Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 47

A.M. No.

RTJ-02-1743 July 11, 2006 On August 13, 2001, respondent judge filed with this Court a
ATTY. ERNESTO C. JACINTO, complainant, "Motion for Early Resolution"9 alleging, among others, that during
vs. the hearing of the case on May 9, 2000, both counsels failed to
JUDGE LYDIA Q. LAYOSA AND CLERK III CHERYL appear despite due notice. Hence, she issued an Order dismissing the
BUENAVENTURA, respondents. complaint and the counterclaim.
DECISION In his Report,10 then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. 11
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: found both respondents liable for the loss of the records; and that
In a sworn letter-complaint1 dated August 7, 1999 filed with the respondent judge failed to supervise her personnel to ensure
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), complainant Atty. Ernesto efficiency. He recommended that they be ordered to pay a fine in the
C. Jacinto charged respondents Judge Lydia Q. Layosa of the amount of P5,000.00 each, with a stern warning that commission of a
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 217, Quezon City, and Cheryl similar offense will be dealt with more severely, thus:
Buenaventura, Clerk III, of the same court, with infidelity in the EVALUATION: In the absence of any direct evidence
custody of public documents and/or gross neglect of duty. pointing responsibility to any of the respondents relative to
Complainant alleged in his letter-complaint that he is plaintiff's the loss of the records of Civil Case No. Q-95-23426, the
counsel in Civil Case No. Q-95-23426, "REYNALDO P. MARTIN persons responsible for their safekeeping should be held
versus MRS. RAQUEL U. AQUINO and HUSBAND," raffled to the accountable and they are the Branch Clerk of Court, who is
RTC, Branch 217, Quezon City. It was Judge Gil P. Fernandez, Sr. in charge of the recording, filing, and management of court
(now deceased) who was then the Presiding Judge. The records of the records as well as the Clerk-in-charge of civil cases to
case did not get lost. whom such task was delegated by the Branch Clerk of
When Judge Fernandez, Sr. died, Judge Demetrio B. Macapagal, Sr. Court. Since Atty. Flosie F. Fanlo has already transferred to
replaced him. The records of the same case did not also get lost. another branch of the government, she is already outside of
However, when respondent Judge Layosa was appointed Presiding the Courts administrative jurisdiction.
Judge of the same court, the entire records of the case "disappeared" Respondent Cheryl Buenaventura, as the clerk-in-charge of
as shown by the May 142 and June 1, 19993 Orders issued by her, civil cases is undoubtedly the person who has custody of
thus: the lost records and the one primarily responsible therefor.
(1) May 14, 1999 Order: As the person in charge of the records of civil cases,
The records of this case had been reported missing by the respondent Buenaventura should have devised means to
Branch Clerk of Court and despite efforts exerted to locate safeguard the records given the limited resources at her
it, said records could not be found. disposal as well as the defective filing cabinet. x x x
Accordingly, let a conference be held on May 24, 1999 at Although no motive to conceal, destroy or otherwise profit
2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, for the purpose of from the loss of such records was imputed and proved
reconstituting the same from available documents in against respondent Buenaventura, it cannot be denied that
counsel's possession." the records were lost while under her custody and she
(2) June 1, 1999 Order: should be held responsible thereof.
By agreement of the parties, let the conference for the On the other hand, it is the duty of the respondent judge to
reconstitution of the records in this case be reset on July 14, closely supervise her employees. Civil Case No. 95-23426
1999 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. was one of the records of pending cases turned over to her
Meanwhile, the continuation of trial set for today is hereby by her Clerk of Court. She admitted that she did not know
suspended. what happened to said record until it was reported to her by
Complainant further alleged that both respondents are guilty as Mrs. Buenaventura on April 13, 1999 that it was missing.
charged. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires every
On September 10, 1999,4 then Court Administrator Alfredo L. judge to organize and supervise the court personnel to
Benipayo referred the letter-complaint to respondent judge for her ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of its business, and
comment within ten days from notice. She admitted therein5 that which requires further at all times the observance of high
Civil Case No. Q-95-23426 was among the pending cases turned over standards of public service and fidelity. (Fernandez v.
to her when she assumed her duties in the RTC on November 26, Imbing, 260 SCRA 586).
1997. Judges should not tolerate the neglect of court employees.
She, however, submitted that she cannot be held responsible for the RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted to the
loss of the case records because: (a) she has not been remiss in the Hon. Court our recommendation.
performance of her duties and responsibilities; (b) she has been 1. that the administrative case against Atty. Flosie F. Fanlo,
conducting the required inventory of cases pursuant to the Circulars Ma. Cecilia A. Flores, Naomi Paden, Tonette S. Manjuco-
of this Court, and; (c) she has always been giving instructions to her Salamanca, Ramona Adduro, Elizabeth Sugcang, Carmen
staff to take precautionary measures in safekeeping the records. Labsan, Reynaldo Madelaria, Reynaldo Manahan, Maritoni
Moreover, when respondent Cheryl L. Buenaventura, in charge of Oning, serafin Corral and Josephine Fernandez be
civil cases, verbally informed her that the records of the case are DISMISSED for lack of merit;
missing, she immediately directed Atty. Flosie Fanlo, then branch 2. that the administrative case against respondent judge
clerk of court, to immediately take appropriate action. Lydia Q. Layosa and Cheryl Buenaventura be
On May 14, 1999, she issued an Order calling the parties' counsel for REDOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
a conference on May 24, 1999 for the purpose of reconstituting the 3. that Judge Layosa and Buenaventura be ordered to pay a
missing records. fine in the amount of P5,000.00 each, with a STERN
On June 1, 1999, both opposing counsel appeared. Upon respondent WARNING that commission of a similar act would be
judge's directive, the defendant's counsel promised to submit the dealt with more severely.
duplicate copies of the records in his possession. In our Resolution12 dated November 25, 2002, we ordered that this
On July 14, 1999, during the scheduled hearing for the reconstitution case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and required
of the missing records, only defendant's counsel appeared and the parties to manifest, within twenty (20) days from notice, whether
submitted his copies of the records of the case. they are submitting the case for resolution on the basis of the
On August 10, 1999, complainant filed an "Opposition and Motion pleadings and records filed.
for Reconsideration" of the July 14, 1999 Order which was granted On January 15, 2003, both respondents submitted their respective
by respondent judge. At this point, there is no showing whether he Manifestations,13 with prayer that a hearing be conducted to enable
submitted to the court any record in his files. them to present evidence in support of their defenses.
Respondent judge emphasized that she did not only take immediate On February 10, 2003, this Court issued a Resolution referring to
steps to reconstitute the missing records of the case, but she also OCA respondents' Manifestations for evaluation, report and
requested the assistance of then Court Administrator Benipayo6 who, recommendation.14
in turn, requested the National Bureau of Investigation to investigate Upon recommendation of then Deputy Court Administrator
the matter.7 Christopher O. Lock,15 this administrative case was referred to the
On January 19, 2000, respondent Buenaventura filed her Comment8 Court of Appeals for investigation and report within sixty (60) days
alleging that she is in charge of civil cases. On April 12, 1999, she from notice.
noticed that the records of Civil Case No. Q-95-23426 were missing. On February 10, 2004, Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador
The logbook showed that the case was last heard on March 2, 1999. of the Court of Appeals submitted to this Court her Report and
When the last Order was mailed on March 8, 1999, she transmitted Recommendation, partly reproduced as follows:
the records to the branch clerk of court. She insisted that those As the personnel directly charged with the safekeeping of
records were kept inside the filing cabinet and nobody borrowed case records of civil cases pending in the sala, (page 55,
them from her. She admitted though that the lock of the filing cabinet ibid.) however, respondent Buenaventura was manifestly
does not work. Lastly, she alleged that the missing records have been negligent for not taking the necessary precautionary/safety
reconstituted. measures required by the sorry state of said filing cabinets.
The conduct and behavior of every person connected with
an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the As to the penalty imposable upon respondent Buenaventura, under
presiding judge to the lowest clerk is circumscribed with a the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series
heavy burden of responsibility (Araza vs. Garcia, 325 of 1999 (Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
SCRA 1, 9-10) in order to maintain public confidence in Service), simple misconduct is classified as a less grave offense, 22
the judiciary (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months.
in RTC, Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon, 292 SCRA 1,7). Respondent is likewise a first offender, and that no taint of bad faith
Public officers are accountable for their actuations at all can be discerned from her actuations. Thus a suspension of twenty
times and must perform their duties well. (Solid Bank one days from office without salary is considered justified.
Corp. v. Capoon, Jr., 289 SCRA 9, 14. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Lydia Q. Layosa and respondent
Neither can respondent judge evade liability for negligence Cheryl Buenaventura are declared guilty of simple misconduct. Judge
under the factual circumstances of the case. The measures Layosa is FINED in the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00),
she interposed as proof positive of due diligence – while respondent Buenaventura is SUSPENDED from office for
reporting the incident to the Court Administrator and twenty-one days without pay. They are WARNED that a repetition
requesting investigation thereon, (p. 25; Exhibit "3", p. 241, of the same or similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.
Rollo) directing her staff to adopt safety measures in the SO ORDERED.
custody of records, (Exhibit "6", p. 238, ibid.) and A.C. No. 6697 July 25, 2006
requesting for repairs and/or replacement of the defective ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ, complainant,
cabinets (p.5, TSN, January 23, 2004) – all appear to have vs.
been adopted only after the discovery of the loss of the case ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA, respondent.
record of Civil Case No. Q-95-23426 on April 12, 1999. x-------------------------x
Quite significantly, it was not until July 22, 1999 or until Bar Matter No. 1227 July 25, 2006
the loss of the case record of Civil Case Q-97-32929 that RE: OATH-TAKING OF ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA,
respondent judge made the aforesaid report/request to the INCOMING PRESIDENT OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF
Court Administrator. THE PHILIPPINES.
While it is concededly the Branch Clerk of Court who has x-------------------------x
control and supervision over all court records, exhibits, A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC July 25, 2006
documents, properties and supplies within said branch, he IN THE MATTER OF THE REMOVAL OF ATTY. LEONARD
is nevertheless subject to the control and supervision of the S. DE VERA FROM THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AS
Presiding Judge. (Yaranon v. Rulloda, 242 SCRA 522, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GOVERNOR.
528.) A judge is tasked with the administrative supervision IN THE MATTER OF THE LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY.
over his personnel and he should always see to it that his LEONARD S. DE VERA DATED MAY 18, 2005 TO
orders are promptly enforced and that case records are FORTHWITH DENY/DISAPPROVE THE IBP RESOLUTION
properly stored. (Belen v. Soriano, 240 SCRA 298, 301) It UNJUSTLY, ILLEGALLY, ARBITRARILY, AND ABRUPTLY
is, therefore, incumbent upon the judge to see to it that the REMOVING HIM FROM THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
personnel of the court perform their duties well and to call THE IBP FOR ABSOLUTE LACK OF BASIS AND FOR
the attention of the clerk of court when they fail to do so. FLAGRANT DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.
(Ang Kek Chen v. Andrade, 318 SCRA 11, 20-21.) DECISION
Recommendation Per Curiam:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is recommended that both Before Us are three consolidated cases revolving around Integrated
respondent judge and respondent Buenaventura be ordered Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governor and Executive Vice-President
to pay a fine of P5,000.00 each, with a STERN WARNING (EVP) Atty. Leonard de Vera. The first pertains to a disbarment case
that a similar non-observance of the due care required by questioning Atty. de Vera's moral fitness to remain as a member of
their positions will be dealt with more severely. the Philippine Bar, the second refers to Atty. de Vera's letter-request
We agree with Justice Salvador that both respondents are negligent; to schedule his oath taking as IBP National President, and the third
and that respondent judge failed in her duty to see to it that her case concerns the validity of his removal as Governor and EVP of the
personnel perform their duties well. Such conduct on their part IBP by the IBP Board. The resolution of these cases will determine
constitutes misconduct. 16 the national presidency of the IBP for the term 2005-2007.
Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule A.C. No. 6697
of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence The Office of the Bar Confidant, which this Court tasked to make an
by a public officer." The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the investigation, report and recommendation on subject case, 1
additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or summarized the antecedents thereof as follows:
to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial In a Complaint dated 11 April 2005, complainant Zoilo
evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.17 Records fail Antonio Velez moved for the suspension and/or disbarment
to indicate that those additional elements are present here. of respondent Atty. Leonard de Vera based on the
We, therefore, find both respondents guilty of simple misconduct. following grounds:
As the clerk in charge of civil cases, respondent Buenaventura's 1) respondent's alleged misrepresentation in
duties include conducting periodic docket inventory and ensuring that concealing the suspension order rendered against
the records of each case are accounted for. Her insistence that the him by the State Bar of California; and
missing records were kept inside the filing cabinet and that she 2) respondent's alleged violation of the so-called
handled them with due care does not convince us. On the contrary, "rotation rule" enunciated in Administrative
she failed to take appropriate steps and devise means to keep the Matter No. 491 dated 06 October 1989 (in the
records, taking into consideration the defective condition of the filing Matter: 1989 IBP Elections).
cabinet. Clearly, she was negligent. Complainant averred that the respondent, in appropriating
On the part of respondent judge, considering her administrative for his own benefit funds due his client, was found to have
authority over her personnel, she should have directed them, performed an act constituting moral turpitude by the
especially those in charge of safekeeping the records, to be diligent in Hearing Referee Bill Dozier, Hearing Department – San
the performance of their duties and should have closely monitored the Francisco, State Bar of California in Administrative Case
flow of her cases. No. 86-0-18429. Complainant alleged that the respondent
Judges are charged with exercising extra care in ensuring that the was then forced to resign or surrender his license to
records of the cases and official documents in their custody are intact. practice law in the said state in order to evade the
They must adopt a system of record management and organize their recommended three (3) year suspension. Complainant
dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of asserted that the respondent lacks the moral competence
business.18 There is no justification for missing records save necessary to lead the country's most noble profession.
fortuitous events.19 Complainant, likewise, contended that the respondent
With respect to the imposition of penalty, the Revised Rules of Court violated the so-called "rotation rule" provided for in
provides that simple misconduct is classified as a less serious Administrative Matter No. 491 when he transferred to IBP
charge,20 punishable by suspension from office without salary and Agusan del Sur Chapter. He claimed that the respondent
other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three failed to meet the requirements outlined in the IBP By-
months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00, but not exceeding Laws pertaining to transfer of Chapter Membership. He
P20,000.00.21 surmised that the respondent's transfer was intended only
It appearing that this is the first administrative offense committed by for the purpose of becoming the next IBP National
respondent judge; that she has worked in the judiciary for more than President. Complainant prayed that the respondent be
20 years; and that no bad faith may be attributed to her, these enjoined from assuming office as IBP National President.
circumstances may be considered mitigating. Hence, a fine of Meanwhile, in his Comment dated 2 May 2005, respondent
P5,000.00 is in order. stated that the issues raised in above-mentioned Complaint
were the very issues raised in an earlier administrative case
filed by the same complainant against him. In fact, Governors, during the Plenary Session of the IBP
according to him, the said issues were already extensively 10th National Convention of Lawyers, held at
discussed and categorically ruled upon by this Court in its CAP-Camp John Hay Convention Center on 22
Decision dated 11 December 2005 in Administrative Case April 2005, making it appear that the decision of
No. 6052 (In Re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. Leonard De the IBP Board of Governors to withdraw the
Vera). Respondent prayed that the instant administrative PETITION docketed as "Integrated Bar of the
complaint be dismissed following the principle of res Philippines, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, et al. vs. The
judicata. Senate of the Philippines, et al., Petition for
On 15 June 2005, both parties appeared before the Office Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer for the
of the Bar Confidant for presentation of evidence in support Issuance of A Temporary Restraining Order or
of their respective allegations. Writ of Preliminary Injunction, S.C.-R. 165108",
Subsequently, in a Memorandum dated 20 June 2005, was due to influence and pressure from the
complainant maintained that there is substantial evidence Supreme Court of the Philippines;
showing respondent's moral baseness, vileness and 2. For making said untruthful statements,
depravity, which could be used as a basis for his innuendos and blatant lies that brought the IBP
disbarment. Complainant stressed that the respondent never Board of Governors and the IBP as a whole in
denied that he used his client's money. Complainant argued public contempt and disrepute;
that the respondent failed to present evidence that the 3. For violating Canon 11 of the Code of
Supreme Court of California accepted the latter's Professional Responsibility for Lawyers which
resignation and even if such was accepted, complainant mandates that "A lawyer shall observe and
posited that this should not absolve the respondent from maintain the respect due to the courts and to
liability. judicial officers and should insist on similar
Moreover, complainant added that the principle of res conduct by others", by making untruthful
judicata would not apply in the case at bar. He asserted that statements, innuendos and blatant lies during the
the first administrative case filed against the respondent Plenary Session of the IBP 10th National
was one for his disqualification. x x x. Convention of Lawyers in Baguio City;
Bar Matter No. 1227 4. For instigating and provoking some IBP
A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC chapters to embarrass and humiliate the IBP
As earlier adverted to, Bar Matter No. 1227 refers to Atty. de Vera's Board of Governors in order to coerce and
letter-request to this Court to schedule his oath taking as IBP compel the latter to pursue the aforesaid
National President. A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, on the other hand, is a PETITION;
letter-report dated 19 May 2005 of IBP National President Jose 5. For falsely accusing the IBP National
Anselmo I. Cadiz (IBP President Cadiz) furnishing this Court with President, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, during the
the IBP's Resolution, dated 13 May 2005, removing Atty. De Vera as Plenary Session of the 10th National Convention
member of the IBP Board and as IBP EVP, for committing acts in Baguio City of withholding from him a copy
inimical to the IBP Board and the IBP in general.2 of Supreme Court Resolution, dated 25 January
The controversy in Bar Matter No. 1227 and A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC 2005, granting the withdrawal of the PETITION,
arose from the regular meeting of the IBP Board of Governors held thereby creating the wrong impression that the
on 14 January 2005. In said meeting, by 2/3 vote (6 voting in favor IBP National President deliberately prevented
and 2 against), the IBP Board approved the withdrawal of the Petition him from taking the appropriate remedies with
filed before this Court docketed as "Integrated Bar of the respect thereto, thus compromising the reputation
Philippines, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, et al. vs. Senate of the and integrity of the IBP National President and
Philippines, et al. – Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the IBP as a whole.11
Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of On 18 May 2005, Atty. de Vera aired his sentiments to this Court by
Preliminary Injunction, SC-R165108." The Petition was intended to writing the then Hon. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. a letter
question the legality and/or constitutionality of Republic Act No. captioned as "Urgent Plea to Correct a Glaring Injustice of the IBP
9227, authorizing the increase in the salaries of judges and justices, Board of Governors; Vehement Protest to the Board Resolution
and to increase filing fees.3 Abruptly Removing Atty. Leonard de Vera from the Board of
The two IBP Governors who opposed the said Resolution approving Governors in Patent Violation of Due Process; Petition to
the withdrawal of the above-described Petition were herein Deny/Disapprove the Completely Unjustified and Highly Arbitrary
respondent Governor and EVP de Vera and Governor Carlos L. Resolution Precipitately Ousting Atty. de Vera from the Board of
Valdez.4 Governors in Less Than Twenty Four (24) Hours from Notice and
On 19 January 2005, IBP President Cadiz informed this Court of the Judgment Without Formal Investigation."12
decision taken by the IBP Board to withdraw the afore-mentioned In the said letter, Atty. de Vera strongly and categorically denied
Petition. Attached to his letter was a copy of the IBP Board's 14 having committed acts inimical to the IBP and its Board. He alleged
January 2005 Resolution.5 that on the basis of an unverified letter-complaint filed by IBP
On 15 April 2005, Bar Matter No. 1227, pertaining to Atty. de Vera's Governor Rivera, the IBP Board voted to expel him posthaste,
request for oathtaking as National President, was filed. The same was without just cause and in complete disregard of even the minimum
subsequently consolidated with A.C. No. 6697, the disbarment case standards of due process. Pertinent portions of his letter read:
filed against Atty. de Vera.6 It is evident that the Board of Governors has committed a
On 22 April 2005, a plenary session was held at the 10th National grave and serious injustice against me especially when, as
IBP Convention at the CAP-Camp John Hay Convention Center, the incumbent Executive Vice President of the IBP, I am
Baguio City. It was at this forum where Atty. de Vera allegedly made scheduled to assume my position as National President of
some untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant lies in connection the IBP on July 1, 2005. x x x
with the IBP Board's Resolution to withdraw the Petition questioning I was denied the very basic rights of due process
the legality of Republic Act No. 9227.7 recognized by the Supreme Court even in administrative
On 10 May 2005, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order cases:
(TRO) enjoining Atty. de Vera from assuming office as IBP National 1. The denial of the right to answer the charges
President.8 formally or in writing. The complaint against me
On 12 May 2005, IBP Gov. Romulo A. Rivera wrote IBP National was in writing.
President Cadiz a letter wherein he prayed for the removal of Atty. de 2. The denial of the right to answer the charges
Vera as member of the IBP Board for having committed acts which within a reasonable period of time after receipt
were inimical to the IBP Board and the IBP.9 of the complaint.
On 13 May 2005, in the 20th Regular Meeting of the Board held at 3. The denial of the right to a fair hearing.
the Waterfront Hotel, Cebu City, the IBP Board, by 2/3 vote, 4. The denial of the right to confront the accuser
resolved to remove Atty. de Vera as member of the IBP Board of and the witnesses against me. I challenged Gov.
Governors and as IBP Executive Vice President.10 Quoted hereunder Rivera to testify under oath so I could question
is the dispositive portion of said Resolution: him. He refused. I offered to testify under oath so
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS I could be questioned. My request was denied.
HEREBY RESOLVED, that Governor Leonard S. de Vera 5. The denial of my right to present witnesses on
is REMOVED as a member of the IBP Board of Governors my behalf.
and Executive Vice President for committing acts inimical 6. The denial of my right to an impartial judge.
to the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP, to wit: Governor Rivera was my accuser, prosecutor, and
1. For making untruthful statements, innuendos judge all at the same time.
and blatant lies in public about the Supreme 7. Gov. Rivera's prejudgment of my case
Court and members of the IBP Board of becomes even more evident because when his
motion to expel me was lost in a 5-3 votes (due to Anent the charges that he accused the National President of
his inhibition to vote), Gov. Rivera asked for withholding a copy of this Court's Resolution granting the withdrawal
another round of voting so he can vote to of the Petition questioning the legality of Republic Act No. 9227,
support his own complaint and motion to expel Atty. de Vera avowed that he made no such remarks. As regards the
me.13 (Emphasis and underscoring in original.) election of a new IBP EVP, Atty. de Vera contended that the said
On 27 May 2005, the IBP Board responded to the 18 May 2005 letter election was illegal as it was contrary to the provisions of the IBP
of Atty. de Vera.14 In their Reply, the IBP Board explained to this By-Laws concerning national officers, to wit:
Court that their decision to remove Atty. de Vera was based on valid Section. 49. Term of office. - The President and the
grounds and was intended to protect itself from a recalcitrant Executive Vice President shall hold office for a term of two
member. Among the grounds cited and elucidated by the IBP Board years from July 1 following their election until 30 June of
were the following: their second year in office and until their successors shall
(i) Atty. de Vera engaged himself in a negative media have been duly chosen and qualified.
campaign and solicited resolutions from IBP Chapters to In the event the President is absent or unable to act, his
condemn the IBP Board of Governors for its decision to functions and duties shall be performed by the Executive
withdraw the Petition, all with the end in view of Vice President, and in the event of death, resignation, or
compelling or coercing the IBP Board of Governors to removal of the President, the Executive Vice President
reconsider the decision to withdraw the Petition. shall serve as Acting President for the unexpired portion of
(ii) Atty. de Vera embarrassed, humiliated and maligned the term. In the event of death, resignation, removal or
the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP National President disability of both the President and the Executive Vice
in public or during the Plenary Session at the 10th National President, the Board of Governors shall elect an Acting
Convention of Lawyers. President to hold office for the unexpired portion of the
(iii) Rather than pacify the already agitated 'solicited' term or during the period of disability.
speakers (at the plenary session), Atty. de Vera "fanned the Unless otherwise provided in these By-Laws, all other
fire", so to speak, and went to the extent of making officers and employees appointed by the President with the
untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant lies about the consent of the Board shall hold office at the pleasure of the
Supreme Court and some members of the IBP Board of Board or for such term as the Board may fix.24
Governors. He deliberately and intentionally did so to To bolster his position, Atty. de Vera stressed that when both the
provoke the members of the IBP Board of Governors to President and the EVP die, resign, are removed, or are disabled, the
engage him in an acrimonious public debate and expose the IBP By-Laws only provides for the election of an Acting President
IBP Board of Governors to public ridicule. and that no mention for an election for EVP was made. Thus, when
(iv) Atty. de Vera uttered untruthful statements, innuendos such election for EVP occurs, such is contrary to the express
and blatant lies, e.g., that some of the members of the IBP provision of the IBP By-Laws.
