, but t e "ourt as consistently eld t at t e mere failure of a la&yer to !erform t e obligations due is client is per se a (iolation. =n Canoy v. 0rti:, t e court eld t at a la&yer5s failure to file a !osition !a!er &as per se a (iolation of Rule 19.06 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. Similar to Canoy, t e res!ondent clearly failed in is duty to is client & en, &it out any e;!lanation, e failed to file t e 2otion for 3ea(e to =nter(ene on be alf of t e s!ouses Hlaya. 1e ". Blaya vs. "tty. Glenn Carlos Gacott. A.". )o. EA?5. January 60, 2016 Attorney% lac1 of diligence. "om!lainant filed a case for disbarment against Atty. "efra for (iolating "anon 19 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility and Rules 169 and168 of t e Rules of "ourt. , e court eld t at Atty. "efra &as guilty of negligence in andling t e com!lainants5 case. His acts in t e !resent administrati(e case also re(eal is lac1 of diligence in !erforming is duties as an officer of t e "ourt. , e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility mandates t at :a la&yer s all ser(e is client &it com!etence and diligence.> =t furt er states t at :a la&yer s all not neglect a legal matter entrusted to im, and is negligence in connection t ere&it s all render im liable.> =n addition, a la&yer as t e duty to :1ee! t e client informed of t e status of is case.> Atty. "efra failed to li(e u! to t ese standards as s o&n by t e follo&ing$ *1+ Atty. "efra failed to submit a formal offer of documentary e(idence &it in t e !eriod gi(en by t e R,"% *2+ He failed to com!ly &it t e t&o orders of t e R," directing im to submit a formal offer of documentary e(idence% *6+ Atty. "efra failed to file an a!!ro!riate motion or a!!eal, or a(ail of any remedial measure to contest t e R,"5s decision% *A+ He failed to file an a!!ro!riate motion or a!!eal, or a(ail of any remedial measure to contest t e R,"5s decision & ic &as ad(erse to com!lainants. , us, t e abo(e acts s o&ing Atty. "efra5s lac1 of diligence and inattention to is duties as a la&yer &arrant disci!linary sanction. , e court as re!eatedly eld t at :KtL e !ractice of la& is a !ri(ilege besto&ed by t e State on t ose & o s o& t at t ey !ossess t e legal <ualifications for it. 3a&yers are e;!ected to maintain at all times a ig standard of legal !roficiency and morality, including onesty, integrity and fair dealing. , ey must !erform t eir fourfold duty to society, t e legal !rofession, t e courts and t eir clients, in accordance &it t e (alues and norms of t e legal !rofession as embodied in t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility.> Sps. "rcing and Cresing 4autista! et al. vs. "tty. "rturo Cefra A.". )o. 5560. January 29, 2016. Attorney% reinstatement in t e Roll of Attorneys% guidelines in resol(ing re<uests for #udicial clemency% good moral c aracter re<uirement. =n Re: Letter of )udge "ugustus C. +ia:! Metropolitan 3rial Court of Due:on City! 4ranch /7! "ppealing for Clemency, t e "ourt laid do&n t e follo&ing guidelines in resol(ing re<uests for #udicial clemency, to &it$

*a+ , ere must be !roof of remorse and reformation. , ese s all include but s ould not be limited to certifications or testimonials of t e officer*s+ or c a!ter*s+ of t e =ntegrated 7ar of t e P ili!!ines, #udges or #udges associations and !rominent members of t e community &it !ro(en integrity and !robity. A subse<uent finding of guilt in an administrati(e case for t e same or similar misconduct &ill gi(e rise to a strong !resum!tion of non-reformation. *b+ Sufficient time must a(e la!sed from t e im!osition of t e !enalty to ensure a !eriod of reform. *c+ , e age of t e !erson as1ing for clemency must s o& t at e still as !roducti(e years a ead of im t at can be !ut to good use by gi(ing im a c ance to redeem imself. *d+ , ere must be a s o&ing of !romise *suc as intellectual a!titude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal sc olars i! and t e de(elo!ment of t e legal system or administrati(e and ot er rele(ant s1ills+, as &ell as !otential for !ublic ser(ice. *e+ , ere must be ot er rele(ant factors and circumstances t at may #ustify clemency. 2oreo(er, to be reinstated to t e !ractice of la&, t e a!!licant must, li1e any ot er candidate for admission to t e bar, satisfy t e "ourt t at e is a !erson of good moral c aracter. =n a !re(ious 4ecision, t e "ourt disbarred res!ondent from t e !ractice of la& for a(ing contracted a bigamous marriage &it com!lainant ,e(es and a t ird marriage &it one "onstantino & ile is first marriage to Bs!arCa &as still subsisting. , ese acts, according to t e court, constituted gross immoral conduct. =n t is case, t e court eld t at Res!ondent as sufficiently s o&n is remorse and ac1no&ledged is indiscretion in t e legal !rofession and in is !ersonal life. He as as1ed forgi(eness from is c ildren by com!lainant ,e(es and maintained a cordial relations i! &it t em as s o&n by t e erein attac ed !ictures. After is disbarment, res!ondent returned to is ometo&n in Bnrile, "agayan and de(oted is time tending an orc ard and ta1ing care of is ailing mot er until er deat in 2009. =n 2008, e &as a!!ointed as Pri(ate Secretary to t e 2ayor of Bnrile, "agayan and t ereafter, assumed t e !osition of 3ocal Assessment '!erations 'fficer ==.'ffice-=n-" arge in t e Assessor5s 'ffice, & ic office e continues to ser(e to date. 2oreo(er, e is a !art-time instructor at t e /ni(ersity of "agayan Dalley and @.3. Dargas "ollege during t e Sc ool Hear 2011-2012. Res!ondent li1e&ise too1 an acti(e !art in socioci(ic acti(ities by el!ing is neig bors and friends & o are in dire need. "ertain documents also attest to Res!ondent5s reformed &ays suc as$ *1+ Affida(it of "andida P. 2abborang% *2+ Affida(it of Reymar P. RamireC% *6+ Affida(it of Roberto 4. ,allud% *A+ "ertification from t e 2unici!al 3ocal Go(ernment 'ffice. @urt ermore, res!ondent5s !lea for reinstatement is duly su!!orted by t e =7P- "agayan " a!ter and by is former and !resent colleagues. His !aris !riest certified t at e is fait ful to and !uts to actual !ractice t e doctrines of t e "at olic " urc . He is also obser(ed to be a regular c urc goer. Res!ondent as already settled is !re(ious marital s<uabbles, as in fact, no o!!osition to t e instant suit &as tendered by com!lainant ,e(es. He sends regular su!!ort to is c ildren in com!liance &it t e 4ecision dated @ebruary 2?, 200A.

, e "ourt notes t e eig t *9+ long years t at ad ela!sed from t e time res!ondent &as disbarred and recogniCes is ac ie(ement as t e first la&yer !roduct of 3emu )ational Hig Sc ool, and is fourteen *1A+ years of dedicated go(ernment ser(ice from 189E to July 2000 as 3egal 'fficer of t e 4e!artment of Bducation, "ulture and S!orts% Su!er(ising "i(il Ser(ice Attorney of t e "i(il Ser(ice "ommission% 'mbudsman Graft =n(estigation 'fficer% and State Prosecutor of t e 4e!artment of Justice. @rom t e attestations and certifications !resented, t e "ourt finds t at res!ondent as sufficiently atoned for is transgressions. At 59 years of age, e still as !roducti(e years a ead of im t at could significantly contribute to t e u!liftment of t e la& !rofession and t e betterment of society. 0 ile t e "ourt is e(er mindful of its duty to disci!line and e(en remo(e its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to s o& com!assion to t ose & o a(e reformed t eir &ays as in t is case. , us, t e court reinstated res!ondent to t e !ractice of la&. He &as, o&e(er, reminded t at suc !ri(ilege is burdened &it conditions & ereby ad erence to t e rigid standards of intellect, moral u!rig tness, and strict com!liance &it t e rules and t e la& are continuing re<uirements. 1lorence 3eves Macarubbo vs. "tty. Edmundo L. MacarubboK Re: ,etition Ifor E@traordinary MercyJ of Edmundo L. Macarubbo. A.". )o. E1A9. January 22, 2016 "ourt !ersonnel% refusal to !erform duty. Section 1, "anon =D of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel en#oins court !ersonnel to !erform t eir official duties !ro!erly and &it diligence at all times. "ler1s of "ourt are !rimarily res!onsible for t e s!eedy and efficient ser(ice of all court !rocesses and &rits. Hence, t ey cannot be allo&ed to slac1en on t eir &or1 since t ey are c arged &it t e duty of 1ee!ing t e records and t e seal of t e court, issuing !rocesses, entering #udgments and orders, and gi(ing certified co!ies of records u!on re<uest. As suc , t ey are e;!ected to !ossess a ig degree of disci!line and efficiency in t e !erformance of t eir functions to el! ensure t at t e cause of #ustice is done &it out delay. As an officer of t e court, res!ondent "ler1 of "ourt &as duty-bound to use reasonable s1ill and diligence in t e !erformance of er officially-designated duties as cler1 of court, failing & ic , &arrants t e im!osition of administrati(e sanctions. =n t is case, res!ondent un#ustifiably failed to issue t e alias &rits of e;ecution to im!lement t e #udgment in a "i(il "ase, des!ite orders from t e R,". 2oreo(er, s e failed to file t e re<uired comment in disregard of t e duty of e(ery em!loyee in t e #udiciary to obey t e orders and !rocesses of t e "ourt &it out delay. Suc act e(inces lac1 of interest in clearing er name, constituting an im!lied admission of t e c arges. Mariano 3. 0ng vs. Eva G. 4asiya'Saratan! Cler2 of Court! R3C! 4r. /$! 8loilo City . A.2. )o. P-12-6080. January ?, 2016 Judge% disci!linary !roceedings against #udges% !resum!tion of regularity. Juris!rudence is re!lete &it cases olding t at errors, if any, committed by a #udge in t e e;ercise of is ad#udicati(e functions cannot be corrected t roug administrati(e !roceedings, but s ould instead be assailed t roug a(ailable #udicial remedies. 4isci!linary !roceedings against #udges do not com!lement, su!!lement or substitute #udicial remedies and, t us, cannot be !ursued simultaneously &it t e #udicial remedies accorded to !arties aggrie(ed by t eir erroneous orders or #udgments. B(en if t e "A decision or !ortions t ereof turn out to be erroneous, administrati(e liability &ill only attac u!on !roof t at t e actions of t e res!ondent "A Justices &ere moti(ated by bad fait , dis onesty or atred, or attended by fraud or corru!tion, & ic &ere not sufficiently s o&n to e;ist in t is case. )eit er &as bias as &ell as !artiality establis ed. Acts or conduct of t e #udge clearly indicati(e of arbitrariness or !re#udice must be clearly s o&n before e can be

branded t e stigma of being biased and !artial. =n t e same (ein, bad fait or malice cannot be inferred sim!ly because t e #udgment or order is ad(erse to a !arty. Here, ot er t an A2A3=5s bare and self-ser(ing claim, no act clearly indicati(e of bias and !artiality &as alleged e;ce!t for t e claim t at res!ondent "A Justices misa!!lied t e la& and #uris!rudence. , us, t e !resum!tion t at t e res!ondent #udge as regularly !erformed is duties s all !re(ail. Re: erified complaint of "M" Land! 8nc. against >on. +anton D. 4ueser! et al. A.2. )o. '"A =P= )o. 12-202-"A-J. January 15, 2016 Judge% gross ignorance of la&. Judge Sarmiento, Jr. &as c arged &it gross ignorance of t e la&, manifest !artiality and dereliction and neglect of duty. , e court eld t at t e #udge did not commit gross ignorance of t e la&. Gross ignorance of t e la& on t e !art of a #udge !resu!!oses an a!!alling lac1 of familiarity &it sim!le rules of la& or !rocedures and &ellestablis ed #uris!rudence & ic tends to erode t e !ublic trust in t e com!etence and fairness of t e court & ic e !ersonifies. , e com!laint states t at res!ondent #udge, in arbitrary defiance of is o&n Se!tember 25, 200E 4ecision & ic constitutes res #udicata or a bar to im to !ass u!on t e issue of Geoffrey, Jr5s. custody, granted, (ia is 2arc 15, 2011 'rder, !ro(isional custody o(er Geoffrey, Jr. to Bltesa. , e 4ecision ad(erted to refers to t e #udgment on com!romise agreement. Res!ondent #udge cannot be eld guilty of t e c arges urled by t e com!lainant against im since t ere is no finding of strong reasons to rule ot er&ise. , e !reference of a c ild o(er ? years of age as to & om e desired to li(e &it s all be res!ected. 2oreo(er, custody, e(en if !re(iously granted by a com!etent court in fa(or of a !arent, is not !ermanent. Geoffrey 4ec2ett vs. )udge 0legario R. Sarmiento! )r.! R3C! 4ranch $(! Cebu City . A.2. )o. R,J-12-262E. January 60, 2016 Judge% misconduct. 2isconduct means intentional &rongdoing or deliberate (iolation of a rule of la& or a standard of be a(ior. ,o constitute an administrati(e offense, misconduct s ould relate to or be connected &it t e !erformance of t e official functions of a !ublic officer. =n gra(e misconduct, as distinguis ed from sim!le misconduct, t e elements of corru!tion, clear intent to (iolate t e la& or flagrant disregard of an establis ed rule must be establis ed. =n t is case, t e actions of t e Sandiganbayan Justices res!ecting t e e;ecution of t e final #udgment against accused Delasco &ere s o&n to be in res!ectful deference to t e "ourt5s action on t e (arious !etitions filed by t e former. Records are bereft of e(idence s o&ing any trace of corru!tion, clear intent to (iolate t e la& or flagrant disregard of t e rules as to old t e Sandiganbayan Justices administrati(ely liable for gra(e misconduct. Re: Complaint of Leonardo ". elasco against "ssociate )ustices 1rancisco >. illaru:! )r.! et al. A.2. )o. '"A =P= )o. 10-25-S7-J. January 15, 2016 Judge% no abuse of aut ority & en #udge did not rene& a tem!orary a!!ointment. "om!lainant, a former "ourt Stenogra! er === at t e R,", failed to s o& any !roof t at s e &as entitled to a !ermanent !osition. 't er t an er allegation t at s e &as gi(en t&o :(ery satisfactory> and one :satisfactory> rating, t ere &as no e(idence !resented t at s e as met t e !rescribed <ualification standard for t e !osition. :Suc standard is a mi; of t e formal education, e;!erience, training, ci(il ser(ice eligibility, ! ysical ealt and attitude t at t e #ob re<uires.> Res!ondent #udge, & o is t e immediate su!er(isor of com!lainant, is in t e best !osition to obser(e t e fitness, !ro!riety and efficiency of t e em!loyee for t e !osition. =t s ould be im!ressed u!on com!lainant t at er a!!ointment in t e Judiciary is not a (ested rig t. =t is not

