LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 1

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

A.C. No. 7781

discharge of his official functions.

It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain

from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a
document unless the persons who signed it are the
same individuals who executed and personally
appeared before the notaries public to attest to the
truth of what are stated therein, for under Section 1 of
Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument
or document shall be considered authentic if the
acknowledgment is made in accordance with the
following requirements:

Respondent judge committed the following

inculpatory acts:
(1) ordering a clerk to serve the subpoena;
(2) ordering a prosecutor to serve the orders of
arrest/bench warrant;
(3) failing to check if the subpoenas were personally
received by the police officers indicated therein;
(4) preterminating the hearings for the petition for bail
for the reason that counsel for the accused submitted
the same for resolution; and (5) denying the
prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence
necessary for its opposition to the petition for bail,
despite two more hearings set for that purpose.

(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a

notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of
the country to take acknowledgments of instruments
or documents in the place where the act is done. The
notary public or the officer taking the
acknowledgment shall certify that the person
acknowledging the instrument or document is known
to him and that he is the same person who executed it,
and acknowledged that the same is his free act and
deed. The certificate shall be made under his official
seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not,
his certificate shall so state.
Without the appearance of the person who actually
executed the document in question, notaries public
would be unable to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain
that the document is the partys free act or deed.
Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are
mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their
offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest. It must be
remembered that notarization is not a routinary,
meaningless act, for notarization converts a private
document to a public instrument, making it admissible
in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof
of its authenticity and due execution.
For breach of the Notarial Law, the notarial
commission of respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., if
still existing, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from
being commissioned as notary public for a period of
two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year.

We agree that these acts in turn translate into

violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
under the heading: "A judge should perform official
duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence,"
particularly the following Rules under it:
Rule 3.01. A judge shall be faithful to the law and
maintain professional competence;
Rule 3.02. In every case, a judge shall endeavor
diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law
unswayed by partisan interest, public opinion or fear
or criticism;
Rule 3.08. A judge should diligently discharge
administrative responsibilities, maintain professional
competence in court management; and
Rule 3.09. A judge should organize and supervise the
court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient
dispatch of business and require at all times the
observance of high standards of public service and
fidelity.
The fact that respondent judge has already reached
the compulsory retirement age does not render this
case moot, let alone release him from liability incurred
while in the active service. He is hereby meted the
penalty of FINE in the amount of forty thousand pesos
(PhP 40,000) to be deducted from his retirement
benefits.
A.C. No. 7399

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1911

Canon 8, Rule 8.01.A lawyer shall not, in his

professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.

Proper and efficient court management is a judge's

responsibility. He is directly responsible for the proper

Canon 11.A lawyer shall observe and maintain the

respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers

To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 2

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

and should insist on similar conduct by others.

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1745

Senator Santiago, as a member of the Bar and officer

of the court, like any other, is duty-bound to uphold
the dignity and authority of this Court and to maintain
the respect due its members. Lawyers in public service
are keepers of public faith and are burdened with the
higher degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher
than their brethren in private practice. Senator
Santiago should have known, as any perceptive
individual, the impact her statements would make on
the peoples faith in the integrity of the courts.

No less than the 1987 Constitution, specifically Section

15(1), Article VIII, mandates lower courts to decide or
resolve all cases or matters within three (3) months
from their date of submission.

As Senator Santiago alleged, she delivered her

privilege speech as a prelude to crafting remedial
legislation on the JBC. This allegation strikes the Court
as an afterthought in light of the insulting tenor of
what she said.
A.C. No. 7399
equally important as the speech and debate clause of
Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution is Sec. 5(5) of Art.
VIII of the Constitution that provides:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
x xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of the law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. (Emphasis ours.)
The Court, besides being authorized to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in
all courts, exercises specific authority to promulgate
rules governing the Integrated Bar with the end in
view that the integration of the Bar will, among other
things:
(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot
defend itself except within its own forum, from the
assaults that politics and self interest may level at it,
and assist it to maintain its integrity, impartiality and
independence;
x xxx
(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards x xx.

In relation to this mandate, the Code of Judicial

Conduct directs judges to dispose of their business
promptly and decide cases within the required period.
The Court, in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated
January 15, 1999, likewise requires judges to
scrupulously observe the periods provided in the
Constitution. Failure to decide cases within the
reglementary period, without strong and justifiable
reason, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the
imposition of an administrative sanction on the
defaulting judge.
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262
As regards the insistence of Judge Canoy that such
may be considered as "constructive bail," there is no
such species of bail under the Rules. Despite the
noblest of reasons, the Rules of Court may not be
ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the
rights of another.
From the foregoing, the Court finds Judge Canoy guilty
of a less serious charge of violation of Supreme Court
rules, directives and circulars under Rule 140.
A.C. No. 7591
The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance
under Philippine law are two: (1) Serious misconduct
and (2) inefficiency.
"For serious misconduct to exist, there must be
reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts
complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention
to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of
well-known legal rules."
Plainly enough, Casuga is guilty of misrepresentation,
when he made it appear that he was authorized to
enter into a contract of lease in behalf of Nevada
when, in fact, he was not. Casugas misrepresentation
properly constitutes gross misconduct for which he
must be disciplined.
A.C. No. 7591
CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his