Board of Governors voted in favor of the withdrawal of the Atty. de Vera also argued that even if he were validly removed as
petition (without mentioning names) because "nakakahiya IBP EVP, his replacement should come from Eastern Mindanao and
kasi sa Supreme Court, nakakaawa kasi ang Supreme not from any other region, due to the Rotation Rule embodied in par.
Court, kasi may mga kaibigan tayo sa Court." He made it 2, Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws.
appear that the IBP Board of Governors approved the In response to Atty. de Vera's averments, the 2003-2005 IBP Board,
resolution, withdrawing the petition, due to "influence" or through its counsel, submitted a Reply dated 27 January 2006 and
"pressure" from the Supreme Court.15 clarified as follows:
The IBP Board explained that Atty. de Vera's actuation during the (i) The IBP Board of Governors is vested with sufficient
Plenary Session was "the last straw that broke the camel's back." He power and authority to protect itself from an intractable
committed acts inimical to the interest of the IBP Board and the IBP; member by virtue of Article VI, Section 44 of the IBP By-
hence, the IBP Board decided to remove him. Laws;
On 3 June 2005, Atty. de Vera furnished the Court with copies of (ii) Atty. de Vera was removed as a member of the IBP
resolutions and a position paper coming from various IBP Chapters Board and as IBP EVP not because of his disagreement
all condemning his expulsion from the IBP Board and as IBP EVP.16 with the IBP Board's position but because of the various
On 15 June 2005, IBP President Cadiz informed Chief Justice Davide acts that he committed which the IBP Board determined to
that in a special meeting of the IBP Board held at the EDSA Shangri- be inimical to the IBP Board and the IBP as a whole;
la Plaza on 13 June 2005, the IBP Board took note of the vacancy in (iii) Atty. de Vera cannot exculpate himself from liability
the position of the IBP EVP brought about by Atty. de Vera's by invoking his constitutional right to Free Speech because,
removal. In his stead, IBP Governor Pura Angelica Y. Santiago was as a member of the Bar, it is his sworn duty to observe and
formally elected and declared as IBP EVP.17 maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
On 17 June 2005, Atty. de Vera protested against the election of Atty. officers and to insist on similar conduct by others;
Santiago.18 On 20 June 2005, Atty. Santiago voluntarily relinquished (iv) The IBP Board, in effecting the removal of Atty. de
the EVP position through a letter addressed to the IBP Board. 19 Thus, Vera, observed the fundamental principles of due process.
on 25 June 2005, during its last regular meeting, the IBP Board As the records would bear, Atty. de Vera was duly notified
elected a new EVP in the person of IBP Governor Jose Vicente B. of the Regular Meeting of the IBP Board held on 13 May
Salazar to replace Atty. Santiago. 2004; was furnished a copy of Governor Rivera's Letter-
On 28 June 2005, IBP National President Cadiz, through a letter Complaint the day before the said meeting; was furnished a
addressed to Chief Justice Davide, reported to this Court Atty. copy of the said Meeting's Agenda; and was allowed to
Salazar's election.20 IBP National President Cadiz also requested, personally defend himself and his accuser, Gov. Rivera;
among other things, that Atty. Salazar's election be approved and that (v) Atty. de Vera was validly removed because the required
he be allowed to assume as National President in the event that Atty. number of votes under Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws to
de Vera is disbarred or suspended from the practice of law or should remove Atty. de Vera as a member of the IBP Board and as
his removal from the 2003-2005 Board of Governors and as EVP is IBP EVP was duly complied with;
approved by this Court.21 Also on 28 June 2005, Atty. de Vera (vi) Atty. de Vera's replacement as IBP EVP need not come
protested the election of Atty. Salazar.22 from Eastern Mindanao Region because: (a) the rotation
In his Extended Comment23 dated 25 July 2005, Atty. de Vera rule under Article VII, Section 47, par. 2 of the IBP By-
maintained that there was absolutely no factual or legal basis to Laws had already been complied with when Atty. de Vera,
sustain the motion to remove him from the IBP Board because he who hails from Eastern Mindanao, was elected IBP EVP;
violated no law. He argued that if the basis for his removal as EVP and (b) the rotation rule need not be enforced if the same
was based on the same grounds as his removal from the IBP Board, will not be practicable, possible, feasible, doable or viable;
then his removal as EVP was likewise executed without due notice and, finally, that –
and without the least compliance with the minimum standards of due (vii) Atty. Salazar was validly elected as IBP EVP and,
process of law. thus, should now be allowed to take his oath as IBP
Atty. de Vera strongly averred that, contrary to the utterly false and National President.25
malicious charges filed against him, the speakers at the Plenary The Court's Ruling
Session of the Baguio Convention, although undeniably impassioned AC No. 6697
and articulate, were respectful in their language and exhortations, not In his Memorandum26 dated 20 June 2005, complainant tendered the
once undermining the stature of the IBP in general and the IBP Board following issues for the consideration of the Court:
of Governors in particular. He posited that speaking in disagreement I.
with the Resolution of the Board during the Convention's Plenary WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT ATTORNEY
Session is not a valid cause to remove or expel a duly-elected LEONARD S. DEVERA (sic) COMMITED
member of the IBP Board of Governors; and the decision to remove MALPRACTICE WHICH AMOUNTED TO MORAL
him only shows that the right to freedom of speech or the right to T[U]RPITUDE IN THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
dissent is not recognized by the incumbent IBP Board.
AND IN THE PHILIPPINES, IN THE COURSE OF HIS which is the national presidency. Petitioners aver
PRACTICE OF LAW. that in changing his IBP membership, respondent
II. De Vera violated the domicile rule.
WHETHER OR NOT THE OATH OF OFFICE AS The contention has no merit. Under the last
LAWYER IS ATTACHED TO THE PERSON OF paragraph of Section 19, Article II, a lawyer
ATTORNEY LEONARD S. DEVERA (sic) WHEREVER included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme
HE MAY GO AND NOT NECESSARILY BOUND BY Court can register with the particular IBP
THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE Chapter of his preference or choice, thus:
PHILIPPINES. xxx
III. It is clearly stated in the aforequoted section of
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL the By-Laws that it is not automatic that a lawyer
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE MORAL T[U]RPITUDE, will become a member of the chapter where his
AS BASIS FOR DISBARMENT OF RESPONDENT IN place of residence or work is located. He has the
AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING. discretion to choose the particular chapter where
IV. he wishes to gain membership. Only when he
WHETHER OR NOT RES JUDICATA APPLIES IN does not register his preference that he will
THIS CASE, DUE TO ADMIN. CASE NO. [6052]27 become a member of the Chapter of the place
The disposition of the first three related issues hinges on the where he resides or maintains office. The only
resolution of the fourth issue. Consequently, we will start with the proscription in registering one's preference is
last issue. that a lawyer cannot be a member of more than
A.C. No. 6052 is not a bar to the filing of the present administrative one chapter at the same time.
case. The same is provided in Section 29-2 of the IBP
In disposing of the question of res judicata, the Bar Confidant By-Laws. In fact, under this Section, transfer of
opined: IBP membership is allowed as long as the lawyer
To reiterate, the instant case for suspension and/or complies with the conditions set forth therein,
disbarment against respondent Leonard De Vera is thus:
grounded on the following: xxx
1) respondent's alleged misrepresentation in The only condition required under the foregoing
concealing the suspension order rendered against rule is that the transfer must be made not less
him by the State Bar in California; and than three months prior to the election of officers
2) respondent's alleged violation of the so-called in the chapter to which the lawyer wishes to
"rotation rule" enunciated in Administrative transfer.
Matter No. 491 dated 06 October 1989 (In the In the case at bar, respondent De Vera requested
Matter: 1989 IBP Elections). the transfer of his IBP membership to Agusan del
It appears that the complainant already raised the said Sur on 1 August 2001. One month thereafter, IBP
issues in an earlier administrative case against the National Secretary Jaime M. Vibar wrote a letter
respondent. Verily, these issues were already argued upon addressed to Atty. Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr.,
by the parties in their respective pleadings, and discussed Secretary of IBP PPLM Chapter and Atty.
and ruled upon by this Court in its Decision dated 11 Lyndon J. Romero, Secretary of IBP Agusan del
December 2003 in Administrative Matter No. 6052 (In Re: Sur Chapter, informing them of respondent de
Petition to Disqualify Atty. Leonard de Vera). Vera's transfer and advising them to make the
As such, with respect to the first issue, this Court held that: necessary notation in their respective records.
"As for the administrative complaint filed against This letter is a substantial compliance with the
him by one of his clients when he was practicing certification mentioned in Section 29-2 as
law in California, which in turn compelled him to aforequoted. Note that de Vera's transfer was
surrender his California license to practice law, made effective sometime between 1 August 2001
he maintains that it cannot serve as basis for and 3 September 2001. On 27 February 2003, the
determining his moral qualification (or lack of it) elections of the IBP Chapter Officers were
to run for the position he is aspiring for. He simultaneously held all over the Philippines, as
explains that there is as yet no final judgment mandated by Section 29.a of the IBP By-Laws
finding him guilty of the administrative charge, which provides that elections of Chapter Officers
as the records relied upon by the petitioners are and Directors shall be held on the last Saturday of
mere preliminary findings of a hearing referee February of every other year. Between 3
which are recommendatory findings of an IBP September 2001 and 27 February 2003,
Commissioner on Bar Discipline which are seventeen months had elapsed. This makes
subject to the review of and the final decision of respondent de Vera's transfer valid as it was done
the Supreme Court. He also stresses that the more than three months ahead of the chapter
complainant in the California administrative elections held on 27 February 2003.
case has retracted the accusation that he In the case of Romulo G. Dinsay vs. Atty. Leopoldo D.
misappropriated the complainant's money, but Cioco (Administrative Case No. 2995, 27 November 1996),
unfortunately the retraction was not considered this Court declared that:
by the investigating officer. xxx" "The doctrine of res judicata applies only to
"On the administrative complaint that was filed judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to
against respondent De Vera while he was still the exercise of the [Court's] administrative
practicing law in California, he explained that no powers."
final judgment was rendered by the California In the said case, respondent Clerk of Court Cioco was
Supreme Court finding him guilty of the charge. dismissed from service for grave misconduct highly
He surrendered his license to protest the prejudicial to the service for surreptitiously substituting the
discrimination he suffered at the hands of the bid price in a Certificate of Sale from P3,263,182.67 to
investigator and he found it impractical to only P730,000.00. Thereafter a complaint for disbarment
pursue the case to the end. We find these was filed against the respondent on the basis of the same
explanations satisfactory in the absence of incident. Respondent, interposing res judicata, argued that
contrary proof. It is a basic rule on evidence that he may no longer be charged on the basis of the same
he who alleges a fact has the burden to prove the incident. This Court held that while the respondent is in
same. In this case, the petitioners have not shown effect being indicted twice for the same misconduct, this
how the administrative complaint affects does not amount to double jeopardy as both proceedings
respondent De Vera's moral fitness to run for are admittedly administrative in nature. This Court
governor. qualified that, in the first case, the respondent was
On the other hand, as regards the second issue: proceeded against as an erring court personnel under the
"Petitioners contend that respondent de Vera is Court's supervisory power over courts while, in the second
disqualified for the post because he is not really case, he was disciplined as a lawyer under the Court's
from Eastern Mindanao. His place of residence plenary authority over membersof the legal profession.