an entitlement t at s e can claim sim!ly for t e reason t at s e ad been in t e ser(ice for almost t&o years. , e subse<uent filing of com!laint against Atty. 7or#a *officer-in-c arge of t e PA'-Dirac+ manifests com!lainant5s !ro!ensity to file com!laints & ene(er s e does not get & at s e &ants. Suc attitude s ould not be tolerated. 't er&ise, #udges &ill be !laced in ostage situations by em!loyees & o &ill t reaten to file com!laints & ene(er t ey do not get t eir &ay &it t eir #udges. Since t ere is no !roof t at res!ondent #udge abused er !osition, t e case against er s ould be dismissed. Res!ondent #udge s ould, o&e(er, be reminded to be circums!ect in er actuations so as not to gi(e t e im!ression t at s e is guilty of fa(oritism. ?areen ,. Magtag9ob vs. )udge Genie G. Gapas'"gbada. '"A =P= )o. 11-6E61-R,J. January 1E, 2016

%ebruary 201+ Philippines Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on 2arc 22, 2016 by Ramon G. Songco R Posted in 3egal Bt ics, P ili!!ines - "ases R Here are select @ebruary 2016 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% confidentiality of !roceedings against attorneys% e;ce!tion. Atty. @ortun filed a !etition for contem!t against res!ondents for !ubliciCing t e disbarment case against im in media. Section 19, Rule 168-7 of t e Rules of "ourt states t at :!roceedings against attorneys s all be !ri(ate and confidential. Ho&e(er, t e final order of t e Su!reme "ourt s all be !ublis ed li1e its decisions in ot er cases.> , e !ur!ose of t e rule is not only to enable t e "ourt to ma1e its in(estigations free from any e;traneous influence or interference, but also to !rotect t e !ersonal and !rofessional re!utation of attorneys and #udges from t e baseless c arges of disgruntled, (indicti(e, and irres!onsible clients and litigants% it is also to deter t e !ress from !ublis ing administrati(e cases or !ortions t ereto &it out aut ority. 2alicious and unaut oriCed !ublication or (erbatim re!roduction of administrati(e com!laints against la&yers in ne&s!a!ers by editors and.or re!orters may be actionable. Suc !remature !ublication constitutes a contem!t of court, !unis able by eit er a fine or im!risonment or bot at t e discretion of t e "ourt. Ho&e(er, Section 19, Rule 168-7 of t e Rules of "ourt is not a restriction on t e freedom of t e !ress. =f t ere is a legitimate !ublic interest, media is not !ro ibited from ma1ing a fair, true, and accurate ne&s re!ort of a disbarment com!laint. =n t e absence of a legitimate !ublic interest in a disbarment com!laint, members of t e media must !reser(e t e confidentiality of disbarment !roceedings during its !endency. =n t is case, t e filing of a disbarment com!laint against Atty. @ortun is itself a matter of !ublic concern considering t at it arose from t e 2aguindanao 2assacre case. , e interest of t e !ublic is not on Atty. @ortun imself but !rimarily on is in(ol(ement and !artici!ation as defense counsel in t e 2aguindanao 2assacre case. , us, since t e disbarment com!laint is a matter of !ublic interest, media ad a rig t to !ublis suc fact under freedom of t e !ress. ,hilip Sigrid ". 1ortun vs. ,rima )esusa 4. Duinsayas! et al.! G.R. #o. &-(*76. 1ebruary &/! $%&/.

Attorney% full disc arge of duties to client% limitations. Atty. Dillarin is e;!ected to c am!ion t e cause of is client &it & ole earted fidelity, care, and de(otion. , is sim!ly means t at is client is entitled to t e benefit of any and e(ery remedy and defense I including t e institution of an e#ectment case I t at is recogniCed by our !ro!erty la&s. =n Legarda v. Court of "ppeals, t e court eld t at in t e full disc arge of t eir duties to t e client, la&yers s all not be afraid of t e !ossibility t at t ey may dis!lease t e general !ublic. )e(ert eless, t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility !ro(ides t e limitation t at la&yers s all !erform t eir duty to t e client &it in t e bounds of la&. , ey s ould only ma1e suc defense & en t ey belie(e it to be onestly debatable under t e la&. =n t is case, Atty. Dillarin5s act of issuing demand letters, mo(ed by t e understanding of a (oid H3/R7 4ecision, is legally sanctioned. =f is t eory olds &ater, t e notice to (acate becomes necessary in order to file an action for e#ectment. Hence, e did not resort to any fraud or c icanery !ro ibited by t e "ode #ust to maintain is client5s dis!uted o&ners i! o(er t e subdi(ision lots. Ho&e(er, t e facts s o& t at Atty. Dillarin braCenly ty!ified one of t e com!lainants as an illegal occu!ant & en t e final and e;ecutory H3/R7 4ecision ad already recogniCed er as a subdi(ision lot buyer. Gi(en t at e 1ne& suc falsity, e t us ad(ances t e interest of is client t roug means t at are not in 1ee!ing &it fairness and onesty. , is is !roscribed by Rule 18.01 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility, & ic re<uires t at a la&yer s all em!loy only fair and onest means to attain la&ful ob#ecti(es. 3a&yers must not !resent and offer in e(idence any document t at t ey 1no& is false. erleen 3rinidad! 1lorentina Lander! <ally Casubuan! Minerva Mendo:a! Celedonio "lo=ado! et al. vs. "tty. "ngelito illarin! ".C. #o. -/&%. 1ebruary $7! $%&/. Attorney% notarial !ractice% necessity of affiant5s !ersonal a!!earance% nature of notariCation% !enalties & en a notary !ublic fails to disc arge is duties. A notary !ublic s ould not notariCe a document unless t e !erson & o signed t e same is t e (ery same !erson & o e;ecuted and !ersonally a!!eared before im to attest to t e contents and t e trut of & at are stated t erein. 0it out t e !ersonal a!!earance of t e !erson & o actually e;ecuted t e document, t e notary !ublic &ould be unable to (erify t e genuineness of t e signature of t e ac1no&ledging !arty and to ascertain t at t e document is t e !arty5s free act or deed. , e notariCation by a notary !ublic con(erts a !ri(ate document into a !ublic document, ma1ing it admissible in e(idence &it out furt er !roof of its aut enticity. A notariCed document is, by la&, entitled to full fait and credit u!on its face. =t is for t is reason t at a notary !ublic must obser(e &it utmost care t e basic re<uirements in t e !erformance of is duties% ot er&ise, t e !ublic5s confidence in t e integrity of a notariCed document &ould be undermined Res!ondent5s failure to !erform is duty as a notary !ublic resulted not only damage to t ose directly affected by t e notariCed document but also in undermining t e integrity of a notary !ublic and in degrading t e function of notariCation. He s ould, t us, be eld liable for suc negligence not only as a notary !ublic but also as a la&yer. , e res!onsibility to fait fully obser(e and res!ect t e legal solemnity of t e oat in an ac1no&ledgment or #urat is more !ronounced & en t e notary !ublic is a la&yer because of is solemn oat under t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility to obey t e la&s and to do no false ood or consent to t e doing of any. 3a&yers commissioned as notaries !ublic are mandated to disc arge &it fidelity t e duties of t eir offices, suc duties being dictated by !ublic !olicy and im!ressed &it !ublic interest.

7ased on e;isting #uris!rudence, & en a la&yer commissioned as a notary !ublic fails to disc arge is duties as suc , e is meted t e !enalties of re(ocation of is notarial commission, dis<ualification from being commissioned as a notary !ublic for a !eriod of t&o years, and sus!ension from t e !ractice of la& for one year. ,atrocinio . "gbulos vs. "tty. Roseller ". iray! ".C. #o. 7/*%. 1ebruary &6! $%&/. "ourt !ersonnel% discourteous acts. Section 1 of Article O= of t e "onstitution states t at a !ublic office is a !ublic trust. :=t en#oins !ublic officers and em!loyees to ser(e &it t e ig est degree of res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and to, at all times, remain accountable to t e !eo!le.> As front liners of t e #ustice system, s eriffs and de!uty s eriffs must al&ays stri(e to maintain !ublic trust in t e !erformance of t eir duties. As agents of t e la&, t ey are :called u!on to disc arge t eir duties &it due care and utmost diligence because in ser(ing t e court5s &rits and !rocesses and im!lementing t e orders of t e court, t ey cannot afford to err &it out affecting t e integrity of t eir office and t e efficient administration of #ustice.> S eriff Gelbolingo5s failure to !ro!erly res!ond to t e letters is tantamount to discourtesy. A sim!le note as to & ere t eir !ersonal effects &ere tem!orarily stored could a(e assured Sasing t at t eir belongings &ere not confiscated but merely stored for safe1ee!ing. , e "ourt is fully a&are t at a s eriff5s sc edule can be ectic, but s e could a(e easily relayed t e information to t e ot er court staff to address Sasing5s concerns. , e administrati(e offense committed by S eriff Gelbolingo is discourtesy in t e course of official duties & ic , under t e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice, Rule =D, Section 52*"+*1+, is a lig t offense. , e !enalty im!osable for suc an offense is eit er a re!rimand for t e first offense, a sus!ension from 1 day to 60 days for t e second offense, and dismissal from !ublic ser(ice for t e t ird offense. =n t is case, t e court admonis ed S eriff Gelbolingo considering t ere &as an effort on er !art to meet &it Sasing t&ice, but t e latter did not a!!ear on t e second sc eduled meeting. Ray "ntonio C. Sasing vs. Celestial enus G. Gelbolingo! Sheriff 8 ! R3C! 4ranch $%! Cagayan de 0ro City! ".M. #o. ,'&$'/%/$. 1ebruary $%! $%&/. "ourt !ersonnel% !ublic office is a !ublic trust% sim!le neglect of duty. )o less t an t e "onstitution itself mandates t at all !ublic officers and em!loyees s ould ser(e &it res!onsibility, integrity and efficiency, for !ublic office is a !ublic trust. , e "ourt as re!eatedly reminded t ose & o &or1 in t e Judiciary to be e;am!les of res!onsibility, com!etence and efficiency% t ey must disc arge t eir duties &it due care and utmost diligence, since t ey are officers of t e "ourt and agents of t e la&. :=ndeed, any conduct, act or omission on t e !art of t ose & o &ould (iolate t e normKsL of !ublic accountability and diminis or e(en #ust tend to diminis t e fait of t e !eo!le in t e #udiciary s all not be countenanced.> =n t is case, 2endoCa c arged Bsguerra, a !rocess ser(er in t e R,", &it )egligence and 4ereliction of 4uty. , e court eld t at Bsguerra &as guilty of sim!le neglect of duty. Bsguerra cannot blame t e "i(il 4oc1et "ler1 for t e delay in t e ser(ice of t e July ?, 2009 'rder. =f indeed a co!y of t e July ?, 2009 'rder ad been anded to Bsguerra only on August 9, 2009, a @riday, : e s ould not a(e !roceeded to mail t e same% but instead, s ould a(e ser(ed t e 'rder !ersonally to t e !arties, !articularly to t e erein com!lainant.> B(en t e )otice of 4ismissal dated August 21, 2009 &as mailed only on Se!tember 18, 2009, t ree *6+ &ee1s after it &as endorsed to im sometime on August 22 or 25, 2009. , ese acts clearly demonstrate lac1 of sufficient or reasonable diligence on t e !art of t e res!ondent. Section 1, "anon =D of t e

"ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel mandates t at :"ourt !ersonnel s all at all times !erform official duties !ro!erly and &it diligence.> "learly, Bsguerra ad been remiss in t e !erformance of is duties and as s o&n lac1 of dedication to t e functions of is office. Bsguerra5s acts dis!layed a conduct falling s ort of t e stringent standards re<uired of court em!loyees. Erlinda C. Mendo:a vs. ,edro S. Esguerra! ,rocess Server! R3C! 4r. 6-! Sto. +omingo! #ueva Eci=a! ".M. #o. ,'&&'$-.7. 1ebruary &/! $%&/. =nternal Rules of t e "A *=R"A+% !reliminary in#unction% re<uirement of a earing. Section A of Rule D= of t e 2008 =R"A !ro(ides t at :K,L e re<uirement of a earing for !reliminary in#unction is satisfied &it t e issuance of a resolution ser(ed u!on t e !arty soug t to be en#oined re<uiring im to comment on t e said a!!lication &it in t e !eriod of not more t an ten *10+ days from notice.> =n t is case, t e "A &as #ustified in dis!ensing &it t e re<uisite earing on t e a!!lication for in#uncti(e &rit, since t e so-called :ne& and substantial matters> raised in t e t ird urgent motion in "A-G.R. SP )o. 122?9A and in t e su!!lement t ereto &ere in fact not !re(iously un1no&n to res!ondents Ricafort, and t ey ad already been !re(iously ordered to comment on t e said a!!lication, at t e time & en t e said :subse<uent> matters &ere already obtaining. Ethelwoldo E. 1ernande:! "ntonio ". >enson H "ngel S. 0ng vs. Court of "ppeals "sso. )ustices Ramon M. 4ato! )r.! 8saias ,. +icdican! ".M. 0C" 8,8 #o. &$'$%&'C"'). 1ebruary &-! $%&/. Judge% anonymous com!laints against #udges must be su!!orted by !ublic records of indubitable integrity% unbecoming conduct. /nder Section 1 of Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt, anonymous com!laints may be filed against #udges, but t ey must be su!!orted by !ublic records of indubitable integrity. "ourts a(e acted in suc instances needing no corroboration by e(idence to be offered by t e com!lainant. , us, for anonymous com!laints, t e burden of !roof in administrati(e !roceedings & ic usually rests &it t e com!lainant, must be buttressed by indubitable !ublic records and by & at is sufficiently !ro(en during t e in(estigation. =f t e burden of !roof is not o(ercome, t e res!ondent is under no obligation to !ro(e is defense. =n t is case, no e(idence &as attac ed to t e letter-com!laint. , e com!lainant ne(er a!!eared, and no !ublic records &ere broug t fort during t e in(estigation. Judge Ac as denied all t e c arges made against im, only admitting t at e &as se!arated de facto from is &ife and t at e reared fig ting coc1s. @or going out in !ublic &it a &oman not is &ife, Judge Ac as as clearly failed to abide by "anons of t e )e& "ode of Judicial "onduct for P ili!!ine Judiciary. Regarding is in(ol(ement in coc1fig ting, o&e(er, t ere is no clear e(idence. Alt oug Judge Ac as denied engaging in coc1fig ting and betting, e admitted rearing fig ting coc1s for leisure. 0 ile rearing fig ting coc1s is not illegal, Judge Ac as s ould a(oid mingling &it a cro&d of coc1fig ting ent usiasts and bettors as it undoubtedly im!airs t e res!ect due im. As a #udge, e must im!ose u!on imself !ersonal restrictions t at mig t be (ie&ed as burdensome by t e ordinary citiCen and s ould do so freely and &illingly. )o !osition demands greater moral rig teousness and u!rig tness from its occu!ant t an does t e #udicial office. Judges in !articular must be indi(iduals of com!etence, onesty and !robity, c arged as t ey are &it safeguarding t e integrity of t e court and its !roceedings. He s ould

be a(e at all times so as to !romote !ublic confidence in t e integrity and im!artiality of t e #udiciary, and a(oid im!ro!riety and t e a!!earance of im!ro!riety in all is acti(ities. His !ersonal be a(ior outside t e court, and not only & ile in t e !erformance of is official duties, must be beyond re!roac , for e is !ercei(ed to be t e !ersonification of la& and #ustice. , us, any demeaning act of a #udge degrades t e institution e re!resents. "nonymous vs. )udge Rio C. "chas! M3CC 4ranch $! 0:ami: City! Misamis 0ccidental! ".M. #o. M3)'&&'&6%&. 1ebruary $7! $%&/. Judge% definition of !onencia% !onente if !resent can act u!on an urgent motion alone or &it anot er member !resent. , ere is not ing in t e =nternal Rules of t e "A *=R"A+ & ic &ould a(e re<uired t e 4i(ision "ler1 of "ourt to transmit t e urgent motion for action only to t e t&o !resent regular members of t e 1At 4i(ision, as t e com!lainants seem to belie(e. , e com!lainants &ould a(e been correct if t e absent member of t e 4i(ision &as not t e !onente erself but eit er of t e ot er members. , is im!lies t at t e !onente if !resent can act u!on t e urgent motion alone or &it anot er member !resent, !ro(ided t at t e action or resolution :is submitted on t e ne;t &or1ing day to t e absent member or members of t e 4i(ision for ratification, modification or recall.> A !reliminary in#unction is not a !onencia but an order granted at any stage of an action !rior to final #udgment, re<uiring a !erson to refrain from a !articular act. =t is settled t at as an ancillary or !re(enti(e remedy, a &rit of !reliminary in#unction may be resorted to by a !arty to !rotect or !reser(e is rig ts and for no ot er !ur!ose during t e !endency of t e !rinci!al action. =ts ob#ect is to !reser(e t e status <uo until t e merits of t e case are !assed u!on. =t is not a cause of action in itself but merely a !ro(isional remedy, an ad#unct to a main suit. 'n t e ot er and, !onencia refers to t e rendition of a decision in a case on t e merits, & ic dis!oses of t e main contro(ersy. , e &rit of !reliminary in#unction issued by t e 1At 4i(ision in "A-G.R. SP )o. 122?9A did not settle t e contro(ersy t erein, but is a mere interlocutory order to restore t e status <uo ante, t at is, t e state of t ings !rior to t e R,"5s 'rder of 4ecember 21, 2011. Ethelwoldo E. 1ernande:! "ntonio ". >enson H "ngel S. 0ng vs. Court of "ppeals "sso. )ustices Ramon M. 4ato! )r.! 8saias ,. +icdican! ".M. 0C" 8,8 #o. &$'$%&'C"'). 1ebruary &-! $%&/. Judge% go(ernment em!loyee (is-S-(is go(ernment officer% liberal treatment u!on retirement claims of #udges and #ustices. =n a letter, former " ief Justice Panganiban re<uested t at t e go(ernment ser(ice & ic e rendered from January 18E2 to 4ecember 18E5 in t e 4e!artment of Bducation, its Secretary, and t e 7oard of )ational Bducation, be creditable so t at e can meet t e !resent ser(ice re<uirement of fifteen *15+ years for entitlement to retirement benefits. /nder t e old Administrati(e "ode *Act )o. 2E5?+, a go(ernment :em!loyee> includes any !erson in t e ser(ice of t e Go(ernment or any branc t ereof of & ate(er grade or class. A go(ernment :officer,> on t e ot er and, refers to officials & ose duties in(ol(e t e e;ercise of discretion in t e !erformance of t e functions of go(ernment, & et er suc duties are !recisely defined or not. "learly, t e la&, t en and no&, did not re<uire a s!ecific #ob descri!tion and #ob s!ecification. , us, t e absence of a s!ecific !osition in a go(ernmental structure is not a indrance for t e "ourt to gi(e &eig t to "J Panganiban5s go(ernment ser(ice as legal counsel and consultant. , e Su!reme "ourt as un<uestionably follo&ed t e !ractice of liberal treatment in !assing u!on retirement claims of #udges and #ustices, t us$ *1+ &ai(ing t e lac1 of re<uired lengt of ser(ice in cases of disability or deat & ile in actual ser(ice18 or distincti(e ser(ice% *2+ adding

accumulated lea(e credits to t e actual lengt of go(ernment ser(ice in order to <ualify one for retirement% *6+ tac1ing !ost-retirement ser(ice in order to com!lete t e years of go(ernment ser(ice re<uired% *A+ e;tending t e full benefits of retirement u!on com!assionate and umanitarian considerations% and *5+ considering legal counseling &or1 for a go(ernment body or institution as creditable go(ernment ser(ice. Re: ReCuest of IRet.J Chief )ustice "rtemio . ,anganiban for Re'Computation of his Creditable Service for the ,urpose of Re'Computing his Retirement 4enefits! ".M. #o. &%'-'&*'SC. 1ebruary &$! $%&/. Judge% gross ignorance of t e la&% mandatory in ibition% no liability for damages in t e e;ercise of #udicial functions. , e court eld t at Judge 4ino!ol is guilty of gross ignorance of t e la&. ,o be eld administrati(ely liable for gross ignorance of t e la&, t e acts com!lained of must not only be contrary to e;isting la& and #uris!rudence, but must a(e also been moti(ated by bad fait , fraud, dis onesty, and corru!tion. Gross ignorance of t e la& is considered as a serious offense under Rule 1A0, Section 9, and is !unis able under Section 11. 2oreo(er, one of t e !laintiffs in t e "i(il "ase assigned to t e #udge, is a relati(e by affinity &it in t e si;t degree, Judge 4ino!ol s ould a(e in ibited imself from ta1ing cogniCance of t e case as mandated by Section 1, Rule 16? of t e Rules of "ourt. Ho&e(er, Judge 4ino!ol is not liable for damages. =n "l:ua v. )ohnson, t e court e;!lained t at in ci(il actions for damages, #udges of su!erior and general #urisdiction are not liable to ans&er for & at t ey do in t e e;ercise of t eir #udicial functions, !ro(ided t ey are acting &it in t eir legal !o&ers and #urisdiction. Eduardo ,anes! )r. et al. vs. )udge 0scar E. +inopol! R3C! 4ranch $(! ?oronadal CityG)oewe ,alad vs. )udge 0scar E. +inopol! R3C! 4ranch $(! ?oronadal CityGRoCue C. 1acura! et al. vs. )udge 0scar E. +inopol! R3C! 4ranch $(! ?oronadal CityGEden . Castro vs. )udge 0scar E. +inopol! R3C! 4ranch $(! ?oronadal CityGRosalinda G. 1arofaldane vs. )udge 0scar E. +inopol! R3C! 4ranch $(! ?oronadal CityGEngr. RoCue C. 1acura! et al. vs. )udge 0scar E. +inopol! R3C! 4ranch $(! ?oronadal City! ".M. 0C"'8,8 #o. %7'$.&6'R3)G".M. #o. 0C"'8,8 #o. %7'$.&-'R3)G".M. #o. 0C"'8,8 #o. %7'$.*$'R3)G".M. #o. 0C"'8,8 #o. %7'$7$%'R3)G".M. #o. 0C"'8,8 #o. %7'$7$&' R3)G".M. #o. 0C"'8,8 #o. %6'$6%6'R3). 1ebruary &$! $%&/. Judge% instituting administrati(e !roceedings against #ustices. /nder Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt, t ere are t ree &ays by & ic administrati(e !roceedings may be instituted against #ustices of t e "A and t e Sandiganbayan and #udges of regular and s!ecial courts$ *1+ motu proprio by t e Su!reme "ourt% *2+ u!on (erified com!laint *as in t is com!laint+ &it affida(its of !ersons a(ing !ersonal 1no&ledge of t e facts alleged t erein or by documents & ic may substantiate said allegations% or *6+ u!on an anonymous com!laint su!!orted by !ublic records of indubitable integrity. =n t is case, com!lainants a(e no !ersonality to assail t e &rit of !reliminary in#unction issued by t e "A5s former S!ecial 1At 4i(ision since t ey &ere not !arties in t e lo&er court. , us, t ey are not !ermitted to arass t e "A Justices & o issued t e same. @or e(en granting t at t e issuance of t e &rit &as erroneous, as a matter of !ublic !olicy a magistrate cannot be eld administrati(ely liable for e(ery discretionary but erroneous order e issues. , e settled rule is t at :a Judge cannot be eld to account ci(illy, criminally or administrati(ely for an erroneous decision rendered by im in good fait .> , e issuance of t e &rit of !reliminary in#unction in t e consolidated "A !etitions &as discretionary, interlocutory and !reser(ati(e in nature, and e<ually im!ortantly, it &as a collecti(e and deliberated action of t e former S!ecial 1At 4i(ision. 2oreo(er, as an establis ed rule, an administrati(e, ci(il or criminal action against a

