AMPARO LACHICA v.
ROLANDO their evidence and argue their
FLORDELIZA
- deals with the standard of behavior
and decorum expected of magistrates
of the law
- Lachica (health officer)
- Flordeliza (judge of MCTC)
- Lachicha charged Flordeliza with
abuse of judicial position and
intimidation, for allegedly compelling
her to sign a death certificate even
though she was not the attending
physician
- Dina Masaglang and Norma Puton
were referred to Lachica for the
signing of the Death Certificate of
Hilario Kiawan|||
- considering that the deceased was
not her patient and that she has no
personal knowledge of the cause of
his death, she refused to sign the
certificate and told them that the
attending physician in General Santos
City should sign the same
- 2 women: 'Pirmahan mo daw sabi
ni Judge Flordeliza.'
- after exchanges of words, respondent
threatened complainant that he will
file an administrative case against her
if she will refuse to sign the death
certificate
- respondent denied all the allegations
- SC: "… it is very evident that the
imputation of misconduct by the
respondent-Judge have (sic) been
proven by substantial evidence
which is the quantum of proof
required in administrative cases.
Granting that the respondent-
Judge has not intimidated or
coerced the complainant in issuing
a Certificate of Death precipitating
the filing of this Complaint, we
cannot see our way clear why said
respondent-Judge should be
interested in such trivial matter
which could be well attended to by
the Prosecutor in the case where
said Certificate is a subject of
inquiry. A judge is not supposed to
be an active combatant in court
proceedings and must leave it to
the parties themselves to secure
respective positions on any matter
without his participation. It should
be recognized that the Judge's role
is to decide and not to litigate.”
- 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, 6 is reprehensible in a
judge and should be subjected to
disciplinary action.
- "The undue surrender of
respondent Judge to the proddings
of his self-defined pleasure failed
him in his duty to conduct himself
within the confines of propriety
and to behave in a manner shorn of
reproach. When he yielded to the
strength of the 'spirit', losing
judicial composure and acting like
an uninhibited drunkard in the
streets and public places, he not
only stripped himself of his dignity
as a man but disrobed the court of
the respect of the people it serves.
Such act demeans his judicial office
and elicits suspicion of his capacity
to discharge justice. The
apprehension may lie where such
suspicion may be stretched too far
by the people themselves and may
unduly include the whole judicial
machinery. And that would lay the
way for the people to weaken, if
not lose their faith in the
administration of justice."
- ". . . as we have often stated,
'(a)lthough every office in the
government service is a public
trust, no position exacts a greater
demand on moral righteousness
and uprightness of an individual
than a seat in the Judiciary. A
magistrate of the law must
comport himself at all times in
such manner that his conduct,
official or otherwise, can bear the
most searching scrutiny of the
public that looks up to him as the
epitome of integrity and justice'
(Dia-Anonuevo vs. Bercasio)
1
ELIEZER SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN v.
ROBERTO JAVELLANA
- Javellana (acting presiding judge of
the Regional Trial Court San Carlos
City, B 57)
- Sibayan-Joaquin charged Judge
Roberto S. Javellana with grave
misconduct in the performance of
official duties, graft and gross
ignorance of the law
- complaint was an offshoot of a case
for estafa
- complainant:
o there was an undue delay (10th
month) in the rendition of
judgment in the aforenumbered
criminal case (beyond 90-day
period)
o neither respondent judge nor his
clerk of court was present during
the promulgation of the decision
in contravention of Section 6,
Rule 120, of the Rules of Court
- Respondent judge was also cited for
impropriety by complainant because
he was often seen with Attorney Vic
Agravante, counsel for the accused
(Romeo Tan), whose vehicle
respondent judge would even use at
times
- respondent judge admitted that the
decision in Criminal Case No. RTC-
1150 was rendered beyond the
ninety-day reglementary period but
attributed the delay to his
voluminous workload
- respondent judge maintained that the
decision iwas validly promulgated &
denied any irregularity
- Justice Abesamis:
o J. Javellana indeed failed to
decide within 90-day
reglementary period
o no irregularity
o no gorss ignorance of the
law
o J. Javellana accountable for
impropriety for his close
association with Atty.
Agravante (in violation of
Canon 2)
- SC: Giving respondent judge the
benefit of the doubt, and presume
that his close associations with
lawyers practicing within the
territorial jurisdiction of his court
are all normal and do not in any
way unduly influence him in the
discharge of his sworn duties, the
Court cannot just leave respondent
judge's acts and consider them
proper)
- "Hence, a judge's official conduct
and his behavior in the
performance of judicial duties
should be free from the
appearance of impropriety and
must be beyond reproach. One who
occupies an exalted position in the
administration of justice must pay
a high price for the honor
bestowed upon him, for his private
as well as his official conduct must
at all times be free from the
appearance of impropriety.
Because appearance is as
important as reality in the
performance of judicial functions,
like Caesar's wife, a judge must not
only be pure but also beyond
suspicion. A judge has the duty to
not only render a just and
impartial decision, but also render
it in such a manner as to be free
from any suspicion as to its
fairness and impartiality, and also
as to the judge's integrity.
- "It is obvious, therefore, that while
judges should possess proficiency
in law in order that they can
competently construe and enforce
the law, it is more important that
they should act and behave in such
a manner that the parties before
them should have confidence in
their impartiality."
