Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

MARCES VS ARCANGEL

Facts
Complainant Ben Marces and family is neighbors with spouses Wilfredo and Flordeliza
Caas. In 1984, the domestic helper of the Caas family sought complainants help from Marces,
who was then incumbent Purok leader, for alleged maltreatment she had received from her
employers, which then referred to the barangay authorities. Since then, the Marces and Caas
had a strained relationship.
The relationship between the families worsened to the point that Caas managed to secure
an arrest warrant against Ben Caas for violations against BP 22, among other things.
Throughout this ordel, Judge Arcangel assisted and provided support to the Caas as evidenced
by his intervention in the barangay mediation meetings between the families during which he
introduced himself as the Executive Judge of the RTC of Davao City in an obvious attempt to
influence the Barangay Officials.
Upon investigation, the CA finds sufficient the charge that respondent judge attended
mediation conferences between the feuding families and tried to intervene. The SC also finds
sufficient evidence in the records to wit:
(1) That respondent judge caused the issuance of alias warrants of arrest by requesting
another judge, before whom the case against the complainant was pending, to issue the
warrants; and
(2) That the arrest of the members of the Marces family on January 2, 1991 would not
have been made without the intervention of respondent judge.
Applicable canons/laws/whatnot
Canon 2, Rule 2.03, Code of Judicial Conduct - The prestige of judicial office shall not be used
or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
Canon 12, Canons of Judicial Ethics - He should not suffer his conduct to create the impression
that any person can unduly influence him or enjoy his favour.
Canon 30, Canons of Judicial Ethics - In pending or prospective litigation before him [to] be
scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his
social or business relations or friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial course
Ruling

Respondent is, as we have so often said, the visible representation of the law, the intermediary
between conflicting interests, and the embodiment of the peoples sense of justice. Respondent
judge allowed himself to be dragged into what was a purely private matter between feuding
families. In attending, at the request of Mrs. Caas, the barangay conciliation proceedings and
introducing himself there as the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in an obvious
demonstration of support for Mrs. Caas, respondent lent the prestige of his office to a party in a
case.
Cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid impropriety in all activities. The Canons mince no
words in mandating that a Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of
litigation or dispute pending before another Court (Canon 2, Rule 2.04). Interference by
members of the bench in pending suits with the end in view of influencing the course or the
result of litigation does not only subvert the independence of the judiciary but also undermines
the peoples faith in its integrity and impartiality.
A judges official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his personal
behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties but also in everyday
life, should be beyond reproach.
Respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED with WARNING that commission of similar acts of
impropriety on his part in the future will be dealt with more severely.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER V. JUDGE ANATALIO


NECESSARIO, JUDGE GIL ACOSTA, JUDGE ROSABELLA TORMIS, JUDGE
EDGEMELO ROSALES, ET. AL., RESPONDENTS (APRIL 2, 2013)
Facts
1) This is an administrative case that stemmed from Memorandum of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA). It was found out by the judicial audit team that there were alleged
irregularities in the solemnization of marriages in several branches of the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City.
2) Apparently, certain package fees were offered to interested parties by "fixers" or "facilitators"
for instant marriages by the judges of the mentioned courts.
The Office of the Court Administrator therefore recommended the dismissal of the respondent
judges and some court employees, and the suspension or admonition of the others accused.
Applicable law/canon/whatnot
Canon 2, Canons of Judicial Ethics - The courts exist to promote justice; and thus to aid in
securing the contentment and happiness of the people. Their administration should be speedy and
careful. Every judge should at all times be alert in his rulings and in the conduct of the business
of his court, so far as he can, to make it useful to litigants and to the community. He should avoid
unconsciously failing into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts instead of
the courts for the litigants.
Canon 6, Canons of Judicial Ethics - He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted
to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.
Issue
Whether the accused are guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross neglect of duty or gross
inefficiency and gross misconduct, and in turn, warrant the most severe penalty of dismissal from
service?
Held
The Judges were all found to be guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty when they
solemnized marriages without following the proper procedure laid down by law, particularly the
Family Code of the Philippines and existing jurisprudence. The OCA listed down aspects of the
solemnization process which were disregarded by the judges.
The judges gross ignorance of the law is also evident when they solemnized marriages under
Article 34 of the Family Code without the required qualifications and with the existence of legal
impediments such as minority of a party. Marriages of exceptional character such as those made

under Article 34 are, doubtless, the exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of the formal
requisite of a marriage license. The affidavits of cohabitation should not be issued and accepted
pro forma particularly in view of the settled rulings of the Court on this matter. The five-year
period of cohabitation should be one of a perfect union valid under the law but rendered
imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract. The parties should have been capacitated
to marry each other during the entire period and not only at the time of the marriage. Further,
according to the Family Code, the absence of a marriage license will render a marriage void ab
initio. The judges in this case solemnized without following the requirements laid down by the
law. In Aranes v. Judge Salvador Occiano, the Court said that a marriage solemnized without a
marriage license is void and the subsequent issuance of the license cannot render valid or add
even an iota of validity to the marriage. It is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing
officer the authority to solemnize a marriage and the act of solemnizing the marriage without a
license constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