#udge cannot be a substitute for an a!!eal. Ethelwoldo E. 1ernande:! "ntonio ". >enson H "ngel S. 0ng vs. Court of "ppeals "sso. )ustices Ramon M. 4ato! )r.! 8saias ,. +icdican! ".M. 0C" 8,8 #o. &$'$%&'C"'). 1ebruary &-! $%&/. Judge% #udicial conduct% definition of #ust debts% &illful failure to !ay a #ust debt is a ground for disci!linary action against #udges. 2anla!aC c arged Judge Sabillo &it serious and gross misconduct for failure to return an amount arising from a transaction. , e "ourt as re!eatedly stressed t at it is not a collection agency for t e un!aid debts of its officials and em!loyees, but as ne(ert eless !ro(ided for Section 9, Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt t at olds its officials and em!loyees administrati(ely liable in un!aid debt situations. , is Section !ro(ides t at &illful failure to !ay a #ust debt is a ground for disci!linary action against #udges and #ustices. Just debts, as defined in Section 26, Rule O=D of t e 'mnibus Rules =m!lementing 7oo1 D of B.'. )o. 282, refer to *1+ claims ad#udicated by a court of la&% or *2+ claims, t e e;istence and #ustness of & ic are admitted by t e debtor. Section 9, Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt classifies &illful failure to !ay a #ust debt as a serious c arge. 0 ile reference to a debt necessarily im!lies a transaction t at is !ri(ate and outside of official transactions, t e rules do not t ereby intrude into !ublic officials5 !ri(ate li(es% t ey sim!ly loo1 at t eir actions from t e !rism of !ublic ser(ice and consider t ese acts unbecoming of a !ublic official. , ese rules ta1e into account t at t ese are actions of officials & o are entrusted &it !ublic duties and & o, e(en in t eir !ri(ate ca!acities, s ould continually act to reflect t eir status as !ublic ser(ants. Bm!loyees of t e #udiciary s ould be li(ing e;am!les of u!rig tness not only in t e !erformance of official duties but also in t eir !ersonal and !ri(ate dealings &it ot ers so as to !reser(e at all times t e good name and standing of t e courts in t e community. Here, t e com!lainant5s claim is a #ust debt. , e &illfulness of Judge Sabillo in not !aying is s o&n by is continuous failure to settle des!ite demand letters sent to im. , us, t e court im!osed t e !enalty of fine. ictoriano G. Manlapa: vs. )udge Manuel 3. Sabillo! MC3C! Lamitan! 4asilan! ".M. #o. M3)'&%'&77&. 1ebruary &/! $%&/. Judge% #udicial audit% court5s #urisdiction o(er an administrati(e case% !resum!tion of regularity. , e '"A submitted its memorandum to t en Acting " ief Justice Antonio ,. "ar!io on 10 July 2012 J more t an t&o years and se(en mont s after Judge Grageda com!ulsorily retired. 4uring is incumbency, Judge Grageda &as ne(er gi(en t e c ance to e;!lain t e alleged (iolation of Su!reme "ourt rules, directi(es and circulars. /! to t e !resent, t e '"A as not commenced any formal in(estigation or as1ed Judge Grageda to comment on t e matter. , us, t e com!laint against Judge Grageda must be dismissed. =n 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. Mantua, t e court eld t at :t is "ourt concedes t at t ere are no !romulgated rules on t e conduct of #udicial audit. Ho&e(er, t e absence of suc rules s ould not ser(e as license to recommend t e im!osition of !enalties to retired #udges & o, during t eir incumbency, &ere ne(er gi(en a c ance to e;!lain t e circumstances be ind t e results of t e #udicial audit. Judicial audit re!orts and t e memoranda & ic follo& t em s ould state not only recommended !enalties and !lans of action for t e (iolations of audited courts, but also gi(e commendations & en t ey are due. ,o a(oid similar scenarios, manual #udicial audits may be conducted at least si; mont s before a #udge5s com!ulsory retirement. 0e recogniCe t at effecti(e monitoring of a #udge5s obser(ance of t e time limits re<uired in t e dis!osition of cases is am!ered by limited resources. , ese limitations, o&e(er, s ould not be used to (iolate Judge 2antua5s rig t to due !rocess.>

@or t e "ourt to ac<uire #urisdiction o(er an administrati(e case, t e com!laint must be filed during t e incumbency of t e res!ondent. 'nce #urisdiction is ac<uired, it is not lost by reason of res!ondent5s cessation from office. =n t is case, Judge Grageda5s com!ulsory retirement di(ested t e '"A of its rig t to institute a ne& administrati(e case against im after is com!ulsory retirement. , e "ourt can no longer ac<uire administrati(e #urisdiction o(er im by filing a ne& administrati(e case against im after e as ceased to be a !ublic official. , e remedy is to file t e a!!ro!riate ci(il or criminal case against im for t e alleged transgression. 2oreo(er, to old Judge Grageda liable, t ere must be substantial e(idence t at e committed an offense. 't er&ise, t e !resum!tion is t at e regularly !erformed is duties. =n Go v. )udge "chas, t e "ourt eld t at, :=n t e absence of e(idence to t e contrary, t e !resum!tion t at t e res!ondent as regularly !erformed is duties &ill !re(ail. B(en in administrati(e cases, if a court em!loyee or magistrate is to be disci!lined for a gra(e offense, t e e(idence against im s ould be com!etent.> Missing E@hibits and Court ,roperties in Regional 3rial Court! 4r. (! ,anabo City! +avao del #orte! ".M. #o. &%'$'(&'R3C. 1ebruary $7! $%&/. Judge% undue delay. , e court eld t at Judge Amdengan committed undue delay in rendering a 4ecision in t e e#ectment case. An action for e#ectment is go(erned by t e Rules of Summary Procedure, Section 10 & ic !ro(ides t at :&it in t irty *60+ days after recei!t of t e last affida(its and !osition !a!ers, or t e e;!iration of t e !eriod for filing t e same, t e court s all render #udgment.> , is !ro(ision is mandatory, considering t e nature of an e#ectment case. /nder Section 8, Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt, undue delay in rendering a decision or an order is classified as a less serious c arge, !unis able by eit er sus!ension from office &it out salary and ot er benefits for not less t an one *1+ nor more t an t ree *6+ mont s, or a fine of more t an P10,000 but not e;ceeding P20,000. , e court considered is candid admission and acce!tance of is infraction as factors in im!osing only a fine. "tty. Manuel ). )imene:! )r. vs. ,residing )udge Michael M. "mdengan! Municipal 3rail Court! "ngono Ri:al! ".M. #o. M3)'&$'&6&6. 1ebruary &/! $%&/.

&arch 201+ Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on A!ril 10, 2016 by Ramon G. Songco R Posted in 3egal Bt ics, P ili!!ines - "ases R Here are select 2arc 2016 rulings of t e P ili!!ine Su!reme "ourt on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% a la&yer s all not assist in t e unaut oriCed !ractice of la&. Atty. 7ancolo admitted t at t e "om!laint e filed for a former client before t e 'ffice of t e 'mbudsman &as signed in is name by a secretary of is la& office. He li1e&ise categorically stated t at because of some minor la!ses, t e communications and !leadings filed against ,a!ay and Rustia &ere signed by is secretary, albeit &it is tolerance. "learly, e (iolated Rule 8.01 of "anon 8 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility *"PR+, & ic !ro(ides$ "A)') 8 I A 3A0HBR SHA33 )',, 4=RB",3H 'R =)4=RB",3H, ASS=S, =) ,HB /)A/,H'R=PB4 PRA",="B '@ 3A0.

Rule 8.01 I A la&yer s all not delegate to any un<ualified !erson t e !erformance of any tas1 & ic by la& may only be !erformed by a member of t e 7ar in good standing. Atty. 7ancolo5s aut ority and duty to sign a !leading are !ersonal to im. Alt oug e may delegate t e signing of a !leading to anot er la&yer, e may not delegate it to a non-la&yer. @urt er, under t e Rules of "ourt, a counsel5s signature ser(es as a certification t at *1+ e as read t e !leading% *2+ to t e best of is 1no&ledge, information and belief t ere is good ground to su!!ort it% and *6+ it is not inter!osed for delay. , us, by affi;ing one5s signature to a !leading, it is counsel alone & o as t e res!onsibility to certify to t ese matters and gi(e legal effect to t e document. @or (iolating rule 8.01 of t e "PR, Atty. 7acolo &as meted &it t e !enalty t e sus!ension from t e !ractice of la& for one year. Rodrigo E. 3apay and "nthony ). Rustia v. "ttys. Charlie 4ancolo and )anus )arderK ".C. #o. -.%(. March $%! $%&/. Attorney% disbarment com!laint% outrig t dismissal is &arranted if t e com!laint, on its face, lac1s merit. @or resolution is t e 2otion for Reconsideration filed by t e com!lainant u!on t e dismissal of t e "om!laint for disbarment e instituted against t e res!ondent la&yers. "om!lainant claims e &as denied due !rocess because *1+ s e &as not allo&ed to file a Re!ly and *2+ t e "ourt de(iated from usual !rocedure & en it resol(ed t e disbarment "om!laint &it out first declaring t e case to a(e been submitted for resolution. , e Su!reme "ourt as t e !o&er to outrig tly dismiss a "om!laint for disbarment & en on its face, it is clearly &anting in merit. , us, in 8nternational Militia of ,eople against Corruption H 3errorism v. Chief )ustice +avide! )r. IRet.J! t e "ourt, after finding t e "om!laint insufficient in form and substance, dismissed t e same outrig t for utter lac1 of merit. =n t e instant case, t e "ourt did not dismiss outrig t t e disbarment "om!laint. =n fact, it e(en re<uired t e res!ondents to file t eir res!ecti(e Ans&ers. , en, after a #udicious study of t e records, it !roceeded to resol(e t e same alt oug not in com!lainant5s fa(or. 7ased on t e "om!laint and t e su!!orting affida(its attac ed t ereto, and t e res!ecti(e "omments of t e res!ondents, t e "ourt found t at t e !resum!tion of innocence accorded to res!ondents &as not o(ercome. 2oreo(er, t e "ourt no longer re<uired com!lainant to file a Re!ly since it as t e discretion not to re<uire t e filing of t e same & en it can already #udiciously resol(e t e case based on t e !leadings t us far submitted. And contrary to com!lainant5s mista1en notion, not all !etitions or com!laints reac t e re!ly or memorandum stage. 4e!ending on t e merits of t e case, t e "ourt as t e discretion eit er to !roceed &it t e case by first re<uiring t e !arties to file t eir res!ecti(e res!onsi(e !leadings or to dismiss t e same outrig t. 3i1e&ise, t e "ourt can !roceed to resol(e t e case &it out need of informing t e !arties t at t e case is already submitted for resolution. )asper )unno 1. Rodica v. "tty. Manuel M. La:aro! et al.K ".C. #o. -$*-. March &$! $%&/. Attorney% duty to e;ercise due diligence. , e "ourt reiterated its ruling in +el Mundo v. Capistrano t at :& en a la&yer ta1es a client5s cause, e co(enants t at e &ill e;ercise due diligence in !rotecting t e latter5s rig ts. @ailure to e;ercise t at degree of (igilance and attention e;!ected of a good fat er of a family ma1es t e la&yer un&ort y of t e trust re!osed on im by is client and ma1es im ans&erable not #ust to client but also to t e legal !rofession, t e court and society.> Res!ondent5s infractions &ere aggra(ated by is failure to com!ly &it "745s directi(es for im to file is !leadings on time and to religiously attend earings, demonstrating not only is irres!onsibility but also is disres!ect for t e #udiciary and is fello& la&yers. Suc conduct &as unbecoming of a la&yer & o is called u!on to obey court orders and !rocesses and is e;!ected to