- Judges, indeed, should be extra
prudent in associating with
litigants and counsel appearing
before them so as to avoid even a
mere perception of possible bias or
partiality.
- judges should be scrupulously
careful to avoid anything that may
tend to awaken the suspicion that
their personal, social or sundry
relations could influence their
objectivity, for not only must
2
 judges possess proficiency in law - respondent admitted that
but that also they must act and complainant had lodged criminal and
behave in such manner that would administrative cases against him in
assure, with great comfort, the Ombudsman. He insisted that
litigants and their counsel of the these were already dismissed by
judges' competence, integrity and virtue of the immediately effective
independence and executory March 24, 2004
decision of the Ombudsman. Thus,
OLGA SAMSON v. JUDGE VIRGILIO there were actually no more pending
cases against him during his
CABALLERO interviews in the JBC from February
to August 2005. Accordingly, there
- administrative complaint for was no impediment to his nomination
dishonesty and falsification of a to and assumption of the position of
public document against respondent judge. However, he insisted that he
Judge Caballero informed the JBC of the said cases
- Olga Samson: - according to petitioner, respondent
o respondent Judge should not categorically denied ever having been
have been appointed to the charged formally with any infraction
judiciary - OCA: found respondent
 for lack of the administratively liable for
constitutional dishonesty and falsification of an
qualifications of official document for his false
proven competence, statement in his PDS. It
integrity, probity recommended respondents
and independence, dismissal
 for violating the - SC: respondent is guilty of
Rules of the Judicial dishonesty and falsification of an
and Bar Council official document
(JBC) which - respondent is not to be exonerated
disqualifies from on the basis of the foregoing alone.
nomination any Regardless of whether he disclosed
applicant for his pending cases during his
judgeship with a interviews, the fact remains that he
pending committed dishonesty when he
administrative case checked the box indicating No to
o respondent, during his JBC the question Have you ever been
interviews, deliberately formally charged? in his March 21,
concealed the fact that he 2006 PDS filed in the OAS-OCA RTC
had pending administrative Personnel
charges against him - whether or not the charges were
o filed criminal and already dismissed was immaterial,
administrative charges for given the phraseology of the
grave abuse of authority, question Have you ever been
conduct prejudicial to the formally charged?, meaning,
best interest of the service charged at anytime in the past or
and violation of Article 208 present
of the Revised Penal Code - respondent, a judge, knows (or
against respondent in the should have known) fully well that
Office of the Ombudsman the making of a false statement in
 Ombudsman: his PDS could subject him to
dismissed dismissal. This Court will not allow
 CA: reversed & him to evade the consequences of
dismissed his dishonesty. Being a former
public prosecutor and a judge now,

3
 it is his duty to ensure that all the
laws and rules of the land are
followed to the letter. His being a
judge makes it all the more
unacceptable. There was an
obvious lack of integrity, the most
fundamental qualification of a
member of the judiciary
- time and again, we have
emphasized that a judge should
conduct himself in a manner which
merits the respect and confidence
of the people at all times, for he is
the visible representation of the
law.[16] Regrettably, we are
convinced of respondents capacity
to lie and evade the truth. His
dishonesty misled the JBC and
tarnished the image of the
judiciary. He does not even seem
remorseful for what he did as he
sees nothing wrong with it
- He deserves the harsh penalty of
dismissal from the service
- some administrative cases against
Justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan; judges of
regular and special courts; and the
court officials who are lawyers are
based on grounds which are
likewise grounds for the
disciplinary action of members of
the Bar for violation of the
Lawyer's Oath, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and
the Canons of Professional Ethics,
or for such other forms of breaches
of conduct that have been
traditionally recognized as
grounds for the discipline of
lawyers.
- but should also accord continuing
- In any of the foregoing instances,
the administrative case shall also
be considered a disciplinary action
against the respondent justice,
judge or court official concerned as
a member of the Bar. The
respondent may forthwith be
required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he
should not also be suspended,
disbarred or otherwise
disciplinary sanctioned as a
member of the Bar. Judgment in
both respects may be incorporated
in one decision or resolution.
(Emphasis supplied)
- before the Court approved this
resolution, administrative and
disbarment cases against members
of the bar who were likewise
members of the court were treated
separately. However, pursuant to
the new rule, an administrative
case against a judge of a regular
court based on grounds which are
also grounds for the disciplinary
action against members of the Bar
shall be automatically considered
as disciplinary proceedings against
such judge as a member of the Bar
- since membership in the bar is an
integral qualification for
membership in the bench, the
moral fitness of a judge also
reflects his moral fitness as a
lawyer. A judge who disobeys the
basic rules of judicial conduct also
violates his oath as a lawyer
- it cannot be denied that
respondents dishonesty did not
only affect the image of the
judiciary, it also put his moral
character in serious doubt and
rendered him unfit to continue in
the practice of law. Possession of
good moral character is not only a
prerequisite to admission to the
bar but also a continuing
requirement to the practice of law.
If the practice of law is to remain
an honorable profession and attain
its basic ideals, those counted
within its ranks should not only
master its tenets and principles
fidelity to them. The requirement
of good moral character is of much
greater import, as far as the
general public is concerned, than
the possession of legal learning
- GUILTY and DISBARRED