is in Parañaque and he was originally a member In subsequent decisions of this Court, however, it appears
of the PPLM IBP Chapter. He only changed his that res judicata still applies in administrative cases. Thus,
IBP Chapter membership to pave the way for his in the case of Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera vs. Judge William
ultimate goal of attaining the highest IBP post,
Layague (Administrastive Matter No. RTJ-93-986), this obligations under the IBP By-laws. We held therein that Atty. de
Court ruled that: Vera cannot be disqualified from running as Regional Governor as
"While double jeopardy does not lie in there is nothing in the present IBP By-laws that sanctions the
administrative cases, it would be contrary to disqualification of candidates for IBP governors. Consequently, we
equity and substantial justice to penalize stressed that the petition had no firm ground to stand on. Likewise,
respondent judge a second time for an act which we held that the complainants therein were not the proper parties to
he had already answered for."; bring the suit as the IBP By-laws prescribes that only nominees -
Likewise, in the recent case of Executive Judge Henry B. which the complainants were not - can file with the IBP President a
Basilia vs. Judge Amado L. Becamon, Lolita Delos Reyes written protest against the candidate. The Court's statement,
and Eddie Delos Reyes (Administrative Matter No. MTJ- therefore, that Atty. de Vera cannot be disqualified on the ground that
02-1404, 14 December 2004), this Court held that: he was not morally fit was mere obiter dictum. Precisely, the IBP By-
"Applying the principle of res judicata or bar by laws do not allow for pre-election disqualification proceedings;
prior judgment, the present administrative case hence, Atty. de Vera cannot be disqualified on the basis of the
becomes dismissible. administrative findings of a hearing officer of the State Bar of
xxx California suspending him from the practice of law for three years.
Under the said doctrine, a matter that has been We held in that case that –
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction There is nothing in the By-Laws which explicitly provides
must be deemed to have been finally and that one must be morally fit before he can run for IBP
conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent governorship. For one, this is so because the determination
litigation between the same parties and for the of moral fitness of a candidate lies in the individual
same cause. It provides that judgment of the members of the House of Delegates.
[a] final judgment on the merits rendered by a Indeed, based on each member's standard of morality, he is
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to free to nominate and elect any member, so long as the latter
the rights of the parties and their privies; and possesses the basic requirements under the law. For
constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions another, basically the disqualification of a candidate
involving the same claim, demand, or cause of involving lack of moral fitness should emanate from his
action. Res judicata is based on the ground that disbarment or suspension from the practice of law by this
the party to be affected, or some other with whom Court, or conviction by final judgment of an offense which
he is in privity, has litigated the same matter in involves moral turpitude.30
the former action in a court of competent What this simply means is that absent a final judgment by the
jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to Supreme Court in a proper case declaring otherwise, every lawyer
litigate it again. aspiring to hold the position of IBP Regional Director is presumed
This principle frees the parties from undergoing morally fit. Any person who begs to disagree will not be able to find
all over again the rigors of unnecessary suits and a receptive audience in the IBP through a petition for disqualification
repetitious trials. At the same time, it prevents but must first file the necessary disbarment or suspension proceeding
the clogging of court dockets. Equally important, against the lawyer concerned.
res judicata stabilizes rights and promotes the And this is precisely what complainant has chosen to do in the instant
rule of law." case. As his petition is sufficient in form and substance, we have
In the instant administrative case, it is clear that the issues given it due course pursuant to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. And,
raised by the complainant had already been resolved by this considering that this case is not barred by the prior judgment in Adm.
Court in an earlier administrative case. The complainant's Case No. 6052, the only issue left for consideration is whether or not
contention that the principle of res judicata would not Atty. de Vera can be suspended or disbarred under the facts of the
apply in the case at bar as the first administrative case was case and the evidence submitted by complainant.
one for disqualification while the instant administrative The recommendation of the hearing officer of the State Bar of
complaint is one for suspension and/or disbarment should California, standing alone, is not proof of malpractice.
be given least credence. It is worthy to note that while the In the case of the Suspension From The Practice of Law In The
instant administrative complaint is denominated as one for Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G. Maquera,31 we were confronted
suspension and/or disbarment, it prayed neither the with the question of whether or not a member of the Philippine Bar,
suspension nor the disbarment of the respondent but instead who is concomitantly an attorney in a foreign jurisdiction and who
merely sought to enjoin the respondent from assuming was suspended from the practice of law in said foreign jurisdiction,
office as IBP National President.28 can be sanctioned as member of the Philippine Bar for the same
Contrary to the findings of the Bar Confidant, Adm. Case No. 6052 infraction committed in the foreign jurisdiction.
entitled, "In Re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. Leonard de Vera, on We take the issue in Atty. Maquera one notch higher in the case of
Legal and Moral Grounds, From Being Elected IBP Governor for Atty. de Vera who was admitted to the practice of law in a foreign
Eastern Mindanao in the May 31 IBP Election" and promulgated on jurisdiction (State Bar of California, U.S.A.) and against whom
11 December 2003 does not constitute a bar to the filing of Adm. charges were filed in connection with his practice in said jurisdiction.
Case No. 6697. Although the parties in the present administrative However, unlike the case of Atty. Maquera, no final judgment for
case and in Adm. Case No. 6052 are identical, their capacities in suspension or disbarment was meted against Atty. de Vera despite a
these cases and the issues presented therein are not the same, thereby recommendation of suspension of three years as he surrendered his
barring the application of res judicata. license to practice law before his case could be taken up by the
In order that the principle of res judicata may be made to apply, four Supreme Court of California.
essential conditions must concur, namely: (1) the judgment sought to In Maquera, we emphasized that the judgment of suspension against
bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not automatically
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines as the acts
the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment or giving rise to his suspension are not grounds for disbarment and
order on the merits, and (4) there must be between the first and suspension in this jurisdiction. Judgment of suspension against a
second action identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and Filipino lawyer may transmute into a similar judgment of suspension
identity of causes of action.29 In the absence of any one of these in the Philippines only if the basis of the foreign court's action
elements, Atty. de Vera cannot argue res judicata in his favor. includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this
It is noteworthy that the two administrative cases involve different jurisdiction. We likewise held that the judgment of the foreign court
subject matters and causes of action. In Adm. Case No. 6052, the merely constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer.
subject matter was the qualification of Atty. de Vera to run as a The Maquera ruling is consistent with Rule 39, Section 48, of the
candidate for the position of IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao. In Rules of Court which provides:
the present administrative complaint, the subject matter is his Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The
privilege to practice law. In the first administrative case, effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign
complainants' cause of action was Atty. de Vera's alleged violation or country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final
circumvention of the IBP By-laws. In the present administrative case, order is as follows:
the primary cause of action is Atty. de Vera's alleged violation of xxxx
lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the
Finally, the two administrative cases do not seek the same relief. In judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right
the first case, the complainants sought to prevent Atty. de Vera from as between the parties and their successors in interest by a
assuming his post as IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao. In the subsequent title.
present case, as clarified by complainant in his Memorandum, what is In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled
being principally sought is Atty. de Vera's suspension or disbarment. by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
The distinctions between the two cases are far from trivial. The party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
previous case was resolved on the basis of the parties' rights and
In Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. v. Fasgi Enterprises, Inc.,32 we established if it is supported by substantial evidence or that amount of
explained that "[a] foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, to justify a conclusion.43 It means such evidence which affords a
on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be reasonably
giving of due notice in the foreign forum." inferred.44
In herein case, considering that there is technically no foreign Beyond doubt, the unauthorized use by a lawyer of his client's funds
judgment to speak of, the recommendation by the hearing officer of is highly unethical. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
the State Bar of California does not constitute prima facie evidence Responsibility is emphatic about this, thus:
of unethical behavior by Atty. de Vera. Complainant must prove by CANON 16. A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
substantial evidence the facts upon which the recommendation by the MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT
hearing officer was based. If he is successful in this, he must then MAY COME TO HIS POSSESSION.
prove that these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine law. Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or
There is substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Atty. de property collected or received for or from the client.
Vera independent of the recommendation of suspension by the Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
hearing officer of the State Bar of California separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
Section 27 of Rule 138 of our Rules of Court states: him.
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by In Espiritu v. Ulep45 we held that –
Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar The relation between attorney and client is highly fiduciary
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney in nature. Being such, it requires utmost good faith, loyalty,
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other fidelity and disinterestedness on the part of the attorney. Its
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, fiduciary nature is intended for the protection of the client.
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates every
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is lawyer to hold in trust all money and properties of his client
required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful that may come into his possession. Accordingly, he shall
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for account for all money or property collected or received for
corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to or from the client. Even more specific is the Canon of
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting Professional Ethics:
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or The lawyer should refrain from any action
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. whereby for his personal benefit or gain he
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the abuses or takes advantage of the confidence
Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinary reposed in him by his client.
agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been Money of the client or collected for the client or
admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or other trust property coming into the possession of
suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the the lawyer should be reported and accounted for
acts hereinabove enumerated. promptly and should not under any
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or circumstances be commingled with his own or be
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the used by him.
ground for disbarment or suspension.33 Consequently, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the
Disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to protect the court funds or property held by him on behalf of his client gives
and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court and to rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same
protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the
exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and trust reposed in him by, his client. It is a gross violation of
reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.34 general morality as well as of professional ethics; it impairs
The statutory enunciation of the grounds for disbarment on the public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of punishment.
courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent power of the court Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them
over its officers cannot be restricted.35 are in gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty
Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
duty committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical Those who are guilty of such infraction may be disbarred or
meaning to the term "Malpractice."36 That meaning is in consonance suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. (Emphases
with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not supplied.)
a business.37 In herein case, as it is admitted by Atty. de Vera himself that he used
Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules his client's money for personal use, he has unwittingly sealed his own
on ethical code of his profession or which is unbecoming a member fate since this admission constitutes more than substantial evidence
of that profession.38 of malpractice. Consequently, Atty. de Vera now has the burden of
Now, the undisputed facts: rebutting the evidence which he himself supplied.