stand foremost in com!lying &it court directi(es as an officer of t e court. As a member of t e bar, e oug t to a(e 1no&n t at t e orders of t e "74 as t e in(estigating arm of t e "ourt in administrati(e cases against la&yers &ere not mere re<uests but directi(es & ic s ould a(e been com!lied &it !rom!tly and com!letely. Gloria ,. )inon v. "tty. Leonardo E. )i:K ".C. #o. -.&*. March *! $%&/. Attorney% duty to old in trust money recei(ed from client. 2oney entrusted to a la&yer for a s!ecific !ur!ose, suc as for t e !rocessing of transfer of land title, but not used for t e !ur!ose, s ould be returned to t e client immediately. , e "ourt eld in +haliwal v. +umaguing t at a la&yer5s failure to return t e funds e olds on be alf of a client, des!ite latter5s demand, gi(es rise to t e !resum!tion t at e as a!!ro!riated t e same for is o&n use and constitutes a gross (iolation of general morality and !rofessional et ics. Gloria ,. )inon v. "tty. Leonardo E. )i:K ".C. #o. -.&*. March *! $%&/. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty% failure of branc cler1 of court to 1ee! and maintain a general doc1et. 7ranc cler1 of court 2r. ,e(es admitted t at e failed to 1ee! and maintain a general doc1et of cases assigned to t eir branc . As suc , e failed to com!ly &it is duty under Section 9, Rule 16E of t e Rules of "ourt, t us$ Sec. 9. General doc2et. N , e cler1 s all 1ee! a general doc1et, eac !age of & ic s all be numbered and !re!ared for recei(ing all t e entries in a single case, and s all enter t erein all cases, numbered consecuti(ely in t e order in & ic t ey &ere recei(ed, and under t e eading of eac case, a com!lete title t ereof, t e date of eac !a!er filed or issued, of eac order or #udgment entered, and of eac ot er ste! ta1en in t e case so t at by reference a single !age t e istory of t e case may be seen. 0it t is infraction, 2r. ,e(es &as eld liable for sim!le neglect of duty. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. >on. Rosabella M. 3ormis! ,resideing )udge! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities IM3CCJ! 4ranch (! Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. 3eves! 4ranch Cler2 of Court! same courtK ".M. #o. M3)'&$'&6&6. March &$! $%&/. "ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty% failure of branc cler1 of court to sc edule t e !romulgation of cases. =n t e 4atan case, 2r. ,e(es, instead of sc eduling t e case for !romulgation, #ust ga(e t e accused a co!y of t e un!romulgated decision at t e time & en t e !residing #udge &as ser(ing er sus!ension. Section E, Rule 120 of t e Rules of "ourt states t at$ Sec. E. Promulgation of #udgment. I , e #udgment is !romulgated by reading it in t e !resence of t e accused and any #udge of t e court in & ic it &as rendered. Ho&e(er, if t e con(iction is for a lig t offense, t e #udgment may be !ronounced in t e !resence of is counsel or re!resentati(e. 0 en t e #udge is absent or outside t e !ro(ince or city, t e #udgment may be !romulgated by t e cler1 of court ; ; ;. "learly, as found by t e '"A, 2r. ,e(es is guilty of sim!le neglect of duty. =t is is duty to calendar t e case for !romulgation in accordance &it t e Rules of "ourt. He did not only fail to do so. Rat er, e, in fact, ser(ed co!ies of t e decision to t e accused &it out t e #udgment a(ing been !romulgated first. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. >on. Rosabella M. 3ormis! ,resideing )udge! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities IM3CCJ! 4ranch (! Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. 3eves! 4ranch Cler2 of Court! same courtK ".M. #o. M3)'&$'&6&6. March &$! $%&/.

"ourt !ersonnel% sim!le neglect of duty% im!osable !enalty. Sim!le neglect of duty is defined as t e :failure of an em!loyee to gi(e one5s attention to a tas1 e;!ected of im, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.> /nder t e Re(ised /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice, sim!le neglect of duty is a less gra(e offense !enaliCed &it sus!ension for one mont and one day to si; mont s for t e first offense, and dismissal for t e second. =n t e determination of t e !ro!er !enalty, t e "ourt loo1ed into 2r. ,e(es5 !ast administrati(e cases. "onsidering is !ast infractions and a(ing been &arned t at a re!etition of t e same or similar act &ill be dealt &it more se(erely, 2r. ,e(es still as not reformed. He as remained undeterred in disregarding t e la& and e a!!ears to be unfaCed by t e !re(ious !enalties and &arnings e recei(ed. 2r. ,e(es5 re!eated infractions seriously com!romise efficiency and am!er !ublic ser(ice & ic t e "ourt can no longer tolerate. As suc , e &as meted &it t e !enalty of dismissal from ser(ice &it forfeiture of all benefits and !ri(ileges, e;ce!t accrued lea(e credits, if any, &it !re#udice to reem!loyment in any branc or instrumentality of t e go(ernment, including go(ernment-o&ned or controlled cor!orations. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. >on. Rosabella M. 3ormis! ,resideing )udge! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities IM3CCJ! 4ranch (! Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. 3eves! 4ranch Cler2 of Court! same courtK ".M. #o. M3)'&$'&6&6. March &$! $%&/. Judges% duty to ado!t an efficient system to monitor t e status of cases. , e '"A found t at t e court failed to maintain a general doc1et boo1 to 1ee! trac1 of t e cases under it. Alt oug t e duty is (ested &it 2r. ,e(es as t e 7ranc "ler1 of "ourt, it is t e duty of Judge ,ormis to ma1e sure t at t e members of er staff !erform t eir duties. , e '"A also found t at 2r. ,e(es re!eatedly submitted inaccurate re!orts as to t e actual number of cases !ending &it t eir court. , is is broug t about by t eir failure to ado!t an efficient system of monitoring t eir cases. Again, t is is t e !rimary res!onsibility of Judge ,ormis. @inally, t e '"A noted t at Judge ,ormis failed to conduct an actual ! ysical in(entory of cases to 1ee! abreast of t e status of t e !ending cases and to be informed t at e(ery case is in !ro!er order. Judge ,ormis is guilty of (iolating Su!reme "ourt rules, directi(es, and circulars for er failure to com!ly &it er duty to !ro(ide an efficient court management system in er court & ic includes t e !re!aration and use of doc1et in(entory and mont ly re!ort of cases as tools t ereof. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. >on. Rosabella M. 3ormis! ,residing )udge! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities IM3CCJ! 4ranch (! Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. 3eves! 4ranch Cler2 of Court! same courtK ".M. #o. M3)'&$'&6&6. March &$! $%&/. Judges% gross ignorance of t e la&% & en t e la& is sufficiently basic, not to be a&are of it constitutes gross ignorance of t e la&. Judge ,ormis issued t e &arrant of arrest in (iolation of t e Rule on Summary Procedure t at t e accused s ould first be notified of t e c arges against im and gi(en t e o!!ortunity to file is counter-affida(its and ot er counter(ailing e(idence. , e Re(ised Rules on Summary Procedure as been in effect since )o(ember 15, 1881. =t finds a!!lication in a substantial number of ci(il and criminal cases. Judge ,ormis cannot claim to be unfamiliar &it t e same. B(ery #udge is re<uired to obser(e t e la&. 0 en t e la& is sufficiently basic, a #udge o&es it to is office to sim!ly a!!ly it% and anyt ing less t an t at &ould be constituti(e of gross ignorance of t e la&. =n s ort, & en t e la& is so elementary, not to be a&are of it constitutes gross ignorance of t e la&. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. >on. Rosabella M. 3ormis! ,resideing )udge! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities IM3CCJ! 4ranch (!

Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. 3eves! 4ranch Cler2 of Court! same courtK ".M. #o. M3)'&$' &6&6. March &$! $%&/. Judges% gross inefficiency% gross ignorance of t e la&% im!osable !enalties. /nder Rule 1A0 of t e Rules of "ourt, as amended by A.2. )o. 01-9-10-S" dated Se!tember 11, 2001, (iolation of Su!reme "ourt rules, directi(es and circulars, and gross inefficiency are categoriCed as less serious c arges &it t e follo&ing sanctions$ *a+ sus!ension from office &it out salary and ot er benefits for not less t an one nor more t an t ree mont s% or *b+ a fine of more t an P10,000.00 but not e;ceeding P20,000.00. 2oreo(er, gross ignorance of t e la& is classified as serious c arge under Section 9, Rule 1A0 of t e Re(ised Rules of "ourt, and !enaliCed under Section 11 *a+, Rule 1A0 of t e same Rules by$ *1+ 4ismissal from t e ser(ice, forfeiture of all or !art of t e benefits as t e "ourt may determine, and dis<ualification from reinstatement or a!!ointment to any !ublic office, including go(ernment-o&ned or controlled cor!orations. Pro(ided, o&e(er, t at t e forfeiture of benefits s all, in no case, include accrued lea(e credits% *2+ Sus!ension from office &it out salary and ot er benefits for more t an t ree *6+, but not e;ceeding si; *E+ mont s% or *6+ a fine of more t an P20,000.00, but not e;ceeding PA0,000.00. =n determining t e !ro!er im!osable !enalty, &e also consider Judge ,ormis5 &or1 istory & ic reflects o& s e !erformed er #udicial functions. 0e find t at t ere are se(eral administrati(e cases already filed against er, &it most of t ese cases being decided against er. , ese cases s o& er inability to !ro!erly disc arge er #udicial duties. "onsidering er !ast infractions and ta1ing into account t e number of irregularities s e committed in t is !resent case! Judge ,ormis &as meted &it t e !enalty of dismissal from ser(ice &it forfeiture of all benefits and !ri(ileges, e;ce!t accrued lea(e credits, if any, &it !re#udice to reem!loyment in any branc or instrumentality of t e go(ernment, including go(ernment-o&ned or controlled cor!orations. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. >on. Rosabella M. 3ormis! ,resideing )udge! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities IM3CCJ! 4ranch (! Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. 3eves! 4ranch Cler2 of Court! same courtK ".M. #o. M3)'&$'&6&6. March &$! $%&/. Judges% motion to in ibit% grounds. As eld in Sps. >i:on v. Sps. dela 1uente , :an in ibition must be for #ust and (alid reason.> "om!lainant5s mere im!utation t at t e case &as decided by t e magistrates of t e "ourt &it e;treme bias and !re#udice is baseless and clearly unfounded. )asper )unno 1. Rodica v. "tty. Manuel M. La:aro! et al.K ".C. #o. -$*-. March &$! $%&/. Judges% undue delay in deciding cases. , e onor and integrity of t e #udicial system is measured not only by t e fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by t e efficiency &it & ic dis!utes are resol(ed. /nder t e 189? "onstitution, trial #udges are mandated to decide and resol(e cases &it in 80 days from submission for decision or resolution. "orollary to t is constitutional mandate, Section 5, "anon E of t e )e& "ode of Judicial "onduct for t e P ili!!ine Judiciary re<uires #udges to !erform all #udicial duties efficiently, fairly, and &it reasonable !rom!tness. , e mandate to !rom!tly dis!ose of cases or matters also a!!lies to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents !ending before t e magistrate. /nreasonable delay of a #udge in resol(ing a !ending incident is a (iolation of t e norms of #udicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency t at &arrants t e im!osition of an administrati(e sanction against t e defaulting magistrate. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. >on. Rosabella M. 3ormis! ,residing )udge! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities IM3CCJ! 4ranch (! Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. 3eves! 4ranch Cler2 of Court! same courtK ".M. #o. M3)'&$' &6&6. March &$! $%&/K 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )udge 1ernando G. 1uentes! R3C!

4r. (-! 3agbilaran City G ,aulino 4ural! Sr. v. )udge 1ernando G. 1uentes! R3C! 4r. (-! 3agbilaran CityK ".M. #o. R3)'&/'$/($ G ".M. #o. R3)'&$'$/&6. March .! $%&/. Judge @uentes === concedes t at t ere is no (alid #ustification for t e delay in resol(ing t e cases !ending in is court. =ndeed, is fre<uent tra(els to is residence in 'Camis "ity, & ic led to tra(el fatigue and !oor ealt , &ill not absol(e im from liability. =f a #udge is unable to com!ly &it t e !eriod for deciding cases or matters, e can, for good reasons, as1 for an e;tension. 0it out an e;tension granted by t e "ourt, t e failure to decide e(en a single case &it in t e re<uired !eriod constitutes gross inefficiency t at merits administrati(e sanction. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )udge 1ernando G. 1uentes! R3C! 4r. (-! 3agbilaran City G ,aulino 4ural! Sr. v. )udge 1ernando G. 1uentes! R3C! 4r. (-! 3agbilaran CityK ".M. #o. R3)'&/' $/($ G ".M. #o. R3)'&$'$/&6. March .! $%&/. Judges% undue delay in deciding cases% administrati(e sanctions. An ine;cusable failure to decide a case &it in t e !rescribed 80-day !eriod constitutes gross inefficiency, &arranting t e im!osition of administrati(e sanctions suc as sus!ension from office &it out !ay or fine on t e defaulting #udge. , e fines im!osed (ary in eac case, de!ending on t e follo&ing factors$ *1+ t e number of cases not decided &it in t e reglamentary !eriod% *2+ t e !resence of aggra(ating or mitigating circumstances% *6+ t e damage suffered by t e !arties as a result of t e delay% *A+ t e ealt and age of t e #udge% and *5+ ot er analogous circumstances. =n t is case, t e fine &as reduced considering t at t is &as t e first infraction of Judge @uentes === in is more t an 15 years in t e ser(ice. , e "ourt li1e&ise too1 into consideration t e fact t at t e res!ondent #udge e;erted earnest efforts to fully com!ly &it t e "ourt5s directi(es as contained in t e resolution. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )udge 1ernando G. 1uentes! R3C! 4r. (-! 3agbilaran City G ,aulino 4ural! Sr. v. )udge 1ernando G. 1uentes! R3C! 4r. (-! 3agbilaran CityK ".M. #o. R3)'&/'$/($ G ".M. #o. R3)'&$'$/&6. March .! $%&/. Judges% undue delay in deciding cases% sus!ension from office is not a #ustification for t e delay. Res!ondent #udge claimed t at t e delay &as t e conse<uence of t e t ree sus!ension orders issued against er as s e &as sus!ended for an aggregate !eriod of almost one year and si; mont s. Records re(eal, o&e(er, t at Judge ,ormis &as re!eatedly sus!ended in cases & erein s e committed a breac of er duty as a member of t e 7enc . S e cannot, t erefore, be allo&ed to use t e same to #ustify anot er (iolation of er solemn oat to dis!ense #ustice. B(en if s e &as allo&ed to a(ail of t is e;cuse, as a!tly obser(ed by t e '"A, se(eral of t e cases t at s e failed to dis!ose of ad been o(erdue for decision or resolution e(en !rior to said sus!ensions. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. >on. Rosabella M. 3ormis! ,residing )udge! Municipal 3rial Court in Cities IM3CCJ! 4ranch (! Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. 3eves! 4ranch Cler2 of Court! same courtK ".M. #o. M3)'&$'&6&6. March &$! $%&/. Jurisdiction of t e "ourt o(er administrati(e !roceedings. An administrati(e matter &as instituted against Judge Grageda, based on t e result of a #udicial audit conducted after is retirement. According to t e Su!reme "ourt, for it to ac<uire #urisdiction o(er an administrati(e !roceeding, t e com!laint must be filed during t e incumbency of t e res!ondent !ublic official or em!loyee. , is is because t e filing of an administrati(e case is !redicated on t e olding of a !osition or office in t e go(ernment ser(ice. Ho&e(er, once #urisdiction as attac ed, t e same is not lost by t e mere fact t at t e !ublic official or em!loyee &as no longer in office during t e !endency of t e case.

=n !resent case, Judge Grageda5s retirement effecti(ely barred t e "ourt from !ursuing t e instant administrati(e !roceeding t at &as instituted after is tenure in office, and di(ested t e "ourt, muc less t e 'ffice of t e "ourt Administrator *'"A+, of any #urisdiction to still sub#ect im to t e rules and regulations of t e #udiciary and.or to !enaliCe im for t e infractions committed & ile e &as still in t e ser(ice. Accordingly, t e com!laint against retired Judge Grageda &as dismissed. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. )esus L. GragedaK ".M. #o. R3)' &%'$$/*. March &&! $%&/.

April 201+ Philippine Supreme Court Cases on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on 2ay 1?, 2016 by Ramon G. Songco R Posted in 3egal Bt ics, P ili!!ines - "ases, P ili!!ines - 3a& R Here are select A!ril 2016 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% !ractice of la&% notary. , e !ractice of la& is imbued &it !ublic interest and :a la&yer o&es substantial duties not only to is client, but also to is bret ren in t e !rofession, to t e courts, and to t e nation, and ta1es !art in one of t e most im!ortant functions of t e State I t e administration of #ustice I as an officer of t e court.> Accordingly, Q>la&yers are bound to maintain not only a ig standard of legal !roficiency, but also of morality, onesty, integrity and fair dealing.> Similarly, t e duties of notaries !ublic are dictated by !ublic !olicy and im!ressed &it !ublic interest. :)otariCation is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notariCation con(erts a !ri(ate document to a !ublic instrument, ma1ing it admissible in e(idence &it out t e necessity of !reliminary !roof of its aut enticity and due e;ecution.> =n misre!resenting imself as a notary !ublic, res!ondent e;!osed !arty-litigants, courts, ot er la&yers and t e general !ublic to t e !erils of ordinary documents !osing as !ublic instruments. Res!ondent committed acts of deceit and false ood in o!en (iolation of t e e;!licit !ronouncements of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. B(idently, res!ondent5s conduct falls miserably s ort of t e ig standards of morality, onesty, integrity and fair dealing re<uired from la&yers. , us, e s ould be sanctioned. Efigenia M. 3enoso vs. "tty. "nselmo S. Echane:. A.". )o. 969A. A!ril 11, 2016 "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty. =n Civil Service Commission v. ,erocho! )r., t e "ourt defined dis onesty as :intentionally ma1ing a false statement in any material fact, or !racticing or attem!ting to !ractice any dece!tion or fraud in securing is e;amination, registration, a!!ointment or !romotion. , us, dis onesty, li1e bad fait , is not sim!ly bad #udgment or negligence. 4is onesty is a <uestion of intention. =n ascertaining t e intention of a !erson accused of dis onesty, consideration must be ta1en not only of t e facts and circumstances & ic ga(e rise to t e act committed by t e res!ondent, but also of is state of mind at t e time t e offense &as committed, t e time e mig t a(e ad at is dis!osal for t e !ur!ose of meditating on t e conse<uences of is act, and t e degree of reasoning e could a(e ad at t at moment.> B(idence s o&ed t at res!ondent &as not t e one & o too1 t e "i(il Ser(ice SubProfessional B;aminations. , e "ourt, citing t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel, stressed

t at its em!loyees s ould old t e ig est standard of integrity for t ey are a reflection of t e esteemed institution & ic t ey ser(e. =t certainly cannot countenance any form of dis onesty !er!etrated by its em!loyees. Civil Service Commission vs. Merle Ramoneda',ita . A.2. )o. P09-2561. A!ril 11, 2016 "ourt Personnel% sim!le neglect of duty. =n t is case, t e !ersonnel in c arge of t e court records failed to ele(ate t e case records to t e "ourt of A!!eals &it in t e !rescribed !eriod due to t e alleged : ea(y &or1load.> , e "ourt eld t at e &as guilty of sim!le neglect of duty. Section 1, "anon =D of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel commands court !ersonnel to !erform t eir duties !ro!erly and &it diligence at all times. , e administration of #ustice is an in(iolable tas1 and it demands t e ig est degree of efficiency, dedication and !rofessionalism. , e "ourt is not una&are of t e ea(y &or1load of court !ersonnel, gi(en t e number of cases filed and !ending before it. Ho&e(er, unless !ro(en to e;ist in an insurmountable degree, t is circumstance cannot ser(e as an :e;cuse to e(ade administrati(e liability% ot er&ise, e(ery go(ernment em!loyee faced &it negligence and dereliction of duty &ould resort to t at e;cuse to e(ade !unis ment, to t e detriment of t e !ublic ser(ice.> "learly, SalaCar is guilty of sim!le neglect of duty, & ic is defined as t e failure to gi(e !ro!er attention to a tas1 e;!ected of an em!loyee, t us signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. =n t e determination of t e !enalties to be im!osed, mitigating, aggra(ating and alternati(e circumstances attendant to t e commission of t e crime s all be considered. , e "ourt as mitigated im!osable !enalties for (arious s!ecial reasons. =t as considered lengt of ser(ice in t e #udiciary, ac1no&ledgement of infractions, remorse and family circumstances, among ot ers, in determining t e a!!licable !enalty. =n t is case, & ile SalaCar is a second time offender for sim!le neglect of duty, er long years of ser(ice in t e #udiciary and t e admission of er negligence are circumstances to mitigate er cul!ability. )udge Renato ". 1uentes! R3C! 4r. &7! +avao City vs. "tty. Rogelio 1. 1abro! etc.! et al. A.2. )o. P-10-2?81. A!ril 1?, 2016 Judge% "ourt Personnel% Gra(e misconduct% Gross neglect of duty% Gross inefficiency. =n 0ba9ana! )r. v. Ricafort, t e court eld t at$ Any im!ression of im!ro!riety, misdeed or negligence in t e !erformance of official functions must be a(oided. , is "ourt s all not countenance any conduct, act or omission on t e !art of all t ose in(ol(ed in t e administration of #ustice & ic &ould (iolate t e norm of !ublic accountability and diminis t e fait of t e !eo!le in t e Judiciary. @irst, t e #udges in(ol(ed solemniCed marriages e(en if t e re<uirements submitted by t e cou!les &ere incom!lete and <uestionable. , eir actions constitute gross inefficiency. =n ega v. "sdala, t e "ourt eld t at inefficiency im!lies negligence, incom!etence, ignorance, and carelessness. Second, t e #udges &ere also found guilty of neglect of duty regarding t e !ayment of solemniCation fees. , e "ourt, in Rodrigo'Ebron v. "dolfo, defined neglect of duty as t e failure to gi(e one5s attention to a tas1 e;!ected of im and it is gross & en, from t e gra(ity of t e offense or t e fre<uency of instances, t e offense is so serious in its c aracter as to endanger or t reaten !ublic &elfare. , e marriage documents s o& t at official recei!ts for t e solemniCation fee &ere missing or !ayment by batc es &as made for marriages !erformed on different dates.

, ird, t e #udges also solemniCed marriages & ere a contracting !arty is a foreigner & o did not submit a certificate of legal ca!acity to marry from is or er embassy. , is irregularity dis!layed t e gross neglect of duty of t e #udges. @ourt , t e #udges are also guilty of gross ignorance of t e la& under Article 6A of t e @amily "ode &it res!ect to t e marriages t ey solemniCed & ere legal im!ediments e;isted during co abitation suc as t e minority status of one !arty. 'n t e ot er and, t e court inter!reter is guilty of gra(e misconduct & en s e said s e can facilitate t e marriage and t e re<uirements on t e same day. S e !ro!osed an o!en-dated marriage in e;c ange for a fee of P6,000. Section 2, "anon = of t e "ode of "onduct for "ourt Personnel !ro ibits court !ersonnel from soliciting or acce!ting gifts, fa(or or benefit based on any e;!licit or im!licit understanding t at suc gift, fa(or or benefit s all influence t eir official actions. Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice defines gra(e misconduct as :a gra(e offense t at carries t e e;treme !enalty of dismissal from t e ser(ice e(en on a first offense. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. )udge "natalio S. #ecessario! et al . A.2. )o. 2,J-0?-1E81. A!ril 2, 2016 Judge% Gross ignorance of t e la&. , e res!ondent #udges (iolated "anons 21 and E of t e "anons of Judicial Bt ics & ic e;act com!etence, integrity and !robity in t e !erformance of t eir duties. =gnorance of t e la& is a mar1 of incom!etence, and & ere t e la& in(ol(ed is elementary, ignorance t ereof is considered as an indication of lac1 of integrity. =n connection &it t is, t e administration of #ustice is considered a sacred tas1 and u!on assum!tion to office, a #udge ceases to be an ordinary mortal. He or s e becomes t e (isible re!resentation of t e la& and more im!ortantly of #ustice. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. )udge "natalio S. #ecessario! et al. A.2. )o. 2,J-0?-1E81. A!ril 2, 2016 Public officer% Presum!tion of regularity. =n ,eople v. )ansen, t e "ourt eld t at t e solemniCing officer is not duty-bound to in(estigate & et er or not a marriage license as been duly and regularly issued by t e local ci(il registrar. All t e solemniCing officer needs to 1no& is t at t e license as been issued by t e com!etent official, and it may be !resumed from t e issuance of t e license t at said official as fulfilled t e duty to ascertain & et er t e contracting !arties ad fulfilled t e re<uirements of la&. Ho&e(er, in Sevilla v. Cardenas, t e !resum!tion of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmati(e e(idence of irregularity or failure to !erform a duty. , e (isible su!erim!ositions on t e marriage licenses s ould a(e alerted t e solemniCing #udges to t e irregularity of t e issuance. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. )udge "natalio S. #ecessario! et al. A.2. )o. 2,J-0?-1E81. A!ril 2, 2016 Judge% Pro ibition against !ri(ate !ractice of la&. Section 65 of Rule 169 of t e Rules of "ourt e;!ressly !ro ibits sitting #udges li1e Judge 2alanyaon from engaging in t e !ri(ate !ractice of la& or gi(ing !rofessional ad(ice to clients. Section 11 "anon A *Pro!riety+, of t e )e& "ode of Judicial "onduct and Rule 5.0? of t e "ode of Judicial "onduct reiterate t e !ro ibition from engaging in t e !ri(ate !ractice of la& or gi(ing !rofessional ad(ice to clients. , e !ro ibition is based on sound reasons of !ublic !olicy, considering t at t e rig ts, duties, !ri(ileges and functions of t e office of an attorney are in erently incom!atible &it t e ig official functions, duties, !o&ers, discretion and !ri(ileges of a sitting #udge. =t also aims to ensure t at #udges gi(e t eir full time and attention to t eir #udicial duties, !re(ent t em from e;tending fa(ors to t eir o&n !ri(ate interests, and assure t e !ublic of t eir im!artiality in t e !erformance of t eir