To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 3

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

profession.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy
his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as provided for
in the Rules of Court.
Having been tasked to sell such valuables, Casuga was
duty-bound to return them upon Nevadas demand.
His failure to do so renders him subject to disciplinary
action. To be sure, he cannot use, as a defense, the
lack of a lawyer-client relationship as an exonerating
factor.
A.C. No. 7591
The Notarial Rules, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, provides in its
Rule IV, Section 1(c) and Sec. 3(a) when a notary public
may sign a document in behalf of another person,
thus:
SEC. 1. Powers. x xx
x xxx
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a
person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark
on an instrument or document if:
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable
to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the
presence of two disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or document;
(3) both witnesses sign their own names;
(4) the notary public writes below his signature:
"Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names and
addresses of person and two (2) witnesses)";
(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by
acknowledgment or jurat.
On the other hand, the succeeding Sec. 3(a)
disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial
act if he or she "is a party to the instrument or
document that is to be notarized."
None of the requirements contained in Rule IV, Sec.

1(c), as would justify a notary signing in behalf of a

contracting party, was complied with in this case.
Moreover, Casugas act of affixing his signature above
the printed name "Edwin T. Nevada," without any
qualification, veritably made him a party to the
contract of lease in question. Thus, his act of notarizing
a deed to which he is a party is a plain violation of the
aforequoted Rule IV, Sec. 3(a) of the Notarial Rules, for
which he can be disciplinarily sanctioned provided
under Rule XI, Sec. 1(b)(10) of the Notarial Rules
A.C. No. 7591
Aside from being a violation of the Notarial Rules,
Casugas aforementioned act partakes of malpractice
of law and misconduct punishable under the ensuing
Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by
Supreme Court; grounds therefor. A member of the
bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, x
xx or for any violation of the oath which he is required
to take before admission to practice x xx.
The Court may suspend a notary public from the
practice of law for one (1) year for violation of the
Notarial Rules.
A.C. No. 7591
x xx [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest. It must be underscored that x xx notarization
x xx converts a private document into a public
document making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of authenticity thereof.
A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face. For this reason, a notary public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of x xx duties; otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyance would be undermined.
A.C. No. 7591
A notary public should not notarize a document unless
the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before
him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are
stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be
delegated because what are stated therein are facts
they have personal knowledge of and are personally
sworn to. Otherwise, their representatives names

To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 4

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

should appear in the said documents as the ones who

executed the same.

gross and deliberate, a product of a perverted judicial

mind, or a result of gross ignorance of the law.

A.C. No. 10050

A.M. OCAIPI No. 09-3243-RTJ

It has already been settled that the deliberate failure

to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks
constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may
be sanctioned.

Sec. 118 of Rule 137, Revised Rules of Procedure

Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform

their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
their clients. We explained that the prompt payment
of financial obligations is one of the duties of a lawyer.
A.C. No. 10050
While the Court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer
for misconduct committed in his non- professional or
private capacity, the Court may be justified in
suspending or removing him as an attorney where his
misconduct outside of the lawyers professional
dealings is so gross in character as to show him morally
unfit and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses
and the law confer.
A.C. No. 10050
Undoubtedly, Atty. Espejos issuance of worthless
checks and her blatant refusal to heed the directives of
the Quezon City Prosecutors Office and the IBP
contravene Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule 7.03;
and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provide:
CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES. Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR. Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession. CANON 11 A
LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT
DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICES AND
SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2179
A judge cannot be held administratively liable at every
turn for every erroneous decision. The error must be

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 civil law, 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 the 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 and valid reasons other
than those mentioned above.
Indeed, "there is no affinity between the blood
relatives of one spouse and the blood relatives of the
other. A husband is related by affinity to his wifes
brother, but not to the wife of his wifes brother.
There is no affinity between the husbands brother
and the wifes sister;
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326
Gross ignorance of the law on the part of a judge
presupposes an appalling lack of familiarity with
simple rules of law or procedures and well-established
jurisprudence which tends to erode the public trust in
the competence and fairness of the court which he
personifies. Not to know the law as basic, almost
elementary, as the Rules of Court, or acting in
disregard of established rule of law as if he were not
aware of the same constitutes gross ignorance whence
no one is excused.
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326
Respondent judge, in granting provisional custody over
the child in favor of his mother, did not disregard the
res judicata rule.
The more appropriate description of the legal situation
engendered by the Order issued amidst the persistent
plea of the child not to be returned to his father, is
that respondent judge exhibited fidelity to
jurisprudential command to accord primacy to the
welfare and interest of a minor child.

To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 5

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

As it were, the matter of custody is not permanent and

unalterable and can always be re-examined and
adjusted. A custody agreement can never be regarded
as "permanent and unbending," the simple reason
being that the situation of the parents and even of the
child can change, such that sticking to the agreed
arrangement would no longer be to the latters best
interest. In a very real sense, then, a judgment
involving the custody of a minor child cannot be
accorded the force and effect of res judicata.
G.R. No. 212058
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees
and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or
to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against
the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly
valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household
helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just
and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
A.C. No. 4955
It must be remembered that a retained counsel is
expected to serve the client with competence and
diligence. This duty includes not merely reviewing the
cases entrusted to the counsels care and giving the
client sound legal advice, but also properly
representing the client in court, attending scheduled
hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings,
prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable
dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting
for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
The lawyer should not be sitting idly by and leave the
rights of the client in a state of uncertainty.

