LACHICA V.

FLORDELIZA
Facts:
Dr. Amparo A. Lachica, the Municipal Health Officer of Jose Abad Santos, Davao del Sur, charged the
respondent, Judge Rolando A. Flordeliza of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jose Abad Santos-Sarangani, Davao
del Sur, with abuse of judicial position and intimidation, for allegedly compelling her to sign a death certificate even
though she was not the attending physician. According to Lachica, during a party, Judge Flordeliza, who was drunk at
that time, threatened to file an administrative case against her if she will refuse to sign the death certificate.
Issue:
Whether respondent-judge is guilty as charged of abuse of judicial position and intimidation amounting to
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Ruling:
Yes. A judges official conduct should be free from the 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.
From all the foregoing, as well as the evidence on record, this Court is convinced that the charge of
misconduct against the respondent judge has been established by substantial evidence, which is the quantum of
proof required in administrative cases. His undue interest in having complainant sign the Death Certificate is highly
questionable, to say the least. Further, his inebriated demeanor and incoherent behavior during the festivities, as
attested to by a witness is reprehensible in a judge and should be subjected to disciplinary action. Respondent was
FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/am_mtj_98_1169.htm

City Government of Tagbilaran vs Hontanosas, Jr.

Facts:

In a complaint filed on 29 May 1997 with the Office of the Court

Administrator, complainant charges respondent Judge AgapitoHontanosas,
Jr., Presiding Judge, Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Tagbilaran City, with (1) open defiance of a lawful order of a superior
court directing respondents inhibition from a case; and (2) open, notorious,
and habitual gambling in the casinos of Cebu and in the cockpits of Bohol.
*

On the first charge the complainant alleges as follows:

In two criminal cases filed by the City Government against BARBARA ONG, for her
habitual refusal to pay the correct amount of amusement taxes, the City asked for the
inhibition of Judge Hontanosas. Respondent refused to inhibit himself, so the City
of Tagbilaran filed a petition with the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of Tagbilaran to
compel inhibition.

The RTC Branch I issued an Order requiring Judge Hontanosas to relinquish the
cases. Instead of obeying the order of the Superior Court, JudgeHontanosas forced the
Fiscal to rest the case, even before the prosecution could cross-examine the defense
witnesses. Thereafter, Judge Hontanosasrendered a judgment of ACQUITTAL in
favor of BARBARA ONG and all her other co-accused.
It is a matter of common knowledge among lawyers in Bohol and the general public
in Tagbilaran that Judge Hontanosas goes to Cebu on the afternoon fast boat (90
minutes travel time) and comes back on the early trips from Cebu to Tagbilaran. He
does this 3 to 4 times a week. He goes to the Casinos inCebu and spends the whole
night in the casinos, before going to Cebu pier to take the early trip back
to Tagbilaran, arriving in Tagbilaran at 6:00 a.m. or7:00 a.m.
Every Sunday, and in every so-called Derby cockfights, Judge Hontanosas is seen in
the cockpits of Tagbilaran and the nearby towns.
We have talked to several lawyers and litigants who have appeared before
Judge Hontanosas, and they have informed us that for as little as P500 andP5,000, you
can secure a decision in your favor. Surely, none of these litigants and lawyers will
come out to testify against Respondent Hontanosas. But we are stating this here in
order to demonstrate the damage that Judge Hontanosas has done to the public
perception of the judiciary in Tagbilaran City.

The complaint was signed by Atty. Victor De la Serna, who designated

himself as Special Counsel; and verified by Arcadio Sarmiento, City
Administrator.
Atty. De la Serna and Mr.Sarmiento, in a Manifestation dated 21 January
1999, informed the Court that they were no longer interested in pursuing
this case because they felt that it would be futile to spend any more time
and effort and mailing cost on this case. The Court thereafter referred the
latter Manifestation to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation
and report.