functions. , ese ob#ecti(es are dictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to !romote t e !ublic interest. , us, an attorney & o acce!ts an a!!ointment to t e 7enc must acce!t t at is rig t to !ractice la& as a member of t e P ili!!ine 7ar is t ereby sus!ended, and it s all continue to be so sus!ended for t e entire !eriod of is incumbency as a #udge. , e term !ractice of la& is not limited to t e conduct of cases in court or to !artici!ation in court !roceedings, but e;tends to t e !re!aration of !leadings or !a!ers in antici!ation of a litigation, t e gi(ing of legal ad(ice to clients or !ersons needing t e same, t e !re!aration of legal instruments and contracts by & ic legal rig ts are secured, and t e !re!aration of !a!ers incident to actions and s!ecial !roceedings. =n t is case, Judge 2alanyaon engaged in t e !ri(ate !ractice of la& by assisting is daug ter at is &ife5s administrati(e case, coac ing is daug ter in ma1ing manifestations or !osing motions to t e earing officer, and !re!aring t e <uestions t at e !rom!ted to is daug ter. Sonia C. +ecena and Rey C. +ecena vs. )udge #ilo ". Malanyaon! R3C! 4r. /$! ,ili! Camarines Sur. A.2. R,J-10-221?. A!ril 9, 2016 Public 'fficers% !ublic office is a !ublic trust% !ublic officers and em!loyees must at all times be accountable to t e !eo!le, ser(e t em &it utmost res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act &it !atriotism and #ustice, and lead modest li(es. =n t is case, Gesultura, a "as ier == in t e 'ffice of t e "ler1 of "ourt in t e R,", &as dismissed for an anomaly in(ol(ing t e Judiciary 4e(elo!ment @und and t e General @und. , e "ourt eld t at !ublic office is a !ublic trust. Public officers and em!loyees must at all times be accountable to t e !eo!le, ser(e t em &it utmost res!onsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act &it !atriotism and #ustice, and lead modest li(es. , ose c arged &it t e dis!ensation of #ustice, from #ustices and #udges to t e lo&liest cler1s, s ould be circumscribed &it t e ea(y burden of res!onsibility. )ot only must t eir conduct at all times be c aracteriCed by !ro!riety and decorum but, abo(e all else, it must be beyond sus!icion. )o !osition demands greater moral rig teousness and u!rig tness from t e occu!ant t an does t e #udicial office. , e safe1ee!ing of funds and collections is essential to t e goal of an orderly administration of #ustice. , e act of misa!!ro!riating #udiciary funds constitutes dis onesty and gra(e misconduct & ic are gra(e offenses !unis able by dismissal u!on t e commission of e(en t e first offense. ,ime and again, &e a(e reminded court !ersonnel tas1ed &it collections of court funds, suc as "ler1s of "ourts and cas cler1s, to de!osit immediately &it aut oriCed go(ernment de!ositories t e (arious funds t ey a(e collected, because t ey are not aut oriCed to 1ee! funds in t eir custody. 0ffice of the Court "dministrator vs. +evelyn Gesultura. A.2. )o. P-0A-1?95. A!ril 2, 2016

June 201+ Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on July 18, 2016 by Ramon G. Songco R Posted in 3egal Bt ics, P ili!!ines - "ases, P ili!!ines - 3a& R Here are select June 2016 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$

Attorney% t e failure to file a brief resulting in t e dismissal of an a!!eal constitutes ine;cusable negligence. =n +alisay Capili v. "tty. "lfredo L. 4entulan , t e "ourt eld t at t e failure to file a brief resulting in t e dismissal of an a!!eal constitutes ine;cusable negligence. =n t is case, t e "ourt cannot acce!t as an e;cuse t e alleged la!se committed by is client in failing to !ro(ide im a co!y of t e case records. =n t e first !lace, securing a co!y of t e case records &as &it in Atty. San Juan5s control and is a tas1 t at t e la&yer underta1es. Second, Atty. San Juan, unli1e is client, 1no&s or s ould a(e 1no&n, t at filing an a!!ellant5s brief &it in t e reglementary !eriod is critical in t e !erfection of an a!!eal. , e !re!aration and t e filing of t e a!!ellant5s brief are matters of !rocedure t at fully fell &it in t e e;clusi(e control and res!onsibility of Atty. San Juan. =t &as incumbent u!on im to e;ecute all acts and !rocedures necessary and incidental to t e !erfection of is client5s a!!eal. , ird, Atty. San Juan lac1ed candor in dealing &it is client. He omitted to inform ,omas of t e !rogress of is a!!eal &it t e "ourt of A!!eals. 0orse, e did not disclose to ,omas t e real reason for t e "ourt of A!!eal5s dismissal of t e a!!eal. )eit er did Atty. San Juan file a motion for reconsideration, or ot er&ise resort to a(ailable legal remedies t at mig t a(e !rotected is client5s interest. Atty. San Juan5s negligence undoubtedly (iolates t e 3a&yer5s 'at t at re<uires im to :conduct K imselfL as a la&yer according to t e best of * is+ 1no&ledge and discretion, &it all good fidelity as &ell to t e courts as to * is+ clientsK.L: He also (iolated Rule 19.06 and Rule 19.0A, "anon 19 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. Re@ ,olinar +agohoy v. "tty. "rtemio . San )uan. A.". )o. ?8AA, June 6, 2016. Attorney% =7P findings and recommended !enalties in administrati(e cases against la&yers are only recommendatory. =7P5s recommended !enalty of t ree *6+ mont s sus!ension from t e !ractice of la& is not commensurate to t e gra(ity of t e infractions committed. , ese infractions &arrant t e im!osition of a stiffer sanction. , e follo&ing acts and omissions of Atty. San Juan &ere considered$ first, t e negligence in andling is client5s a!!eal% second, is failure to act candidly and effecti(ely in communicating information to is client% and more im!ortantly, t ird, t e serious and irre!arable conse<uence of is admitted negligence & ic de!ri(ed is client of legal remedies in addressing is con(iction. =n ,ineda v. "tty. Macapagal, t e "ourt im!osed a one *1+ year sus!ension from t e !ractice of la& on a la&yer & o, li1e Atty. San Juan, ad been found guilty of gross negligence in andling is client5s case. 0it t is case as t e norm, Atty. San Juan s ould be meted a sus!ension of one *1+ year from t e !ractice of la& for is negligence and inade<uacies in andling is client5s case. 2oreo(er, =7P5s findings and stated !enalty are merely recommendatory% only t e Su!reme "ourt as t e !o&er to disci!line erring la&yers and to im!ose against t em !enalties for unet ical conduct. /ntil finally acted u!on by t e Su!reme "ourt, t e =7P findings and t e recommended !enalty im!osed cannot attain finality until ado!ted by t e "ourt as its o&n. , us, t e =7P findings, by t emsel(es, cannot be a !ro!er sub#ect of im!lementation or com!liance. Re@ ,olinar +agohoy v. "tty. "rtemio . San )uan. A.". )o. ?8AA, June 6, 2016.

"ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty. =smael Had#i Ali, a court stenogra! er = at t e S ari5a "ircuit "ourt, re!resented t at e too1 and !assed t e "i(il Ser(ice Professional B;amination but e(idence s o&ed t at anot er !erson too1 t e e;am for im. Per "S" 2emorandum "ircular )o. 15, Series of 1881, t e use of s!urious "i(il Ser(ice eligibility constitutes dis onesty, among ot ers. 4is onesty is a male(olent act t at as no !lace in t e #udiciary. Had#i Ali failed to obser(e t e strict standards and be a(ior re<uired of an em!loyee in t e #udiciary. He as s o&n unfitness for !ublic office. Pursuant to t e "i(il Ser(ice Rules, Had#i Ali &as dismissed from t e ser(ice &it forfeiture of retirement and ot er benefits. Civil Service Commission v. 8smael ". >ad=i "li! et al.! A.2. )o. S""-09-11-P, June 19, 2016. "ourt !ersonnel% dis onesty and gra(e misconduct. 2isconduct is a transgression of some establis ed and definite rule of action, more !articularly, unla&ful be a(ior as &ell as gross negligence by a !ublic officer. ,o &arrant dismissal from ser(ice, t e misconduct must be gra(e, serious, im!ortant, &eig ty, momentous and not trifling. , e misconduct must im!ly &rongful intention and not a mere error of #udgment. , e misconduct must also a(e a direct relation to and be connected &it t e !erformance of t e !ublic officer5s official duties amounting eit er to maladministration or &illful, intentional neglect, or failure to disc arge t e duties of t e office. 4is onesty is t e :dis!osition to lie, c eat, decei(e, defraud or betray% untrust&ort iness% lac1 of integrity% lac1 of onesty, !robity, or integrity in !rinci!le% and lac1 of fairness and straig tfor&ardness.> =n t is case, res!ondent decei(ed com!lainant5s family & o &ere led to belie(e t at e is t e legal re!resentati(e of t e Hodges Bstate. 7oasting of is !osition as a court officer, a "ity S eriff at t at, com!lainant5s family com!letely relied on is re!eated assurance t at t ey &ill not be e#ected from t e !remises. =n Re: Complaint 1iled by ,a: +e era La:aro "gainst Edna Magallanes! Court Stenographer 888! R3C 4r. $6 and 4onifacio G. Magallanes! ,rocess Server! R3C 4r. /%! 4ayombong! #ueva i:caya, t e "ourt stressed t at to !reser(e decency &it in t e #udiciary, court !ersonnel must com!ly &it #ust contractual obligations, act fairly and ad ere to ig et ical standards. =n t at case, t e court eld t at court em!loyees are e;!ected to be !aragons of u!rig tness, fairness and onesty not only in t eir official conduct but also in t eir !ersonal dealings, including business and commercial transactions to a(oid becoming t e court5s albatross of infamy. 2ore im!ortantly, Section A*c+ of Re!ublic Act )o. E?1650 or t e "ode of "onduct and Bt ical Standards for Public 'fficials and Bm!loyees mandates t at !ublic officials and em!loyees s all remain true to t e !eo!le at all times. , ey must act &it #ustness and sincerity and s all not discriminate against anyone, es!ecially t e !oor and t e under!ri(ileged. , ey s all at all times res!ect t e rig ts of ot ers, and s all refrain from doing acts contrary to la&, good morals, good customs, !ublic !olicy, !ublic order, !ublic safety and !ublic interest. Rodolfo C. Sabidong v. #icolasito S. Solas. A.2. )o. P-01-1AA9, June 25, 2016. "ourt !ersonnel% Pro ibition in ac<uiring !ro!erty in(ol(ed in litigation &it in t e #urisdiction of t eir courts. Article 1A81, !aragra! 5 of t e "i(il "ode !ro ibits court officers suc as cler1s of court from ac<uiring !ro!erty in(ol(ed in litigation &it in t e #urisdiction or territory of t eir courts. , e rationale is t at !ublic !olicy disallo&s t e transactions in (ie& of t e fiduciary relations i! in(ol(ed, i.e., t e relation of trust and confidence and t e !eculiar control e;ercised by t ese !ersons. :=n so !ro(iding, t e "ode tends to !re(ent fraud, or more !recisely, tends not to gi(e occasion for fraud, & ic is & at can and must be done.>

@or t e !ro ibition to a!!ly, t e sale or assignment of t e !ro!erty must ta1e !lace during t e !endency of t e litigation in(ol(ing t e !ro!erty. 0 ere t e !ro!erty is ac<uired after t e termination of t e case, no (iolation of !aragra! 5, Article 1A81 of t e "i(il "ode attac es. =n t is case, & en res!ondent !urc ased 3ot 11-A on )o(ember 21, 188A, t e 4ecision in "i(il "ase )o. 1A?0E & ic &as !romulgated on 2ay 61, 1896 ad long become final. 7e t at as it may, it cannot be said t at t e !ro!erty is no longer :in litigation> at t at time considering t at it &as !art of t e Hodges Bstate t en under settlement !roceedings. A t ing is said to be in litigation not only if t ere is some contest or litigation o(er it in court, but also from t e moment t at it becomes sub#ect to t e #udicial action of t e #udge. A !ro!erty forming !art of t e estate under #udicial settlement continues to be sub#ect of litigation until t e !robate court issues an order declaring t e estate !roceedings closed and terminated. , e rule is t at as long as t e order for t e distribution of t e estate as not been com!lied &it , t e !robate !roceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated. , e !robate court loses #urisdiction of an estate under administration only after t e !ayment of all t e debts and t e remaining estate deli(ered to t e eirs entitled to recei(e t e same. Rodolfo C. Sabidong v. #icolasito S. Solas. A.2. )o. P-01-1AA9, June 25, 2016.