A.C. No. 4955

The failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an
appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. This default
translates to a violation of the injunction of Canon 18,
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, respectively providing:
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxxx
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the clients request for
information.
A.C. No. 4955
Atty. Ireneo tried to mislead the appellate court about
the receipt of a copy of its Resolution. He denied
personally receiving such copy, but the CA found and
declared that he himself received said copy. The CA
arrived at this conclusion thru the process of
comparing Atty. Ireneos signature appearing in the
pleadings with that in the registry return card. Both
signatures belong to one and the same person.
Needless to stress, Atty. Ireneo had under the
premises indulged in deliberate falsehood, contrary to
the self-explanatory prescriptions of Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01, which provide:
CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCEDURES.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxxx
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.

To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 6

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

A.C. No. 4955

Ireneo was determined all along not to submit a
comment and, in the process, delay the resolution of
the instant case. By asking several extensions of time
to submit one, but without the intention to so submit,
Ireneo has effectively trifled with the Courts
processes, if not its liberality.
The pertinent Canon of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
CANON 12 A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT
AND CONSIDER HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY
AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
xxxx
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes.
A.C. No. 7434
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
A.C. No. 7434
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
A.C. No. 7434
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair

dealing is expected and required of a member of the

bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that s/he
shall be of good moral character. This qualification is
not only a condition precedent to the admission to the
legal profession, but its continued possession is
essential to maintain ones good standing in the
profession.
A.C. No. 7434
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession.1avvphi1 The trust and
confidence necessarily reposed by clients requires in
the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his
duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the
public. The bar must maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing.
Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To
this end, members of the legal fraternity can do
nothing that might tend to lessen in any degree the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of the profession.
A.C. No. 7434
In the instant case, respondents unjustified
withholding of petitioners money years after it
became due and demandable demonstrates his lack of
integrity and fairness, and this is further highlighted by
his lack of regard for the charges brought against him.
Respondents acts, which violated the Lawyer's Oath
"to delay no man for money or malice" as well as the
Code of Professional Responsibility, warrant the
imposition of disciplinary sanctions against him.
A.C. No. 7820
There is no question that Atty. Frial is guilty of grave
misconduct arising from his violation of Canon 11 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics that states:
11. Dealing with trust property
The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for
his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes
advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his
client.
Money of the client or collected for the client or other

To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 7

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

trust property coming into the possession of the

lawyer should be reported and accounted for
promptly and should not under any circumstances be
commingled with his own or be used by him.

warranting the imposition of an administrative

sanction on the defaulting judge.

A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court.

As such, he is expected to respect the courts order
and processes. Atty. Frial miserably fell short of his
duties as such officer. He trifled with the writ of
attachment the court issued. Atty. Frial admitted
taking custody of the cars thru his own undertaking,
without authority and knowledge of the court.

Under the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in

rendering a decision is a less serious offense
punishable by suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor
more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than
PhP 10,000 but not exceeding PhP 20,000.

A.M. No. MTJ-08-1703

When judges show professional incompetence, and
are ignorant of basic and fundamental rules, they are
guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedures, a
serious charge under Sec. 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court. Sec. 11(A) of Rule 140 punishes the offense, as
follows:
SEC. 11 Sanctions.A. If the respondent is guilty of a
serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be
imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of
the benefits as the Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including government-owned and
controlled corporations. Provided, however, That the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued
leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six
(6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding
P40,000.00.
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1745

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1745

A.M. No. MTJ-11-1782

Respondent rendered his terse dismissal order seven
(7) months beyond the prescribed period under Sec.
10.
The Court has time and again admonished judges to be
prompt in the performance of their solemn duty as
dispenser of justice, since undue delays erode the
peoples faith in the judicial system. Delay not only
reinforces the belief of the people that the wheels of
justice grind ever so slowly, but invites suspicion,
however unfair, of ulterior motives on the part of the
judge. The raison dtre of courts lies not only in
properly dispensing justice but also in being able to do
so seasonably.
Under Sec. 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue
delay in rendering a decision or order constitutes a less
serious offense.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J
It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings,
the burden of proof that respondent committed the
acts complained of rests on the complainant. In the
instant case, complainants have not shown, much less
submitted, substantial evidence supporting their
allegations.

No less than the 1987 Constitution, specifically Section

15(1), Article VIII, mandates lower courts to decide or
resolve all cases or matters within three (3) months
from their date of submission.
In relation to this mandate, the Code of Judicial
Conduct directs judges to dispose of their business
promptly and decide cases within the required period.
The Court, in Administrative Circular No. 3-99, likewise
requires judges to scrupulously observe the periods
provided in the Constitution. Failure to decide cases
within the reglementary period, without strong and
justifiable reason, constitutes gross inefficiency
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR