158.

Lorenzo v Marquez
Facts:
respondent Judge Primo L. Marquez of the Municipal Trial Court of Sariaya, Quezon is
charged for violation of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court in deciding Civil
Case entitled Kilusang Bayan Pampananalapi ng Sariaya vs. Gilda Balid, et al., when
he was the former counsel of the plaintiff
there is no question that the respondent was the counsel for the plaintiff in Civil
Case entitled Kilusang Bayan Pampananalapi ng Sariaya (KBPS) vs. Gilda Balid, et
al. filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Sariaya, Quezon. The complaint was filed by
Crisostomo L. Luna, president and board chairman of the plaintiff, who is his UNCLE.
Issue:
WON judge marquez violated Section 1, Rule 137 of ROC
Held:
Yes, a judge cannot sit in any case in which he was a counsel without the written
consent of all the parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
The respondent alleged that since there was no objection from any of the parties,
he proceeded to preside over the case and to decide it. This is a clear violation of
the law. The rule is explicit that he must secure the written consent of all the
parties, not a mere verbal consent much less a tacit acquiescence. More than this,
said written consent must be signed by them and entered upon the record.
The failure of the respondent to observe these elementary rules of conduct betrays
his unusual personal interest in the case which prevailed over and above his sworn
duty to administer the law impartially and without any fear or favor.
Section 1. Disqualification of judges.No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any
case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree
of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree computed
according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written
consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting
in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.

159.Arban vs Borja
Facts:
Last February 23, 1985, at about 1:10 p.m., at the Cindys Restaurant in downtown
Naga City, in the presence of people taking their lunch and others, the said
respondent, without any justification whatever, hit with the pistol he was carrying
the herein petitioner on the left side of his head, sending him sprawling to the floor
and rendering him momentarily unconscious.
Still not satisfied with his display of violence in public, the respondent also
threatened with his said gun the companions of the petitioner.
Minutes before his pistol-whipping of the petitioner, the respondent fired his gun in
the balcony of the apartment he is lodging in, from where he followed the petitioner
to the said restaurant.
Then, Judge Melecio B. Borja Made a public apology to the petitioner.
Issue:
WON Judge Melecio B. Borja who publicly made his apology is still guilty of grave
misconduct?
Held:
Yes, Even a mere cursory reading of Judge Borjas apology in relation to the
petition or complaint clearly indicates that Judge Borja admits the commission of
the act charged.
The respondent admits in his public apology that he inflicted physical injuries on the
left side of the face of District Engineer Ponciano A. Arban while they were at
Cindys Restaurant in Naga City, a public place.
Whatever the motive may have been, the violent action of the respondent in a
public place constitutes serious misconduct and the resultant outrage of the
community in Naga City is a blow to the image of the entire judiciary. Judge Borja
violated the established norm for judicial behavior that 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 judicial duties, but also in his everyday
life, should be beyond reproach

160.Saburnido v. Madrono, 366 SCRA 1 (2001)

Fact: Mr. and MrsSaburnido filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against
Atty. FloranteMandoro, for harassing them and filing numerous hollow complaints
against them.
AttyMandoro was the former Judge of Municipal Circuit Trail Court in BalingasagLagonglong, Misamis Oriental, but he received 3 separate administrative
complaints, which led him to lose his Judiciary position, wherein he was also found
guilty and his retirement benefits were also forfeited.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Madronos act of filling multiple complaints constitute
gross misconduct that will warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions.
Held: YES
Atty. Madronosact of filing multiple complaints againstSaburnido reflects on his
fitness to be a member of the legal profession. We see in respondents tenacity in
pursuing several cases against complainants not the persistence of one who has
been grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying to exact revenge.
Respondents action erodes rather than enhances public perception of the legal
profession. It constitutes gross misconduct for which he may be suspended,
following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Atty. Florante E. Madroo is found guilty of gross misconduct and is suspended from
the practice of law for one year with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.

161.Sison v. Caoibes
Facts:
Respondent Caoibes (Las Pinas Judge) issued an order citing Sison (MMDAtraffic
enforcer) of Indirect Contempt. The order stemmed when Sison apprehended the
official driver and son of Caoibes along EDSA for traffic violation. Because of this
incident, Caoibes issued an order directed Sison to show cost within the non
extendible period of 24hours why he should not be cited as in contempt of court
and dealt with accordingly. Sison failed to appear as directed in the order. Thus, he
was arrested and detained in Jail. Sison was
only discharged from detention when he admitted under duress that he committed
a mistake and upon appeal by his counsel assuring Caoibes that the same incident
may not be repeated. Subsequently, Sison filed an administrative complaint against
Caoibes. He alleged that he did not committed any offense except that he issued a
traffic violation receipt to the driver-son of Caoibes. If indeed such act is an offense,
then Las Pinas court has no jurisdiction over it, as the incident happened in
Mandaluyong City. He charged that the acts of Caoibes in arresting him
without a warrant or arrest before the charge of indirect contempt was heard
constituted the gravest abuse of authority ever committed. Hence, he prayed that
Caoibes be dismissed from the service. Caoibes denied the accusations. He claimed
that he initiated the complaint for indirect comtempt pursuant to Sec. 3(d) of Rule
71 and its last par., and Sec. 5(3)of Rule 135. Investigating Justice found Caoibes
guilty
Issue:
WON Judge Caoibes is guilty of violating canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
Held:
Yes, The act of a judge in citing a person in contempt of court in a manner which
smacks of retaliation, as in the case at bar, is appalling and violative of Rule 2.01 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge should so behave at all
times to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
The very delicate function of administering justice demands that a judge should
conduct himself at all times in a manner which would reasonably merit the respect
and confidence of the people, for he is the visible representation of the law. The

irresponsible or improper conduct of judges erodes public confidence in the

judiciary; as such, a judge must avoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof.

162.Ompoc vs judge torres

Facts:
Mr. Ramon J. Liwag, Service Chief, Technical Staff, Ministry of Justice (now
Department of Justice) referred to the Court Administrator a sworn letter complaint
dated 18 June 1986 of Atty. David G. Ompoc against Judge Norito E. Torres.
Agent Barot elicited documentary and testimonial evidence incriminatory to the
respondent from the respondents janitor Mr. Paterno H. Rafols who executed on 24
June 1986 a sworn statement who stated that in addition to his duties as janitor to
Branch VII, he also did errands for the respondent and one of those errands
was being sent by the respondent to Mr. Charlie Taguiam on 24 December
1985 to receive P5,000.00 which was in the form of City Trust Bank Check No.
181384 dated 24 December 1985
that janitor Rafols, without realizing the implications of receiving a check from a
party to a case for the judge, cashed it with drawee bank by indorsing the check at
the back thereof, received the cash P5,000.00 and delivered it to the judge without
telling the latter that he received a check, no evidence that janitor Rafols told the
judge having been offered; that at the time was received by the respondents
janitor, Mr. Charlie Taguiam and/or Deco Sales was a party defendant in Civil Case
No. R-26374 for Ejectment with a Prayer for A Writ of Preliminary Attachment then
pending at the sala of the respondent, decision thereof dated May 2, 1986
Issue:
WON judge torres committed gross misconduct in office?
Held:
Yes, After having carefully examined the records in this case, the Court is convinced
that respondent Judge did commit the acts with which he was charged. In receiving
P5,000.00 and P3,000.00 from a party to a litigation before him, as loans which he
never paid back and which to all appearances he never intended to pay back, and in

refusing or failing to pay for an air conditioner installed in his wifes automobile van
by a shop owned by a party litigant before him, respondent Judge is guilty of serious
misconduct in office and of acts unbecoming a member of the judiciary.