July 201+ Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics
Posted on August 21, 2016 by Ramon G. Songco R Posted in 3egal Bt ics R Here are select July 2016 rulings of t e Su!reme "ourt of t e P ili!!ines on legal and #udicial et ics$ Attorney% Attorney-client relations i!. Res!ondent Atty. Ramon SG "abanes, Jr. &as c arged for gross negligence in (iolation of "anon 1?, and Rules 19.06 and 19.0A of "anon 19 of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility. , e Su!reme "ourt eld im guilty of gross negligence. , e relations i! bet&een an attorney and is client is one imbued &it utmost trust and confidence. =n t is lig t, clients are led to e;!ect t at la&yers &ould be e(er-mindful of t eir cause and accordingly e;ercise t e re<uired degree of diligence in andling t eir affairs. Derily, a la&yer is e;!ected to maintain at all times a ig standard of legal !roficiency, and to de(ote is full attention, s1ill, and com!etence to t e case, regardless of its im!ortance and & et er e acce!ts it for a fee or for free. A la&yer5s duty of com!etence and diligence includes not merely re(ie&ing t e cases entrusted to t e counsel5s care or gi(ing sound legal ad(ice, but also consists of !ro!erly re!resenting t e client before any court or tribunal, attending sc eduled earings or conferences, !re!aring and filing t e re<uired !leadings, !rosecuting t e andled cases &it reasonable dis!atc , and urging t eir termination &it out &aiting for t e client or t e court to !rod im or er to do so. 0 ile suc negligence or carelessness is inca!able of e;act formulation, t e "ourt as consistently eld t at t e la&yer5s mere failure to !erform t e obligations due is client is !er se a (iolation. , us, t e court sus!ended res!ondent for si; *E+ mont s. )osefina Caran:a da de Saldivar v. "tty. Ramon SG Cabanes! )r.! ".C. #o. 77(-! )uly 6! $%&/ Attorney% "onflict of interest. , e rule !ro ibiting conflict of interest &as fas ioned to !re(ent situations & erein a la&yer &ould be re!resenting a client & ose interest is directly ad(erse to

any of is !resent or former clients. =n t e same &ay, a la&yer may only be allo&ed to re!resent a client in(ol(ing t e same or a substantially related matter t at is materially ad(erse to t e former client only if t e former client consents to it after consultation. , e rule is grounded in t e fiduciary obligation of loyalty. , roug out t e course of a la&yer-client relations i!, t e la&yer learns all t e facts connected &it t e client5s case, including t e &ea1 and strong !oints of t e case. Mno&ledge and information gat ered in t e course of t e relations i! must be treated as sacred and guarded &it care. =t be oo(es la&yers not only to 1ee! in(iolate t e client5s confidence, but also to a(oid t e a!!earance of treac ery and double-dealing, for only t en can litigants be encouraged to entrust t eir secrets to t eir la&yers, & ic is !aramount in t e administration of #ustice. , e nature of t at relations i! is, t erefore, one of trust and confidence of t e ig est degree. "ontrary to Atty. Bra5s ill-concei(ed attem!t to e;!lain is disloyalty to Samson and is grou!, t e termination of t e attorney-client relations i! does not #ustify a la&yer to re!resent an interest ad(erse to or in conflict &it t at of t e former client. , e s!irit be ind t is rule is t at t e client5s confidence once gi(en s ould not be stri!!ed by t e mere e;!iration of t e !rofessional em!loyment. B(en after t e se(erance of t e relation, a la&yer s ould not do anyt ing t at &ill in#uriously affect is former client in any matter in & ic t e la&yer !re(iously re!resented t e client. )or s ould t e la&yer disclose or use any of t e client5s confidences ac<uired in t e !re(ious relation. , us, Atty. Bra &as found guilty of Rule 15.06 of "anon 15 and "anon 1? of t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility and &as sus!ended from t e !ractice of la& for t&o *2+ years. 1erdinand ". Samson v. "tty. Edgardo 0. Era! ".C. #o. ...(! )uly &.! $%&/. Attorney% 4isbarment and sus!ension of la&yers% 7urden of !roof. , e burden of !roof in disbarment and sus!ension !roceedings al&ays rests on t e s oulders of t e com!lainant. , e "ourt e;ercises its disci!linary !o&er only if t e com!lainant establis es t e com!laint by clearly preponderant evidence t at &arrants t e im!osition of t e ars !enalty. As a rule, an attorney en#oys t e legal !resum!tion t at e is innocent of t e c arges made against im until t e contrary is !ro(ed. An attorney is furt er !resumed as an officer of t e "ourt to a(e !erformed is duties in accordance &it is oat . =n t is case, com!lainants failed to disc arge t eir burden of !ro(ing t at res!ondents ordered t eir secretary to stam! a muc later date instead of t e actual date of recei!t for t e !ur!ose of e;tending t e ten-day !eriod &it in & ic to file a 2otion for Reconsideration under t e )3R" Rules of Procedure. Suc claim is merely anc ored on s!eculation and con#ecture and not bac1ed by any clear !re!onderant e(idence necessary to #ustify t e im!osition of administrati(e !enalty on a member of t e 7ar. )aime )oven and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. "tty. ,ablo R. Cru: and 1ran2ie 0. Magsalin 888! ".C. #o. 7.6.! )uly /&! $%&/. Attorney% Honesty% Practice of la& is not a rig t but a !ri(ilege. 3a&yers are officers of t e court, called u!on to assist in t e administration of #ustice. , ey act as (anguards of our legal system, !rotecting and u! olding trut and t e rule of la&. , ey are e;!ected to act &it onesty in all t eir dealings, es!ecially &it t e court. Derily, t e "ode of Professional Res!onsibility en#oins la&yers from committing or consenting to any false ood in court or from allo&ing t e courts to be misled by any artifice. 2oreo(er, t ey are obliged to obser(e t e rules of !rocedure and not to misuse t em to defeat t e ends of #ustice. =ndeed, t e !ractice of la& is not a rig t but merely a !ri(ilege besto&ed u!on by t e State u!on t ose & o s o& t at t ey !ossess, and continue to !ossess, t e <ualifications re<uired by la& for t e conferment of suc !ri(ilege. 'ne of t ose re<uirements is t e obser(ance of onesty and candor. "andor in all t eir dealings is t e (ery essence of a !ractitioner5s onorable members i! in t e legal !rofession. 3a&yers are

re<uired to act &it t e ig est standard of trut fulness, fair !lay and nobility in t e conduct of litigation and in t eir relations &it t eir clients, t e o!!osing !arties, t e ot er counsels and t e courts. , ey are bound by t eir oat to s!ea1 t e trut and to conduct t emsel(es according to t e best of t eir 1no&ledge and discretion, and &it fidelity to t e courts and t eir clients. Sonic Steel 8ndustries! 8nc. v. "tty. #onnatus ,. Chua! ".C. #o. .-($! )uly &7! $%&/. "ourt !ersonnel% Gross dis onesty% 2isre!resentation of eligibility% Penalty. Res!ondent, a court stenogra! er ===, &as c arged &it gross dis onesty in connection &it er "i(il Ser(ice eligibility & ere s e &as accused of causing anot er !erson to ta1e t e "i(il Ser(ice Bligibility B;amination in er stead. 7efore t e 4ecision &as im!osed, o&e(er, res!ondent already resigned. , e Su!reme "ourt eld t at t e res!ondent5s resignation from t e ser(ice did not cause t e "ourt to lose its #urisdiction to !roceed against er in t is administrati(e case. Her cessation from office by (irtue of er inter(ening resignation did not &arrant t e dismissal of t e administrati(e com!laint against er, for t e act com!lained of ad been committed & en s e &as still in t e ser(ice. )or did suc cessation from office render t e administrati(e case moot and academic. 't er&ise, e;acting res!onsibility for administrati(e liabilities incurred &ould be easily a(oided or e(aded. Res!ondent5s dismissal from t e ser(ice is t e a!!ro!riate !enalty, &it er eligibility to be cancelled, er retirement benefits to be forfeited, and er dis<ualification from re-em!loyment in t e go(ernment ser(ice to be !er!etual. Her inter(ening resignation necessarily means t at t e !enalty of dismissal could no longer be im!lemented against er. =nstead, fine is im!osed, t e determination of t e amount of & ic is sub#ect to t e sound discretion of t e "ourt. Concerned Citi:en . #onita v. Catena! Court Stenographer 888! R3C! 4r. *%! ,uerto ,rincesa! ,alawan! ".M. 0C" 8,8 #o. %$'&/$&',! )uly &.! $%&/. "ourt !ersonnel% 2isconduct% Penalty under t e Re(ised Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice% Bffect of deat in an administrati(e case. 2isconduct is :a transgression of some establis ed and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unla&ful be a(ior, &ilful in c aracter, im!ro!er or &rong be a(ior.> A misconduct is :gra(e> or gross> if it is :out of all measure% beyond allo&ance% flagrant% s ameful> or :suc conduct as is not to be e;cused.> Res!ondent 'ng5s and 7uencamino5s acts of using t e le(ied car for !ersonal errands and losing it & ile under t eir safe1ee!ing constitute gra(e misconduct and gross neglect of duty. , ese are flagrant and s ameful acts and s ould not be countenanced. Res!ondents5 acts &arrant t e !enalty of dismissal as !ro(ided in Rule 10, Section AE of t e Re(ised Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice. As for res!ondent 7uencamino, is deat is not a ground for t e dismissal of t e "om!laint against im. Res!ondent 7uencamino5s acts ta1e a&ay t e !ublic5s fait in t e #udiciary, and t ese acts s ould be sanctioned des!ite is deat . S eriffs are reminded t at t ey are :re!ositories of !ublic trust and are under obligation to !erform t e duties of t eir office onestly, fait fully, and to t e best of t eir abilities.> 7eing :frontline officials of t e #ustice system,> s eriffs and de!uty s eriffs :must al&ays stri(e to maintain !ublic trust in t e !erformance of t eir duties.> 0ffice of the Court "dministrator v. #oel R. 0ng! +eputy Sheriff! 4r. (-! et al.! ".M. #o. ,'%-'$.-%! )uly -! $%&/. "ourt !ersonnel% Sim!le neglect of duty% Penalty under t e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases% 2itigating circumstances. , e 4e(elo!ment 7an1 of t e P ili!!ines *47P+ c arged res!ondent S eriff lD @amero &it Gross )eglect of 4uty amounting to Gross 2isconduct for refusing to im!lement t e 0rit of B;ecution issued in a ci(il case in(ol(ing 47P. , e Su!reme

"ourt eld t at t e res!ondent cannot fully be e;cused for is failure to ma1e !eriodic re!orts in t e !roceedings ta1en on t e &rit, as mandated by Section 1A, Rule 68 of t e Rules of "ourt. @or t e res!ondent5s la!ses in t e !rocedures in t e im!lementation of t e &rit of e;ecution, e &as found guilty of sim!le neglect of duty, defined as t e failure of an em!loyee to gi(e attention to t e tas1 e;!ected of im. /nder Section 52*7+*1+ of t e /niform Rules on Administrati(e "ases in t e "i(il Ser(ice, sim!le neglect of duty is a less gra(e offense !unis able by sus!ension from office for one *1+ mont and one *1+ day to si; *E+ mont s for t e first offense, and dismissal for t e second offense. =n t e im!osition of t e a!!ro!riate !enalty, Section 56 of t e same Rules allo&s t e disci!lining aut ority to consider mitigating circumstances in fa(or of t e res!ondent. , e court considered is lengt of ser(ice in t e Judiciary, ac1no&ledgment of infractions, remorse and ot er family circumstances, among ot ers, in determining t e !ro!er !enalty. He &as also found to be entitled to t e follo&ing mitigating circumstances$ *1+ is more t an 2A years of ser(ice in t e Judiciary% *2+ a clear record ot er t an for t e !resent infraction & ic is is first offense, *6+ t e resistance of t e informal settlers to lea(e t e !ro!erty% *A+ fear for is life% and *5+ is &ell-grounded recognition t at e could not underta1e any demolition &it out t e a!!ro!riate court order. After considering t e attendant facts and t e mitigating circumstances, t e court also considered t at t e efficiency of court o!erations may ensue if t e res!ondent5s &or1 &ere to be left unattended by reason of is sus!ension. , us, e &as im!osed t e !enalty of fine instead of sus!ension from ser(ice. +evelopment 4an2 of the ,hilippines! etc. s. +amvin . 1amero! Sheriff 8 ! R3C! 4r. (/! Ro@as! 0riental Mindoro! ".M. #o. ,'%'$76-! )uly /&! $%&/. Judge% Gross =nefficiency% 4uties include !rom!t dis!osition or resolution of cases. As a frontline official of t e Judiciary, a trial #udge s ould al&ays act &it efficiency and !robity. He is duty-bound not only to be fait ful to t e la&, but also to maintain !rofessional com!etence. , e !ursuit of e;cellence oug t al&ays to be is guiding !rinci!le. Suc dedication is t e least t at e can do to sustain t e trust and confidence t at t e !ublic a(e re!osed in im and t e institution e re!resents. , e "ourt cannot o(erstress its !olicy on !rom!t dis!osition or resolution of cases. )onet eless, t e "ourt as been mindful of t e !lig t of our #udges and understanding of circumstances t at may inder t em from !rom!tly dis!osing of t eir businesses. Hence, t e "ourt as allo&ed e;tensions of time to decide cases beyond t e 80-day !eriod. All t at a #udge needs to do is to re<uest and #ustify an e;tension of time to decide t e cases, and t e "ourt as almost in(ariably granted suc re<uest. Judge "arbonell5s failure to decide se(eral cases &it in t e reglementary !eriod, &it out #ustifiable and credible reasons, constituted gross inefficiency. "onsidering t at Judge "arbonell as retired due to disability, is !oor ealt condition may a(e greatly contributed to is inability to efficiently !erform is duties as a trial #udge. , at mitigated is administrati(e liability, for & ic reason t e "ourt reduced t e recommended !enalty of fine from P50,000 to P20,000. Re: 1ailure of 1ormer )udge "ntonio ". Carbonell to +ecide Cases Submitted for +ecision and Resolve ,ending Motions in the R3C! 4ranch $7! San 1ernando! La 5nion! ".M. #o. %6'*'/%*'R3C! )uly -! $%&/.