1. An administrative case against Atty. de Vera was filed before the In his defense, Atty. de Vera claims that he was duly authorized by
State Bar of California, docketed then as Adm. Case No. 86-0-18429. the elder Willis to use the funds intended for the latter's son. Atty. de
It arose from an insurance case Atty. de Vera handled involving Vera also points out that he had restituted the full amount of
Julius Willis, III who figured in an automobile accident in 1986. Atty. US$12,000.00 even before the filing of the administrative case
de Vera was authorized by the elder Willis (father of Julius who was against him in the State Bar of California.46
given authority by the son to control the case because the latter was Aside from these self-serving statements, however, we cannot find
then studying in San Diego California) for the release of the funds in anywhere in the records of this case proof that indeed Atty. de Vera
settlement of the case. Atty. de Vera received a check in settlement of was duly authorized to use the funds of his client. In Radjaie v. Atty.
the case which he then deposited to his personal account;39 Alovera47 we declared that –
2. The Hearing referee in the said administrative case recommended When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it
that Atty. de Vera be suspended from the practice of law for three is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he
years;40 and must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against
3. Atty. de Vera resigned from the California Bar which resignation him. He must show proof that he still maintains that degree
was accepted by the Supreme Court of California.41 of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of
Atty. de Vera vehemently insists that the foregoing facts do not prove him.
that he misappropriated his client's funds as the latter's father (the Atty. de Vera cannot rely on the statement made by the hearing
elder Willis) gave him authority to use the same and that, officer that the elder Willis had indeed testified that he "expected de
unfortunately, the hearing officer did not consider this explanation Vera might use the money for a few days." As Atty. de Vera had
notwithstanding the fact that the elder Willis testified under oath that vigorously objected to the admissibility of the document containing
he "expected de Vera might use the money for a few days." this statement, he is now estopped from relying thereon. Besides, that
By insisting that he was authorized by his client's father and attorney- the elder Willis "expected de Vera might use the money for a few
in-fact to use the funds, Atty. de Vera has impliedly admitted the use days" was not so much an acknowledgment of consent to the use by
of the Willis funds for his own personal use. Atty. de Vera of his client's funds as it was an acceptance of the
In fact, Atty. de Vera did not deny complainant's allegation in the probability that Atty. de Vera might, indeed, use his client's funds,
latter's memorandum that he (de Vera) received US$12,000.00 which by itself did not speak well of the character of Atty. de Vera or
intended for his client and that he deposited said amount in his the way such character was perceived.
personal account and not in a separate trust account and that, finally, In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in holding on to his
he spent the amount for personal purposes.42 client's money without the latter's acquiescence is conduct indicative
At this point, it bears stressing that in cases filed before of lack of integrity and propriety. It is clear that Atty. de Vera, by
administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his
own benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and to serve as governor for the unexpired portion of the term.
unethical behavior. He caused dishonor, not only to himself but to the (Emphasis supplied)
noble profession to which he belongs. For, it cannot be denied that Under the aforementioned section, a member of the IBP Board may
the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished be removed for cause by resolution adopted by two-thirds (2/3) of the
whenever a member of the profession betrays their trust and remaining members of the Board, subject to the approval of this
confidence.48 Respondent violated his oath to conduct himself with Court.
all good fidelity to his client. In the main, Atty. de Vera questions his removal from the Board of
Nevertheless, we do not agree with complainant's plea to disbar Governors on procedural and substantive grounds. He argues that he
respondent from the practice of law. The power to disbar must be was denied "very basic rights of due process recognized by the
exercised with great caution.49 Where any lesser penalty can Honorable Court even in administrative cases" like the right to
accomplish the end desired, disbarment should not be decreed. answer formally or in writing and within reasonable time, the right to
In Mortera v. Pagatpatan,50 we imposed upon Atty. Pagatpatan two present witnesses in his behalf, the right to a fair hearing. Atty. de
years suspension from his practice of law for depositing the funds Vera protests the fact that he was not able to cross-examine the
meant for his client to his personal account without the latter's complainant, IBP Gov. Romulo H. Rivera (Atty. Rivera) and that
knowledge. In Reyes v. Maglaya;51 Castillo v. Taguines;52 Espiritu v. Atty. Rivera voted as well for his expulsion which made him accuser,
Atty. Cabredo IV,53 the respondents were meted one year suspension prosecutor and judge at the same time. Atty. de Vera emphasized the
each for failing to remit to their clients monies in the amounts of fact that Atty. Rivera initially inhibited himself from voting on his
P1,500.00; P500.00, and P51,161.00, respectively, received by them own motion. However, when his inhibition resulted in the defeat of
for their clients without the latter's permission. In Dumadag v. Atty. his motion as the necessary 2/3 votes could not be mustered, Atty.
Lumaya,54 we indefinitely suspended respondent for failure to remit Rivera asked for another round of voting so he could vote to support
to his client the amount of the measly sum of P4,344.00 representing his own motion.
the amount received pursuant to a writ of execution. Considering the The IBP Board counters that since its members were present during
amount involved here – US$12,000.00, we believe that the penalty of the plenary session, and personally witnessed and heard Atty. de
suspension for two (2) years is appropriate. Vera's actuations, an evidentiary or formal hearing was no longer
Transferring IBP membership to a chapter where the lawyer is not necessary. Since they all witnessed and heard Atty. de Vera, it was
a resident of is not a ground for his suspension or disbarment enough that he was given an opportunity to refute and answer all the
Complainant insists that Atty. de Vera's transfer of membership from charges imputed against him. They emphasized that Atty. de Vera
the Pasay, Parañaque, Las Piñas and Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter to was given a copy of the complaint and that he was present at the
the Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter is a circumvention of the rotation Board Meeting on 13 May 2005 wherein the letter-complaint against
rule as it was made for the sole purpose of becoming IBP National him was part of the agenda. Therein, he was given the opportunity to
President. Complainant stresses that Atty. de Vera is not a resident of be heard and that, in fact, Atty. de Vera did argue his case.
Agusan del Sur nor does he hold office therein. We are in agreement with the IBP Board.
In Adm. Case No. 6052, we held that Atty. de Vera's act of First, it needs stressing that the constitutional provision on due
transferring to another IBP Chapter is not a ground for his process safeguards life, liberty and property. 55 It cannot be said that
disqualification for the post of IBP Governor as the same is allowed the position of EVP of the IBP is property within the constitutional
under Section 19 of the IBP By-Laws with the qualification only that sense especially since there is no right to security of tenure over said
the transfer be made not less than three months immediately position as, in fact, all that is required to remove any member of the
preceding any chapter election. board of governors for cause is a resolution adopted by 2/3 of the
As it was perfectly within Atty. de Vera's right to transfer his remaining members of the board.
membership, it cannot be said that he is guilty of unethical conduct or Secondly, even if the right of due process could be rightfully
behavior. And while one may incessantly argue that a legal act may invoked, still, in administrative proceedings, the essence of due
not necessarily be ethical, in herein case, we do not see anything process is simply the opportunity to explain one's side.56 At the
wrong in transferring to an IBP chapter that -- based on the rotation outset, it is here emphasized that the term "due process of law" as
rule – will produce the next IBP EVP who will automatically succeed used in the Constitution has no fixed meaning for all purposes due "to
to the National Presidency for the next term. Our Code of the very nature of the doctrine which, asserting a fundamental
Professional Responsibility as well as the Lawyer's Oath do not principle of justice rather than a specific rule of law, is not
prohibit nor punish lawyers from aspiring to be IBP National susceptible of more than one general statement."57 The phrase is so
President and from doing perfectly legal acts in accomplishing such elusive of exact apprehension,58 because it depends on circumstances
goal. and varies with the subject matter and the necessities of the
Bar Matter No. 1227 situation.59
Administrative Matter No. 05-5-15-SC Due process of law in administrative cases is not identical with
To resolve Bar Matter No. 1227 and Administrative Matter No. 05-5- "judicial process" for a trial in court is not always essential to due
15-SC, the following issues must be addressed: process. While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial
I. Whether the IBP Board of Governors acted with grave proceedings, it is otherwise in administrative proceedings since they
abuse of discretion in removing Atty. de Vera as Governor rest upon different principles. The due process clause guarantees no
and EVP of the IBP on 13 May 2005. particular form of procedure and its requirements are not technical.
i. Whether the IBP Board of Governors complied Thus, in certain proceedings of administrative character, the right to a
with administrative due process in removing notice or hearing are not essential to due process of law. The
Atty. de Vera. constitutional requirement of due process is met by a fair hearing
ii. Whether the IBP removed Atty. De Vera for before a regularly established administrative agency or tribunal. It is
just and valid cause. not essential that hearings be had before the making of a
II. Whether Governor Salazar was validly elected as EVP determination if thereafter, there is available trial and tribunal before
of the IBP on 25 June 2005, and can consequently assume which all objections and defenses to the making of such
the Presidency of the IBP for the term 2005-2007. determination may be raised and considered. One adequate hearing is
The IBP Board observed due process in its removal of Atty. de Vera all that due process requires. What is required for "hearing" may
as IBP Governor differ as the functions of the administrative bodies differ.60
We start the discussion with the veritable fact that the IBP Board is The right to cross-examine is not an indispensable aspect of due
vested with the power to remove any of its members pursuant to process.61 Nor is an actual hearing always essential62 especially under
Section 44, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws, which states: the factual milieu of this case where the members of the IBP Board --
Sec. 44. Removal of members. – If the Board of Governors upon whose shoulders the determination of the cause for removal of
should determine after proper inquiry that any of its an IBP governor is placed subject to the approval of the Supreme
members, elective or otherwise, has for any reason become Court – all witnessed Atty. de Vera's actuations in the IBP National
unable to perform his duties, the Board, by resolution of the Convention in question.
Majority of the remaining members, may declare his It is undisputed that Atty. de Vera received a copy of the complaint
position vacant, subject to the approval of the Supreme against him and that he was present when the matter was taken up.
Court. From the transcript of the stenographic notes of the 13 May 2005
Any member of the Board, elective or otherwise, may be meeting wherein Atty. de Vera was removed, it is patent that Atty. de
removed for cause, including three consecutive absences Vera was given fair opportunity to defend himself against the
from Board meetings without justifiable excuse, by accusations made by Atty. Rivera.
resolution adopted by two-thirds of the remaining Atty. de Vera, however, additionally questions the fact that Atty.
members of the Board, subject to the approval of the Rivera, who authored the complaint against him, also voted for his
Supreme Court. expulsion making him accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same
In case of any vacancy in the office of Governor for time. Atty. de Vera likewise laments the fact that Atty. Rivera
whatever cause, the delegates from the region shall by initially inhibited himself from voting but when this resulted in the
majority vote, elect a successor from among the members defeat of his motion for lack of the necessary 2/3 vote, he agreed to
of the Chapter to which the resigned governor is a member
another round of voting and that, this time, he voted in favor of his The removal of Atty. de Vera as member of the Board of Governors
motion. ipso facto meant his removal as EVP as well
For the record, of the nine governors comprising the IBP Board, six The removal of Atty. de Vera as member of the Board of Governors
voted for Atty. de Vera's expulsion (including Atty. Rivera) while 3 ipso facto meant his removal as EVP as well. Section 47, Article VII
voted against it (including Atty. de Vera). of the By-Laws of the IBP provides:
Section 44 (second paragraph) of the IBP By-Laws provides: SEC. 47. National Officers. – The Integrated Bar of the
Any member of the Board, elective or otherwise, may be Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice
removed for cause, including three consecutive absences President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from
from Board meetings without justifiable excuse, by among nine (9) regional governors, as much as practicable,
resolution adopted by two-thirds of the remaining on a rotation basis. x x x
members of the Board, subject to the approval of the Thus, to be EVP of the IBP, one must necessarily be a member of
Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied.) IBP Board of Governors. Atty. de Vera's removal from the Board of
Under the rules, a resolution for expulsion of an IBP Governor is Governors, automatically disqualified him from acting as IBP EVP.
done via a resolution adopted by 2/3 of the remaining members. The To insist otherwise would be contrary to Section 47 of the IBP By-
phrase "remaining members" refers to the members exclusive of the Laws.
complainant member and the respondent member. The reason The Court will not interfere with the Resolution of the IBP Board
therefore is that such members are interested parties and are thus to remove Atty. de Vera since it was rendered without grave abuse
presumed to be unable to resolve said motion impartially. This being of discretion
the case, the votes of Attys. Rivera and de Vera should be stricken- While it is true that the Supreme Court has been granted an extensive
off which means that only the votes of the seven remaining members power of supervision over the IBP,64 it is axiomatic that such power
are to be counted. Of the seven remaining members, five voted for should be exercised prudently. The power of supervision of the
expulsion while two voted against it which still adds up to the 2/3 Supreme Court over the IBP should not preclude the IBP from
vote requirement for expulsion. exercising its reasonable discretion especially in the administration of
The IBP Board removed Atty. de Vera as IBP Governor for just its internal affairs governed by the provisions of its By-Laws. The
and valid cause IBP By-Laws were precisely drafted and promulgated so as to define
All the concerned parties to this case agree that what constitutes the powers and functions of the IBP and its officers, establish its
cause for the removal of an IBP Governor has not been defined by organizational structure, and govern relations and transactions among
Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws albeit it includes three consecutive its officers and members. With these By-Laws in place, the Supreme
absences from Board meetings without justifiable excuse. Thus, the Court could be assured that the IBP shall be able to carry on its day-
IBP Board argues that it is vested with sufficient power and authority to-day affairs, without the Court's interference.
