Tenenan v Flor

A.M. No. RTJ-06-1995 (formerly OCA IPI No.02-1480-RTJ)

September 25, 2007

Facts:
The complaint alleged that Felicidad Tenenan, in March 1998, started a construction on the land
she is claiming in Banting, Lamut, Ifugao for which Judge Fernando Flor, and his wife, Atty. Ester Flor,
filed against complainant for Abatement of Illegal Construction and Recovery of Ownership and
Possession with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Lamut-Kiangan-Tinoc, Lamut, Ifugao. The
MCTC later dismissed the case. Thereafter, respondent and his wife started harassing complainant, one
instance of which was when respondent allegedly ordered three men to cut two Gemelina trees planted
on complainant's claimed land.Complainant learned of the cutting of the trees from witnesses to whom
two of the three men admitted that respondent verbally instructed them to do so.
The Investigating Justice found nothing improper on the part of respondent and his wife in filing
the case. He said that while complainant claimed the subject land, respondent and his wife are not
precluded from protecting their interest on the same land, which is still classified as a forest zone. He
also found that complainant should not fault respondent for instituting the case considering that she
made the construction without a building permit. He further found insufficient the evidence that it was
respondent who directed the cutting of Gemelina trees, as the affidavits and testimonies of
complainant's witnesses regarding the admission of the men who felled the trees were hearsay in
nature. Thus, the Investigating Justice recommended the dismissal of this charge.

Issue:
Whether or not the judge should have inhibited himself.

Held:
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving,
by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. The basic rule that mere allegation is
not evidence cannot be disregarded. This is particularly true in the instant case.
With respect to the first two charges, the complainant has failed to adduce substantial evidence
to support her allegations.
However, with respect to the third charge of failure to inhibit himself despite his
disqualification, respondent was rightfully found to have violated Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We also hold, for the same reason, respondent
guilty of violation of Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as charged.
Rosemarie Latorre vs. Hon. Leonardo P. Ansaldo
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1563
May 31, 2001

Facts:
Rosemarie Latorre’s husband was killed by Alberto Bayotas, Cesar Pe, PO3 Arnold Tablatin, Dennis
Magcarang and Benny Sotto, who were then charged with homicide and frustrated homicide. Pe,
Magcarang and Sotto surrendered to the court.
While detained and awaiting a ruling on their motion to grant bail, the private prosecutor moved that
the respondent judge discipline the jail guards in charge of the accused for allowing the accused to sleep
in a hotel during nighttime and for not confining them in jail during day time.
Without acting on the motion, respondent judge issued an order suspending further proceedings due to
a pending request before the Supreme Court to change the venue of the trial from Boac, Marinduque to
Metro Manila. However, the judge reconsidered his order and set the hearing a day prior to the
scheduled hearing. Presently, the case was set because of the motion for a speedy trial. The judge
ignored a motion for his inhibition.

Issue:
Whether or not the judge should be administratively disciplined for his actions.

Held:
In this case, respondent judge failed to take into account the loss of trust on the part of the complainant
as to his impartiality.
Judges must at all times maintain and preserve the trust and faith of parties litigants in the court's
impartiality, and that the slightest doubt in the actions of a judge, whether well grounded or not, will
leave the judge no better alternative than to rescue himself as the ideal mode to preserve the image of
the judiciary. By inhibiting himself, he avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved. More importantly, the ideal of impartial administration of justice is lived up to.
In Orola vs. Alovera, we reiterated that when a judge exhibits actions that give rise, fairly or unfairly, to
perceptions of bias, such faith and confidence are eroded, and he has no choice but to inhibit himself
voluntarily. A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation, but when circumstances
appear that will induce doubt on his honest actuation and probity in favor of either party, or incite such
state of mind, he should conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way
that the peoples faith in the courts of justice is not impaired.The better course for the judge is to
disqualify himself.
Bishop Crisostomo A. Yalung and Atty. Roy Manuel M. Villasor, vs. Judge Enrique M. Pascua
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1342
June 21, 2001

Facts:
Several acts were charged against the judge, including delay in decision of cases, refusal to inhibit
himself from cases where his impartiality is at question, arbitrary acts, dishonesty, and other illicit acts.

Issue:
Whether or not the judge should be punished for his acts.

Held:
In any event, the grounds relied upon by complainants to support their motion, i.e., that respondents
nephew is the husband of the daughter of the counsel for the accused; that they lacked confidence in
respondents impartiality; and that respondent was involved in criminal activities while in Paoay, Ilocos
Norte, have no merit.
The first is not a ground for mandatory disqualification of judges under Rule 137, 1 since respondent is
not even related to counsel for the accused. On the other hand, the other two grounds were negated by
the dismissal of the criminal complaint by the Office of the Ombudsman and by the joint affidavit of the
members of respondents staff who affirmed his innocence of the charges.
Nor have the charges pertaining to respondents alleged involvement in cattle rustling while sitting as
judge of the MCTC, Paoay, Ilocos Norte, as well as of his alleged use of his chamber therein as a sex den,
been substantiated.
Datu Inocencio C. Siawan vs. Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr.
A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056
May 21, 2001

Facts:
Prior to the issuance of Affidavit of Desistance, which dismissed the case, accused Julia Enriqua Seco had
filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court a Motion for Inhibition of the Presiding Judge now
respondent in this case (Exh. Q). The meat of this motion for inhibition is that the father-in-law of the
Presiding Judge, herein respondent, was conspicuously present in the proceedings during which time he
gave consultation to the complainant who was reportedly his political leader and protégé. The accused
herself signed the motion with conforme of a certain Atty. Camilo Superable acting as counsel.

Issue:
Whether or not the judge should have inhibited himself

Held:
Although respondent is not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to Atty Otadoy,
the evidence shows that because of his relationship not only to Atty Otadoy but also to those helping
the complainant, Restituto Pedrano, one of whom, Guillermo Laurente, is respondent's father-in-law,
while the other one, Atty. Felix Sun, is his brother-in-law, respondent judge acted with obvious partiality
for complainant in the criminal case.

Under these provisions, respondent judge was disqualified from hearing the petition of his uncle and it
was immaterial that the petition was meritorious. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a
conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of a judge. A judge should take no
part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned and he should administer
justice impartially and without delay.
Re: Letter Of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. On Ca-G.R. SP No. 103692
A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA
September 9, 2008

Facts:
This is a highly controversial case involving several Court of Appeals judges, one of these being a phone
call from Justice Sabio’s brother in the PCGG regading the Meralco case, and Justice Sabio’s dealings
with a certain Mr. Borja, who was forcing him to inhibit and let Justice Bienvenido Reyes take over the
case.
Justice Roxas, on the other hand, was dishonest regarding his penned decisions, which created tension
between him and the members of the Court of Appeals decisions.

Issue:
Whether or not the Justices should be reprimanded for their actions.

Held:
The circumstances of the telephone call of Chairman Sabio to his brother Justice Sabio showed that
Justice Sabio failed to uphold the standard of independence and propriety expected of him as a
magistrate of the appellate court. Justice Sabios conversations with Mr. De Borja were improper and
indiscreet.
Justice Roxas showed a lack of courtesy and respect for his colleagues in the Court of Appeals. Also, his
questionable handling of the Meralco case demonstrates his undue interest therein.