SY VS DINOPOL
Facts
Victoriano Sy alleged in his administrative complaint against Respondent Judge Oscar Dinopol
that while Civil Case No. 1403-24 (in which he and his wife sought the declaration of nullity of
the foreclosure proceedings against Metrobank) was pending before Judge Dinopols sala, the
judge inhibited himself from acting on the case. This notwithstanding, and to Sys surprise,
Judge Dinopol still handled Misc. Case No. 1440-24, a petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession filed by Metrobank, a matter closely intertwined with Civil Case No. 1403-24. Judge
Dinopol then issued an order granting Metrobank the right to possess the foreclosed properties.
Sy also Judge Dinopol obtained cash loans from him on various occasions between December 2,
2005 to July 14, 2006, in the total amount ofP121,000.00, and Judge Dinopol borrowed from him
his Suzuki Multi-cab and returned it after the judge was suspended in September 2007. Sy
presented disbursement vouchers, official receipts and an acknowledgement to prove his claim.
Applicable laws
Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct:
Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and the judiciary.
Sec. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the
occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding
cases.
Canon 1, Section 1, Code of Judicial Conduct - Judges shall exercise the judicial function
independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a
conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure,
threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
Canon 2, Section 1, Code of Judicial Conduct - Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct
above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in view of a reasonable observer.
Ruling
As to the issuance of possession to Metrobank
Judge Dinopol acted in accordance with the rules and jurisprudence on the matter. The duty of
the court to grant a writ of possession is a ministerial function. The court does not exercise its
official discretion or judgment.[24] Judge Dinopol, before whom the petition for the issuance of
a writ of possession was filed, had no discretion on whether to issue the writ of possession or not.

It cannot be said, therefore, that Judge Dinopol exposed himself or exhibited bias in favor of
Metrobank when he issued the writ of possession.
As to Sys charges of conduct unbecoming against Judge Dinopol
There is substantial evidence showing that Judge Dinopol obtained the commodity loans from
Sy. The commodity loans were evidenced by receipts indicating delivery of construction
materials to Judge Dinopols residence. The cash loans appear to have been covered by
disbursement vouchers, and the borrowed multicab is the subject of an acknowledgement
from Judge Dinopols driver Rogelio Villanueva.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that judges must not
only maintain their independence, integrity and impartiality; they must also avoid any
appearance of impropriety or partiality, which may erode the peoples faith in the Judiciary.
These standards apply not only to the decision itself, but also to the process by which the
decision is made.
Since Judge Dinopol is a repeat offender, SC finds him unfit to discharge the functions of a
judge. SC imposed upon him the severest penalty of dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of
all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave benefits, and disqualification from reinstatement
or reappointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

TABORA VS CARBONELL
Facts
Civil Case No. 6840 entitled Caridad S. Tabisula v. Rang-ay Rural Bank, Inc. was raffled to
the RTC of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 26 presided by Judge Tabora. However, due to
the prolonged absence of Judge Tabora caused by a serious illness, Judge Antonio A. Carbonell
took over the case from beginning to end. When Tabisula found out that Judge Carbonell had
already rendered a decision, she requested for a copy but was denied. Upon her return to work
Judge Tabora then issued an order requiring the parties to submit their respective memorandums
15 days upon receipt of order. Judge Tabora informed Tabisula that even if the pairing judge was
the one who heard the case from beginning to end, the prerogative of rendering the decision still
rests entirely on the presiding judge.
On 18 September 2006, Judge Tabora rendered a decision in the case adverse to Tabisula.
Tabisula then wrote a letter to Judge Carbonell requesting for a copy of his decision, through
which she later found out that Judge Carbonell decided in Tabisulas favour.
Judge Tabora then carefully studied the entire records of the case and found out that Judge
Carbonells decision was not in accordance with the facts of the case and the applicable law and
appeared to have unjustly favored Tabisula.
Tabisula then filed this case against Judge Tabora for maliciously and deliberately changing,
altering and reversing a validly rendered decision of a court of equal and concurrent jurisdiction.
Tabisula added that this has caused her undue injury since the defendant in Civil Case No. 6840,
and that Rang-Ay Rural Bank Inc. was represented by its President, Ives Q. Nisce, who was
allegedly a relative of Judge Taboras husband.
Applicable law/canon/whatnot
Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct - Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the
judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the
decision is made.
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains
and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the
impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
Simple misconduct, defined An unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of
conduct for public officers
Ruling
Office of Court Administrator - finds Judge Carbonell guilty of simple misconduct for violating
Section 2, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The OCA reiterated that Judge

Carbonell overstepped the bounds of his authority as pairing judge of Branch 26 when he
prepared the decision in Civil Case No. 6840 and furnished Tabisula with a copy of such
decision.
xxx
Judge Carbonell, as the pairing judge of the RTC of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 26,
assumed cognizance of Civil Case No. 6840 upon Judge Taboras leave of absence in May 2006
due to a serious illness. Judge Carbonell fulfilled his duties by conducting hearings in the said
case from May until June 2006. On 13 June 2006, Judge Tabora reported back to work as
presiding judge of Branch 26. However, even though Judge Carbonell knew that Judge Tabora
had already re-assumed her duties, he still issued an Order submitting the case for resolution on
19 June 2006 and even submitted a written decision to OIC-BCOC Lacsamana on 11 August
2006.
Judge Carbonell should have sought the conformity of Judge Tabora in rendering his own
decision to the case as a matter of judicial courtesy and respect. Judge Carbonell had no authority
to render a decision on the subject civil case.
Judge Carbonell is guilty of simple misconduct.