to protect itself from an intractable member whose removal was It should be noted that the general charge of the affairs and activities
caused not by his disagreement with the IBP Board but due to various of the IBP has been vested in the Board of Governors. The members
acts committed by him which the IBP Board considered as inimical of the Board are elective and representative of each of the nine
to the IBP Board in particular and the IBP in general. regions of the IBP as delineated in its By-Laws.65 The Board acts as a
Atty. de Vera, on the other hand, insists that speaking in collegiate body and decides in accordance with the will of the
disagreement with the Resolution of the Board during the majority. The foregoing rules serve to negate the possibility of the
Convention's Plenary Session is not a valid cause to remove or expel IBP Board acting on the basis of personal interest or malice of its
a duly-elected member of the IBP Board of Governors and the individual members. Hence, the actions and resolutions of the IBP
decision to remove him only shows that the right to freedom of Board deserve to be accorded the disputable presumption66 of
speech or the right to dissent is not recognized by the IBP Board. validity, which shall continue, until and unless it is overcome by
After weighing the arguments of the parties and in keeping with the substantial evidence and actually declared invalid by the Supreme
fundamental objective of the IBP to discharge its public Court. In the absence of any allegation and substantial proof that the
responsibility more effectively, we hereby find that Atty. de Vera's IBP Board has acted without or in excess of its authority or with
removal from the IBP Board was not capricious or arbitrary. grave abuse of discretion, we shall not be persuaded to overturn and
Indubitably, conflicts and disagreements of varying degrees of set aside the Board's action or resolution.
intensity, if not animosity, are inherent in the internal life of an There is no question that the IBP Board has the authority to remove
organization, but especially of the IBP since lawyers are said to its members as provided in Article VI, Section 44 67 of the IBP By-
disagree before they agree. Laws. Issue arises only as to whether the IBP Board abused its
However, the effectiveness of the IBP, like any other organization, is authority and discretion in resolving to remove Atty. de Vera from
diluted if the conflicts are brought outside its governing body for then his post as an IBP Governor and EVP. As has been previously
there would be the impression that the IBP, which speaks through the established herein, Atty. de Vera's removal from the IBP Board was
Board of Governors, does not and cannot speak for its members in an in accordance with due process and the IBP Board acted well within
authoritative fashion. It would accordingly diminish the IBP's the authority and discretion granted to it by its By-Laws. There being
prestige and repute with the lawyers as well as with the general no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the IBP Board, we find no
public. reason to interfere in the Board's resolution to remove Atty. de Vera.
As a means of self-preservation, internecine conflicts must thus be The election of Atty. Salazar by the IBP Board as IBP EVP in
adjusted within the governing board itself so as to free it from the replacement of Atty. De Vera was conducted in accordance with the
stresses that invariably arise when internal cleavages are made public. authority granted to the Board by the IBP By-Laws
The doctrine of majority rule is almost universally used as a In the same manner, we find no reason to disturb the action taken by
mechanism for adjusting and resolving conflicts and disagreements the 2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors in holding a special election
within the group after the members have been given an opportunity to to fill-in the vacant post resulting from the removal of Atty. de Vera
be heard. While it does not efface conflicts, nonetheless, once a as EVP of the IBP since the same is a purely internal matter, done
decision on a contentious matter is reached by a majority vote, the without grave abuse of discretion, and implemented without violating
dissenting minority is bound thereby so that the board can speak with the Rules and By-Laws of the IBP.
one voice, for those elected to the governing board are deemed to With the removal of Atty. de Vera from the Board, by virtue of the
implicitly contract that the will of the majority shall govern in matters IBP Board Resolution dated 13 May 2005, he was also removed from
within the authority of the board.63 his post as EVP; thus, there was a resultant vacancy in the position of
The IBP Board, therefore, was well within its right in removing Atty. IBP EVP.
de Vera as the latter's actuations during the 10th National IBP Article VI, Section 41(g) of the IBP By-Laws expressly grants to the
Convention were detrimental to the role of the IBP Board as the Board the authority to fill vacancies, however arising, in the IBP
governing body of the IBP. When the IBP Board is not seen by the positions, subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Integration
bar and the public as a cohesive unit, it cannot effectively perform its Rule,68 and Section 11 (Vacancies),69 Section 44 (Removal of
duty of helping the Supreme Court enforce the code of legal ethics members),70 Section 47 (National officers),71 Section 48 (other
and the standards of legal practice as well as improve the officers),72 and Section 49 (Terms of Office)73 of the By-Laws. The
administration of justice. IBP Board has specific and sufficient guidelines in its Rules and By-
In view of the importance of retaining group cohesiveness and unity, Laws on how to fill-in the vacancies after the removal of Atty. de
the expulsion of a member of the board who insists on bringing to the Vera. We have faith and confidence in the intellectual, emotional and
public his disagreement with a policy/resolution approved by the ethical competencies of the remaining members of the 2005-2007
majority after due discussion, cannot be faulted. The effectiveness of Board in dealing with the situation within the bounds of the IBP
the board as a governing body will be negated if its pronouncements Rules and By-Laws.
are resisted in public by a board member. The election by the 2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors of a new
Indeed, when a member of a governing body cannot accept the voice EVP, who will assume the Presidency for the term 2005-2007, was
of the majority, he should resign therefrom so that he could criticize well within the authority and prerogative granted to the Board by the
in public the majority opinion/decision to his heart's content; IBP By-Laws, particularly Article VII, Section 47, which provides
otherwise, he subjects himself to disciplinary action by the body. that "[t]he EVP shall automatically become President for the next
succeeding term." The phrase "for the next succeeding term"
necessarily implies that the EVP that should succeed Atty. Cadiz as elected exclusively by the members of the House of Delegates of the
IBP President for the next succeeding term (i.e., 2005-2007) should Eastern Mindanao region. This Court notes that the removal of Atty.
come from the members of the 2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors. De Vera in 13 May 2005 was about a month before the expiration of
Hence, in A.M. No. 05-7-19-SC, we restrained now IBP EVP the term of office of the 2003-2005 Board of Governors. Hence, the
Feliciano Bautista from assuming the position of Acting President replacement Governor would not have been able to serve in a
because we have yet to resolve the question as to who shall succeed national capacity for two years prior to assuming the IBP Presidency.
Atty. Cadiz from the 2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors. In any case, Section 47 of the IBP Rules uses the phrase "as much as
Accordingly, the elections of Governor Santiago on 13 June 2005 as practicable" to clearly indicate that the rotation rule is not a rigid and
IBP EVP, and thereafter, Governor Salazar on 25 June 2005, as the inflexible rule as to bar exceptions in compelling and exceptional
new IBP EVP, upon the relinquishment of Gov. Santiago of the circumstances.
position, were valid. It is in view of the foregoing that the argument advanced by Atty. De
Neither can this Court give credence to the argument of Atty. De Vera that the IBP national presidency should be assumed by a
Vera that, assuming his removal as IBP Governor and EVP was nominee from Eastern Mindanao region from where he comes, can
valid, his replacement as IBP EVP should come from Eastern not hold water. It would go against the intent of the IBP By-Laws for
Mindanao Region pursuant to the rotation rule set forth in Article such a nominee would be bereft of the wealth of experience and the
VII, Section 47, of the IBP By-Laws. perspective that only one who is honed in service while serving in a
According to Article VII, Section 47, of the IBP By-Laws, the EVP national post in the IBP would have.
shall be chosen by the Board of Governors from among the nine We therefore rule that the IBP Board of Governors acted in
Regional Governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. This accordance with the IBP By-Laws, in electing Atty. Salazar as IBP
is based on our pronouncements in Bar Matter 491, wherein we ruled: EVP and in ensuring a succession in the leadership of the IBP. Had
"ORDER the Board of Governors not done so, there would have been no one
xxxx qualified to assume the Presidency of the IBP on 1 July 2005,
3. The former system of having the IBP President and pursuant to Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws.
Executive Vice-President elected by the Board of WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we rule as follows:
Governors (composed of the governors of the nine [9] IBP 1) SUSPEND Atty. Leonard de Vera in A.C. No. 6697
regions) from among themselves (as provided in Sec. 47, from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS, effective
Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be restored. The from the finality of this Resolution. Let a copy of this
right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice- Resolution be attached to the personal record of Atty.
President to the presidency upon the expiration of their Leonard de Vera and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of
two-year term (which was abolished by this Court's the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator
resolution dated July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) should for dissemination to all courts;
be as it is hereby restored. 2) DISMISS the letter-complaint of Atty. Leonard de Vera,
4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the dated 18 May 2005, in A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, praying for
Executive Vice-President shall automatically succeed to the the disapproval of the Resolution, dated 13 May 2005, of
office of president. The incoming board of governors shall the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
then elect an Executive Vice-President from among Philippines removing him from his posts as Governor and
themselves. The position of Executive Vice-President Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar of the
shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One Philippines, the said Resolution having been rendered
who has served as president may not run for election as without grave abuse of discretion;
Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election until 3) AFFIRM the election by the Board of Governors of
after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) Atty. Jose Vicente B. Salazar as Executive Vice President
regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the rotation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the remainder of
shall begin anew. the term 2003-2005, such having been conducted in
xxxx accordance with its By-Laws and absent any showing of
(Emphasis Supplied)" grave abuse of discretion; and
In Bar Matter 491, it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP which 4) DIRECT Atty. Jose Vicente B. Salazar to immediately
is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors. The rotation take his oath of office and assume the Presidency of the
with respect to the Presidency is merely a result of the automatic Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the term 2005-2007 in
succession rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency. Thus, the rotation accordance with the automatic succession rule in Article
rule pertains in particular to the position of IBP EVP, while the VII, Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws, upon receipt of this
automatic succession rule pertains to the Presidency. The rotation Resolution.
with respect to the Presidency is but a consequence of the automatic SO ORDERED.
succession rule provided in Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws. A.C. No. 7055 July 31, 2006
In the case at bar, the rotation rule was duly complied with since NORIEL MICHAEL J. RAMIENTAS, petitioner,
upon the election of Atty. De Vera as IBP EVP, each of the nine IBP vs.
regions had already produced an EVP and, thus, the rotation was ATTY. JOCELYN P. REYALA, respondent.
completed. It is only unfortunate that the supervening event of Atty. RESOLUTION
de Vera's removal as IBP Governor and EVP rendered it impossible CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
for him to assume the IBP Presidency. The fact remains, however, Before Us are Manifestations1 filed by the abovequoted parties in
that the rotation rule had been completed despite the non-assumption response to Supreme Court (SC) En Banc Resolution2 dated 7 March
by Atty. de Vera to the IBP Presidency. 2006, wherein we resolved to require them to manifest, within ten
Moreover, the application of the rotation rule is not a license to (10) days from notice, whether they are willing to submit the case at
disregard the spirit and purpose of the automatic succession rule, but bar for decision/resolution on the basis of the pleadings already on
should be applied in harmony with the latter. The automatic record.
succession rule affords the IBP leadership transition seamless and The present controversy stemmed from an Administrative Complaint3
enables the new IBP National President to attend to pressing and filed by Noriel Michael J. Ramientas on 16 February 2004 before the
urgent matters without having to expend valuable time for the usual Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar
adjustment and leadership consolidation period. The time that an IBP Discipline, seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jocelyn P.