Held:

the Court Administrator recommended that the first charge be dismissed

not because of the desistance of the complainant but because of patent
lack of merit for the following reasons
The Court agrees in toto on the above findings and recommendation on the
first ground of the complaint. It partly agrees with the Court Administrator
on the second ground.
Having earlier reached the conclusion that respondent gambled in a
casino, we find him to have violated Section 5(3-b) of P.D. No. 1067-B. Such
transgression is also a violation of Paragraph 22 of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics, which provides: The judge should be studiously careful himself to
avoid the slightest infraction of the law, lest it be a demoralizing example to
others. Even granting arguendo that respondent did not gamble or personally
play the slot machine, his mere presence in a casino constituted a violation of
Circular No. 4 and, more specifically, Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics.
Respondent is also administratively liable for going to cockpits and placing
bets in cockfights. The fact that the cockpits where he used to go were
licensed and the cockfights were conducted on authorized days will not
absolve him. While such gambling was not illegal, he openly and deliberately
disregarded and violated Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics quoted
in Circular No. 4. Verily, it is plainly despicable to see a judge inside a cockpit
and more so, to see him bet therein. Mixing with the crowd of cockfighting
enthusiasts and bettors is unbecoming a judge and undoubtedly impairs the
respect due him. Ultimately, the Judiciary itself suffers therefrom because a
judge is a visible representation of the Judiciary. Most often, the public mind
does not separate the judge from the Judiciary. In short, any demeaning act of
a judge or court personnel demeans the institution he represents.

It must be stressed that Atty. De la Serna succeeded in making the charges

in the complaint appear to be serious and grave by the strong language he
used. He even imputed on respondent the commission of graft and
corruption. A lawyer who makes such serious accusation must be prepared

to prove it. He even owes it to the justice system, the public, and the legal
profession to prove such accusation.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby Resolves to (a) DISMISS, for want of
merit, the charge against respondent Judge Agapito L.Hontanosas, Jr., of
open defiance of a lawful order of a superior court; and (b) IMPOSE upon him
a FINE of P12,000 for violation of Circular No. 4 dated 27 August 1980 and,
more specifically, for violation of Section 5(3-b) of P.D. No. 1067-B and
Paragraphs 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. He is STERNLY
WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely.
The Court further resolves to REQUIRE Atty. VICTOR DE LA SERNA to
SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution, why he
should not be administratively sanctioned for misconduct or violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for his aforementioned acts.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/am_rtj_02_1697.htm

Eugenio Chan vs Judge Majaducon

FACTS:

These are complaints for non-feasance, impropriety, partiality, and

inefficiency filed against respondent Jose S. Majaducon, former Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, General Santos City.
[1]

The Facts
In an undated letter, a concerned citizen charged respondent Judge Jose
S. Majaducon (respondent judge) with not wearing [a] black robe during court
sessions and with being habitually tardy.
[2]

In another complaint, dated 3 November 2000, complainant Eugenio K.

Chan (complainant) charged respondent judge with committing acts of
improprieties [and] irregularities. Complainant alleged that respondent judge
1. xxx starts his hearings at 10:00 oclock in the morning and 2:30-3:00 oclock in the
afternoon.
2. xxx does not wear his robe despite the requirement of the Supreme Court xxx;
3. xxx entertains lawyer[s] in his sala despite the absence of the opposing lawyer[s];
4. xxx continued to hear cases despite obvious appearance of impartiality [sic]. He
insist [sic] to hear the case despite the fact that her [sic] daughter being [sic]
involved in the defendant bank;
5. xxx was already reprimanded by the Honorable Supreme Court and he is a subject
of adverse write ups in the newspapers;
6. xxx does not prepare or study the cases. He reads the cases during the hearing
time.[3]

The Court required respondent judge to submit his Comment on the

complaints. In his Indorsement dated 5 February 2001, respondent judge
controverts the allegations against him as follows:
1. On his refusal to wear the judicial robe during court sessions.
Respondent judge states that upon his doctors advice, he stopped wearing
the judges robe during court sessions because doing so allegedly triggers and