CAPCO-UMALI VS ACOST-VILLARANTE
Facts
Judge Rizalina Capco-Umali (petitioner) charged Judge Paulita Acosta-Villarante (respondent)
with violation of Canon 4.
The petitioner and other judges made a courtesy call to the Mayor of Mandaluyong and they
talked about local allowance of judges. The Mayor noticed the disparity in the amounts received
(respondent was receiving more, compared to petitioner and other judges). So the Mayor ordered
that the allowance received by respondent be reverted to the previous rates.
During the first ever monthly meetingof RTC judges, what happened in the courtesy call was
reported. Angered, respondent yelled accusations of paninira at the Executive judge (she was
there during the courtesy call and was presiding over the meeting). Petitioner, also present at the
meeting, felt that she had to rescue the executive judge and explained what happened. This time,
respondent yelled at petitioner, called her sinungaling and told petitioner to stop talking because
nakakahiwa boses mo. Petitioner yelled back, matanda ka na, malapit ka na sa kamatayan
gumagawa ka pa ng ganyan, madadamay pa kami, to which the respondent answered that she
was ready to die any moment because she did no wrong. Basically, they had a screaming match
until they were pacified.
Judge Villarante then wrote a Memorandum addressed to Executive Judge of the Mandaluyong
RTC, copies of which were furnished to the Justices of the SC, JBC, other judges of
Mandaluyong, its Congressman, and prosecutor. The memo suggested that the holding of
monthly meeting of judges be suspended, considering what transpired. Petitioner filed a
complaint for libel based on the memorandum. In causing the circulation of the memorandum,
respondent claimed that it was her obligation to bring to the attention of concerned officials the
personal demeanor of petitioner that would put the judiciary in public scrutiny and disrespect.
Held:
Both judges are fined (11,000 for petitioner, 16,000 for respondent) and given a stern warning for
having violated Sec 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect. Misbehavior by judges and employees
necessarily diminishes their dignity. Any fighting or misunderstanding is a disgraceful
occurrence reflecting adversely on the image of the Judiciary. By fighting, respondent judges
failed to observe the proper decorum expected of members of the Judiciary. More detestable is
the fact that their squabble arose out of a mere allowance coming from the local government.

The behaviour of both parties was very unbecoming. Judge Capco-Umali failed to live up to the
standard of propriety required of judges. While she might have been provoked by Judge AcostaVillarantes referral to her as a liar, she should have maintained her composure instead of
shouting back at a fellow judge. She should have exercised self-restraint instead of reacting in
such a very inappropriate manner.
Judge Acosta-Villarante should also be required to answer for her failure to observe the basic
norm of propriety demanded from a judge. She provoked petitioner by calling her sinungaling.
She should have been more cautious in choosing her words. She also repeated the uncalled for
conduct when she wrote the memorandum and caused its circulation. If indeed the memorandum
was produced strictly to allow the parties to cool off and avoid a repetition of the incident, there
was no need to mention the alleged misbehavior of Judge Capco-Umali during the meeting. The
memorandum was thus written as a medium for retaliation against Judge Capco-Umali.

REYES VS DUQUE
Facts
Susan Reyes, party in intervention in Land Registration Case No. 06-005, charged respondent
Judge Manuel N. Duque with Impropriety, Corruption and Gross Misconduct. According to
Reyes, Judge Duque instructed her to go to his house and bring some money in order that Judge
Duque to render judgment in her favour. The following day, Duque demanded 100,000php but
Reyes could only pay 20,000php at the moment and asked Duque for some time to settle the
balance. On their next meeting, Reyes gave 18,000php after which Duque scolded her for not
giving the entire balance of 80,000php. At that time, Duque told Reyes to step into his office and
sexually harassed her.
Applicable law
Canon 4, Code of Judicial Conduct:
Section 1- Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
Section 2 - Judges should conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office.
Section 6 - Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they should always conduct themselves
in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
Ruling
On the charge of graft and corruption, the Investigating Justice and the OCA found insufficient
evidence to sustain Reyes allegation that Judge Duque demanded and received money from her
in consideration of a favorable ruling. Thus, this charge should be dismissed for being
unsubstantiated.
On the charge of impropriety and gross misconduct, Substantial evidence pointed to Judge
Duques liability for impropriety and gross misconduct when he sexually assaulted Reyes.
The Investigating Justice likewise observed that Judge Duque merely attempted to destroy the
credibility of Reyes when he insinuated that she could be a woman of ill repute or a high class
prostitute or one whose moral value is at its lowest level. However, no judge has a right to
solicit sexual favors from a party litigant even from a woman of loose morals.