EVP spends assisting a sitting IBP President on matters national in Reyala. The complaint was anchored on respondent Reyala's alleged
scope is in fact a valuable and indispensable preparation for the violative acts: (1) submitting a pleading before the Court of Appeals
eventual succession. It should also be pointed out that this wisdom is bearing the forged signature of another lawyer; and (2) her
further underscored by the fact that an IBP EVP is elected from continuous handling of a case while working in the Court of Appeals;
among the members of the IBP Board of Governors, who are serving both contrary to a) Articles 171,4 182,5 1846 and 3557 of the Revised
in a national capacity, and not from the members at large. It is Penal Code (RPC); b) the Code of Professional Responsibility for
intrinsic in the IBP By-Laws that one who is to assume the highest Lawyers; and c) conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
position in the IBP must have been exposed to the demands and Hearing on the merits thereafter ensued.
responsibilities of national leadership. In its Resolution No. XVII-2005-171 passed on 17 December 2005,
It would therefore be consistent with the purpose and spirit of the the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the recommendation of
automatic succession rule for Governor Salazar to assume the post of Atty. Edmund T. Espina, Investigating Commissioner, finding
IBP President. By electing the replacement EVP from among the respondent Reyala guilty of the abovementioned violative acts. It,
members of the 2003-2005 Board of Governors, the IBP benefits however, modified the recommended penalty to be imposed from six
from the experience of the IBP EVP of 2003-2005 – in this case, (6) months suspension (from the practice of law) to two (2) years,
Governor Salazar – who would have served in a national capacity with the corresponding warning that a repetition of any breach of her
prior to his assumption of the highest position. professional duties will be dealt with more severely.8
It will also be inconsistent with the purpose and spirit of the On 13 February 2006, the Office of the Bar Confidant, SC, received a
automatic succession rule if the EVP for the term 2003-2005 will be letter dated 30 January 2006, from Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan, Director
for Bar Discipline of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, misapprehension of facts or misappreciation of the
addressed to SC Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, stating therein evidence.16 (Emphasis supplied.)
that: Clearly, the aforequoted ruling amended the IBP By-Laws in that it
We are transmitting herewith the following documents effectively removed a motion for reconsideration from the roster of
pertaining to the above9 case pursuant to Rule 139-B: proscribed pleadings in the level of the IBP. It must be remembered
1. Notice of the Resolution; that it is well within the Court's power to amend the By-Laws of the
2. Records of the case consisting of Volume I 1-185 pages. IBP – § 77 of the same vests in this Court the power to amend,
In the interregnum, however, respondent Reyala submitted10 to the modify or repeal it, either motu proprio or upon recommendation of
IBP an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the resolution the IBP Board of Governors.
suspending her. Prescinding from the above, though the aforequoted ruling involves
On 7 March 2006, the SC En Banc, acting on the letter and §12 (c)17 of Rule 139-B, nothing in the decision contradicts its
transmittal, resolved to require complainant Ramientas and application to §12 (b) of the same rule, thus, it now stands that a
respondent Reyala to manifest whether they are willing to submit the motion for reconsideration of IBP resolutions may be filed by an
case for decision/resolution based on the pleadings and documents aggrieved party within the period stated.
already on record. A point of clarification, however, is in order. While in the Halimao
Both parties submitted their compliance thereto. ruling we nevertheless treated the motion for reconsideration filed by
In his Manifestation,11 complainant Ramientas acceded to the Atty. Villanueva as his Petition for Review before this Court within
submission of the case for decision/resolution based on the pleadings the contemplation of Rule 139-B, § 12 (c), such action on our part
already on record. was necessitated by "expediency." In the case at bar, acknowledging
Respondent Reyala, on the other hand, demurred12 to such submission the raison d'être for the allowance of motions for reconsideration of
for the meantime considering that the Motion for Reconsideration she resolutions of the IBP in disciplinary cases against lawyers, which is
earlier filed before the IBP remained unresolved to date. Further, she the exhaustion of administrative remedies as expressly recognized by
stated that when she scheduled said motion for hearing, she was the same Halimao ruling, the remand of the case at bar back to the
informed13 by the IBP that it was precluded from acting on the IBP is in order. This course of action rests upon the presumption that
aforesaid motion as it had already transmitted to this Court the whole when the grievance machinery is afforded a chance to pass upon the
records of the particular case together with Resolution No. XVII- matter, it will decide the same correctly,18
2005-171, which recommended that she be suspended from the Certainly, prudence dictates that the IBP be given the opportunity to
practice of law for two (2) years. Thus, she prayed that her motion for correct its mistakes, if any, by way of motions for reconsideration
reconsideration be decided first by the IBP Board of Governors before this Court takes cognizance of the case. This is to further
before submitting the case for decision/resolution to this Court. insure that the grievance procedure will be allowed to duly run its
Prefatorily, a reading of the By-Laws of the IBP will reveal that a course – a form of filtering process, particularly respecting matters
motion for reconsideration of its resolution or order is a prohibited within the competence of the IBP, before we step in.
pleading. § 2 of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission In fine, though such remand will hold back the advancement of the
on Bar Discipline of the IBP provides that: case, nevertheless, it bears emphasizing that it is equally important
SEC. 2. Prohibited Pleadings. The following pleadings that the IBP be afforded the opportunity to set things as it should be.
shall not be allowed, to wit: Observance of this basic principle is a sound practice and policy and
xxxx should never be compromised at the altar of expediency.
c. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of In concurrence with the above, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED,
resolution or order. as it is hereby resolved, that in accordance with our ruling in
xxxx Halimao v. Villanueva,19 pertinent provisions of Rule III of the Rules
Parenthetically, at first glance, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, as contained in
rules governing the disbarment and discipline of attorneys, shows that the By-Laws of the IBP, particularly § 1 and § 2, are hereby deemed
there is no provision regarding motions for reconsideration of amended. Accordingly, § 1 of said rules now reads as follows:
resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors suspending respondent SECTION. 1. Pleadings. – The only pleadings allowed are
lawyers. However, worth noting is the fact that neither does it verified complaint, verified answer, verified position papers
particularly proscribe the filing of such motions. §12 (b) of Rule 139- and motion for reconsideration of a resolution. [Emphasis
B of the Rules of Court reads: supplied.]
SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. And in § 2, a motion for reconsideration is, thus, removed from the
–xxx purview of the class of prohibited pleadings.
xxxx Further, the following guidelines shall be observed by the IBP in
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total respect of disciplinary cases against lawyers:
membership, determines that the respondent should be 1. The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a motion
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall for reconsideration of the IBP resolution containing its findings and
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations within fifteen (15) days from notice of receipt by
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the parties thereon;
the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme 2. If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an
Court for final action. (Emphasis supplied.) aggrieved party, the IBP must first resolve the same prior to elevating
xxxx to this Court the subject resolution together with the whole record of
Hence, this impasse. the case;
A judicious review of our current jurisprudence will reveal that said 3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period
impasse is more ostensible than real. Our pronouncement in the case provided for, the IBP is directed to forthwith transmit to this Court,
of Halimao v. Villanueva,14 promulgated close to two decades after for final action, the subject resolution together with the whole record
the effectivity of the IBP By-Laws,15 effectively amended the latter in of the case;
so far as motions for reconsideration of IBP resolutions in 4. A party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IBP may file a
disciplinary cases against lawyers are concerned. petition for review before this Court within fifteen (15) days from
In the Halimao case, we took the occasion to articulate our stance notice of said resolution sought to be reviewed; and
respecting motions for reconsideration of resolutions of the IBP 5. For records of cases already transmitted to this Court where there
Board of Governors in disciplinary cases against lawyers. This Court exist pending motions for reconsideration filed in due time before the
was confronted therein with somewhat the same set of circumstance IBP, the latter is directed to withdraw from this Court the subject
as the case at bar in that after the IBP Board of Governors transmitted resolutions together with the whole records of the cases, within 30
to us its resolution adopting the recommendation of the investigating days from notice, and, thereafter, to act on said motions with
commissioner dismissing the disbarment complaint against reasonable dispatch.
respondent Villanueva for being barred by res judicata, complainant Consistent with the discussions hereinabove set forth, let the whole
Halimao filed a motion for reconsideration. The latter opposed such record of this case be immediately remanded to the IBP for the proper
motion on the ground that Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court does not disposition of respondent Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyala's motion for
provide for such a possibility of review. In resolving the issue, this reconsideration.
Court, through Mr. Justice Mendoza, held that: SO ORDERED.
Although Rule 139-B, §12 (c) makes no mention of a A.C. No. 4914 March 3, 2004
motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its SPOUSES JENELINE DONATO and MARIO DONATO,
history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may complainants,
therefore be filed within 15 days from notice to a party. vs.
Indeed, the filing of such motion should be encouraged ATTY. ISAIAH B. ASUNCION, SR., respondent.
before resort is made to this Court as a matter of DECISION
exhaustion of administrative remedies, to afford the SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
agency rendering the judgment an opportunity to correct This is a complaint for disbarment filed by spouses Jeneline and
any error it may have committed through a Mario Donato against Atty. Isaiah B. Asuncion, Sr.
The complaint alleges that on July 22, 1994, complainant spouses and reformation of instrument that the intention of the parties is not
respondent Atty. Asuncion, Sr. executed a Contract to Sell wherein expressed therein; that what they intended to execute was a deed of
the latter conveyed to the former his parcel of land with an area of equitable mortgage, not a deed of absolute sale; and that the mistake
10,776 square meters (or 1.0776 hectare) situated at San Miguel, was committed by the person who drafted the instrument.
Pangasinan covered by Tax Declaration No. 34-12256. The parties We observe that the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by the
agreed that the purchase price is in the amount of P187,500.00 parties on December 14, 1994. However, respondent filed Civil Case
payable by installments. No. U-6352 for reformation of instrument only on April 23, 1997, or
On December 20, 1994, after the complainants had paid the last after two years, four months and nine days. Why did it take him more
installment, the parties executed a Deed of Absolute Sale. This than two years to realize that the previous contract did not express the
document was prepared by respondent wherein he made it appear that true intention of the parties? The reason for this delay can be gleaned
the consideration is only P50,000.00 in order to reduce the amount of from the allegations in his complaint in Civil Case No. U-6352 for
the corresponding capital gain tax. reformation of instrument. He alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale
More than two years later, or on January 10, 1997, the National should have been an equitable mortgage since the consideration
Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) filed with the Regional Trial Court stated therein is only P50,000.00, while the NAPOCOR has agreed to
(RTC), Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, an action for eminent purchase the lot for P3,000,000.00. It is thus clear that it was only
domain, docketed as Civil Case No. U-6293. Among the parcels of when he knew that the value of the lot suddenly increased by leaps
land being expropriated was the lot purchased by complainants for and bounds that he thought of filing the complaint for reformation of
which NAPOCOR was willing to pay P3,000,000.00. instrument.
Respondent then offered his legal services to complainants and At this point, it bears stressing that respondent does not dispute
demanded 12% of whatever amount they will receive from complainants’ contention that they paid him P187,500.00, not
NAPOCOR. P50,000.00. As earlier mentioned, complainants explained that the
When respondent learned that complainants intended to hire the latter price was specified in the deed of absolute sale in order to
services of another lawyer, he threatened them by filing with the reduce the amount of the corresponding capital gain tax.
RTC, Branch 45, Urdaneta, Pangasinan Civil Case No. U-6352 for We likewise sustain the finding of Commissioner Maala that the
reformation of instrument. In his complaint, he alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale was prepared by respondent himself, as shown
contract executed by the parties is not a deed of sale but an equitable by his letters to Myrna Tugawin, sister of complainant Jeneline
mortgage because the price of the lot (P50,000.00) stated in the Donato. In his letter dated August 31, 1994, respondent informed
contract is unusually inadequate compared to NAPOCOR’s offer of Myrna that "a Deed of Sale will be executed by us" (referring to him
P3,000,000.00. and the complainants). In his letter of September 1, 1994, respondent
The complaint further alleges that in filing Civil Case No. U-6352 for asked Myrna to bring P50,000.00 on September 3, 1994 "for the
reformation of instrument, respondent "has dragged them to useless execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale." And in his letter dated
and expensive litigation." His act is "contrary to law and morality" December 20, 1994, respondent requested Myrna to bring
which warrants his disbarment. complainants’ "balance" on December 22, 1994. If it were true that
In his comment on the instant administrative complaint, respondent the contract between the parties is an equitable mortgage, why did he
claimed that complainants violated the rule on forum shopping. prepare a different one – a Deed of Absolute Sale?