aggravates his hypertension. He promised to resume wearing the robe once

his blood pressure had stabilized.
2. On conducting hearings behind schedule. Respondent judge admits
that he takes breaks from court sessions at 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to
take merienda or attend to personal needs. However, respondent judge claims
that he starts the hearings in his court on time and that his sessions
sometimes even last for more than eight hours in a day. According to
respondent judge, if ever his hearings started late, it was either because he
had to attend to other equally pressing matters such as signing/revising
Orders/Resolutions or because the litigants and/or their counsels were late.
3. On entertaining counsels/litigants in his chambers. Respondent admits
entertaining litigants and their counsels with pending cases in his sala as his
chambers two doors are always open. He claims, however, that he never
discusses with his visitors the merits of their cases and that he has never
been influenced by them.
4. On studying cases during hearings. Respondent judge explains that
while he does consult the records of cases during hearings, it is only to verify
contested matters. He states that this is necessary, as he cannot memorize all
the details of cases, especially the voluminous ones that he had inherited from
the previous judge.
Respondent judge claims that complainant, who had sought his inhibition
from a case, may have wanted to get back at him (respondent judge) for his
refusal to inhibit himself. Respondent judge also suspects that complainants
counsel, a certain Atty. Fontanilla, is the concerned citizen who filed the
anonymous complaint against him.
[4]

[5]

On 30 January 2001, complainant withdrew his complaint against

respondent judge, stating that he had realized that [respondent judge] is only
rightly doing his job.
[6]

On 16 May 2001, respondent judge informed the Court that since

February 2001, he had resumed wearing the judicial robe as his blood
pressure had stabilized.
[7]

In his Memorandum of 27 February 2003, respondent judge reiterated the

reasons for his earlier refusal to wear the judicial robe during court sessions.

Held:
On Respondent Judges Refusal to Wear
the Mandated Judicial Robe

a judge must take care not only to remain true to the high ideals of
competence and integrity his robe represents, but also that he wears one in
the first place.
While circumstances, such as the medical condition claimed by
respondent judge, may exempt one from complying with Circular No. 25, he
must first secure the Courts permission for such exemption. He cannot simply
excuse himself, like respondent judge, from complying with the requirement.
Neither does the fact that respondent judge, if he is to be believed, has
resumed wearing the robe exculpate him from liability. Such does not alter the
fact that at the time the complaints in the present case were filed, respondent
judge was openly violating Circular No. 25. Respondent judges medical
condition and his subsequent compliance serve only to mitigate his liability.

On Respondent Judges Practice of Entertaining Lawyers

and Litigants with Pending Cases in his Sala
The Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) provides:

Rule 1.01. A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and

independence.
CANON 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE
OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.
Rule 2.01. A judge should behave at all times so as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Respondent judge should have realized that his very conduct of

entertaining litigants and their counsels in his chamber without the
presence of the adverse party or his counsel constitutes an
impropriety. While judges are not expected to shun the world, neither are
they supposed to make themselves freely accessible under such
circumstances as to invite suspicions of impropriety if not bias.Respondent

On the Other Charges Against Respondent Judge

The Court subscribes to the OCAs finding that complainant failed to
substantiate the other charges against respondent judge. Mere allegation that
respondent judge was habitually tardy or had shown partiality in a case,
without more, does not suffice to hold respondent judge administratively liable.
On the other hand, there is nothing improper in consulting case records during
hearings to clarify contested matters. It is usual for judges to do so, especially
for lower court judges who, in addition to their heavy caseloads, have to
conduct marathon hearings and thus need to consult the records of each case
more frequently.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Jose S. Majaducon, former Presiding

Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, General Santos City guilty of
violating Circular No. 25 dated 9 June 1989, Rules 1.01 and 2.01 and
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent Jose
S. Majaducon is ordered to pay a fine of P10,000, the same to be deducted
from whatever retirement benefits he is entitled.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/sep1986/am_351_1986.html
Ramirez vs Corpus-Macandog 144 SCRA 462 (1986)
Facts:

#14 Chan vs Majaducon, 413 SCRA 354 (2003)

#15 Ramirez vs Corpus-Macandog, 144 SCRA 462 (1986)

http://philippinecasedigests.blogspot.com/p/backgrounder-new-code-of-judicial.html
https://apps.americanbar.org/rol/publications/philippines-judicial-code-02-2007.pdf
http://philippinecasedigests.blogspot.com/p/backgrounder-new-code-of-judicial.html