According to him, the issue raised in this administrative complaint We find respondent guilty of gross misconduct.
and in complainants’ answer to his complaint in Civil Case No. U- A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing
6352 for reformation of instrument is the same, i.e., "the legality and any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or
morality" of the filing of this civil case. good demeanor.1 Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
In a Resolution dated February 7, 1998, we referred this case to the mandates:
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and "SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
recommendation. grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or
In her Report and Recommendation dated March 3, 2003, Atty. suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, IBP Hearing Commissioner, made the deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
following findings: immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
"After a careful study and consideration of the facts and evidence moral turpitude, of for any violation of the oath which he is required
presented, we find respondent to have committed gross misconduct. to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
In the Civil Case No. U-6352 before the RTC, Branch 45, Urdaneta appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do
City, for Reformation of Instrument, respondent was not telling the so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
truth when he alleged under paragraph 6 ‘That although the document either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
is captioned Deed of Absolute Sale, the true intention of the parties is malpractice.
not expressed by reason of mistake on the part of the person who x x x."
drafted the document, because the instrument should be equitable In SPO2 Jose B. Yap vs. Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr.,2 we
mortgage x x x.’ Between the complainants and the respondent, it is explained the concept of gross misconduct as any inexcusable,
the latter who knows about the law, be it the difference between a shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person
Deed of Absolute Sale and an Equitable Mortgage. And because he is concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to the
the lawyer and he has a law office together with his son, it is rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. Such
presumed that he was the one who prepared the Deed of Absolute conduct is generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or
Sale wherein the consideration indicated was only P50,000.00. We intentional purpose. The term, however, does not necessarily imply
believed complainants that the Deed of Absolute Sale was prepared corruption or criminal intent.
by respondent to lessen the amount of capital gain tax. Respondent In committing such gross misconduct, respondent violated his solemn
cannot deny that he was the one who prepared the Deed of Absolute oath as a lawyer imposing upon himself the following duties, thus:
Sale as shown by his letters to Myrna Tugawin (sister of Jeneline "I, ______________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain
Donato) dated 31 August 1994, 1 September 1994 and 20 December allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its
1994. After the lapse of several years, respondent filed the complaint Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
for Reformation of Instrument because he realized that the price paid constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to
to him by complainants was unusually inadequate in view of the fact the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or
that the same land was being purchased by NAPOCOR for sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to
P3,000,000.00. the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
"The contention of respondent that this administrative complaint is a myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
violation of the rule on ‘forum shopping’ is without merit. There is discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients;
‘forum shopping’ when as a result of an adverse opinion in one and I impose upon myself this obligation without any mental
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God."
certiorari) in another (First Phil International Bank vs. CA, 252 By filing the unfounded complaint for reformation of instrument to
SCRA 259), or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings obtain financial gain, respondent did not only abuse and misuse the
grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other judicial processes, but likewise harassed the complainants and forced
court would make a favorable disposition (Chemphil Export & them to litigate unnecessarily. Indeed, his act was intended to
Improt Corp. vs. CA, 251 SCRA 257)." advance his own interest at the expense of truth and the
and recommended that complainant be suspended from the practice administration of justice, a manifestation of flaw in his character as a
of law for one (1) year. lawyer.
In its Resolution No. XV-2003-345, the IBP Board of Governors The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is a special
adopted and approved the Report of Commissioner Maala with the privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually,
recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of academically and morally.3 We have been exacting in our demand for
law for only six (6) months. integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. 4 We
We sustain the finding of the Hearing Commissioner that respondent expect them at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
was not telling the truth when he alleged in his complaint for legal profession5 and refrain from any act or omission which might
lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity thereat." He also undertakes to always faithfully abide by the ideals,
of the legal profession.6 canons and ethics of the legal profession once his suspension is lifted.
Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his profession or private Respondent has been suspended from the practice of law since
capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or October 11, 2001. Thus, for more than five years, respondent had
disbarment because good character is an essential qualification for ample time and opportunity to amend his erring ways and rehabilitate
the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of such himself as proven by the certifications attesting to his moral
privilege.7 We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that character. Thus, he has shown that he is worthy once again to enjoy
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) the privilege of being a member of the Bar. The lifting of the order
months for gross misconduct. suspending him from the practice of law is therefore in order.
Incidentally, respondent’s defense of forum shopping is utterly bereft Similarly, we find merit in respondent's plea for the release of the
of merit. Suffice it to state that complainants did not institute two monetary equivalent of his accrued leave credits. Section 58 of the
actions grounded on the same cause of action on the supposition that Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides
one or the other court might look with favor upon them. in part:
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ISAIAH B. ASUNCION, SR. is Section 58. Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain
found GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT and is hereby Penalties.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of
MONTHS effective from notice. cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits,
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the personal records of and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the
respondent as a member of the Bar; and be furnished the Bar government service, unless otherwise provided in the
Confidant, the IBP, and the Court Administrator for circulation to all decision.
courts in the country. The above Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
SO ORDERED. Service, specifically Section 86 thereof, repealed Section 9, Rule XIV
A.M. No. 2001-9-SC July 14, 2006 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Administrative Code
DOROTEO IGOY, complainant, of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), which provides for the forfeiture
vs. of not only the retirement benefits but of the leave credits as well. By
ATTY. GILBERT F. SORIANO, respondent. so repealing, it must have been the intent of the framers of the Rules
RESOLUTION to exclude the forfeiture of the latter as one of the penalties inherent
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: in the penalty of dismissal.
On October 11, 2001, this Court unanimously ruled to dismiss In Villaros v. Orpiano,4 the Court noted that even when the penalty is
respondent Atty. Gilbert Soriano from the service, with forfeiture of dismissal, the forfeiture of the leave credits is not imposed by the
all retirement benefits and leave credits, with prejudice to applicable rule found in Section 58 of the Uniform Rules on
reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. In Paredes v. Padua,5 the
including government-owned or controlled corporations, and Court held that despite their dismissal from the service, government
indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law. We denied with employees are entitled to the leave credits that they have earned
finality respondent's motion for reconsideration on June 10, 2003. during the period of their employment. As a matter of fairness and
On March 31, 2006, respondent filed an Ex-Parte Plea for Clemency law, they may not be deprived of such remuneration, which they have
and Plea to Lift Order of Suspension from the Practice of Law earned prior to their dismissal. Considering the foregoing cases and
alleging that his dismissal from the service and suspension from the the provisions of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
practice of law for more than five years now is ample penalty for his Civil Service, the release of the monetary equivalent of respondent's
transgressions. He claimed that at 61 years of age, he may no longer accrued leave credits is hereby ordered.
find gainful employment but as a lawyer, he could still be a However, we cannot grant respondent's plea for the lifting of the
productive citizen and family provider. On even date, respondent also prohibition for reemployment in the government service. The records
filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Recover Money Equivalent of show that during the investigation of the instant case, respondent
Respondent's Accrued Leave Credits which he earned during his 28 offered to retire not once, but twice. In the Memorandum of the
years of service in the judiciary. Office of Administrative Services dated December 3, 2001, it was
On May 22, 2006, respondent filed a Supplement to Ex-Parte Plea noted that –
for Clemency and Plea to Lift Order of Suspension from the Practice Lastly, respondent claims that his offer to resign was
of Law and submitted certifications attesting to his good moral erroneously construed as an admission of guilt. He
character issued by (a) Rev. Fr. Ariel O. Tecson, Parish Priest of Our broached the idea that such offer came at a time when he
Lady of the Most Holy Rosary Parish, Parañaque City; (b) Sr. Silvana was emotionally, intellectually and physically wrecked by
Rescigno of the Franciscan Sisters Adorers of the Cross; (c) Rev. Fr. the filing of the complaint. The OAS cannot simply bite
Christopher Salonga of the Fr. Hannibal Foundation Center in this self-serving claim. The offer to retire/resign came
Parañaque City; (d) Rev. Fr. John Lucas of Di-Francia Center of initially as part of the first comment submitted by
Studies in Parañaque City; (e) Joseph Tan of the Knights of respondent on November 6, 2000, where in the ultimate
Columbus; and (f) Eduardo Timbungco, Bgy. Secretary of Manuyo portion, he stated that "if you find that I have committed a
Dos, Las Piñas City. At the same time, respondent prayed for the misconduct in helping Mr. Taneo despite my explanation,
lifting of the prohibition for his re-employment in any branch or may I request Your Honor that I just be allowed to retire
instrumentality of the government including government-owned or from the service" (underscoring supplied). By saying so, all
controlled corporations. along respondent honestly believed that he committed a
In fine, respondent is now asking this Court (a) to lift the order misconduct.
suspending him from the practice of law; (b) to release the monetary It may be true that by then, respondent was still
equivalent of his accrued leave credits; and (c) to lift the order emotionally bothered, which is why he reacted the same.
prohibiting his re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the However, what OAS cannot surmise is why on January 8,
government including government-owned or controlled corporation. 2001, respondent reiterated the same offer through a letter
Without overlooking respondent's infractions which caused his of even date addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice. This
dismissal from the service and suspension from the practice of law, only means that he made this reiteration after he already
we take a second look at the penalties imposed upon him. had sufficient opportunity to determine the consequence or
The suspension of a lawyer is not intended primarily as a punishment, effect of the first offer. Considering that he is bent in doing
but as a measure of protection of the public and the profession,1 the so, it is reasonably assumed he made the subsequent offer
lifting of which is based on the same criterion used by the Court in to resign/retire freely and voluntarily.
applications for reinstatement to practice law, that is, whether or not We also note that when respondent filed the Ex-Parte Plea for
"the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of Clemency and Plea to Lift Order of Suspension from the Practice of
justice will be conserved by the [respondent's] participation therein Law on March 31, 2006, he prayed only for the lifting of his
in the capacity of an attorney and counselor at law."2 The respondent suspension from the practice of law. In fact, he admitted that he is no
must, like a candidate for admission to the Bar, satisfy the Court that longer interested in appealing his "dismissal from the service"
he is a person of good moral character – a fit and proper person to considering the denial with finality of his motion for reconsideration.
practice law. The Court will take into consideration his character and He likewise conceded that at "61 years of age, a senior citizen and
standing prior to the suspension, the nature and character of the almost in the twilight of [his] life x x x [he] may no longer find a
charge for which he was suspended, his conduct subsequent thereto, gainful employment x x x."
and the time that has elapsed after his suspension.3 Records show that this Court denied on June 10, 2003 respondent's
In this case, respondent manifests that he is sincerely repentant and motion for reconsideration of his dismissal from the service. The
deeply remorseful for the wrong he committed having realized that as denial was with finality hence it should no longer be disturbed.
a lawyer of the Highest Court of the Land, he should have "lived up Likewise, pursuant to Section 58 of the Uniform Rules on
to the strictest standards of integrity in the public service bearing in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dismissal from the service
mind that the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in carries with it the cancellation of eligibility and perpetual
the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work disqualification for re-employment in the government service.
Besides, mere passage of time is not a license to overlook the petitioner, "he has comported himself as a morally straight and
infractions of the respondent which were committed within the respectable citizen and that he has been active and has
hallow grounds of this Court. Lest it be forgotten, we reiterate our cooperated in civic and social undertakings, sincere and
findings thus: honest in his desire to lead a decent and dignified life" 6 ; the
Respondent's acts seriously undermined the trust and certification of Dean Eduardo G. Flores of the College of Law,
confidence of the public in the entire judicial system. Siliman University, vouching to petitioner's "honest, upright and
What makes his infraction worse is the fact that he is moral life ... and because of his conduct he has earned the
not a mere court employee, but a senior attorney sympathy of the people of the community and regained the
employed in the Highest Court of the Land. He has confidence of the people and of his other associates: 7 the
indelibly sullied his record of government service statement of Atty. Alexander G. Amor, former president of the
spanning twenty-eight years, and in so doing he has Negros Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the
prejudiced the integrity of the Court as a whole. Once Philippines, certifying "that Mr. Quinciano D. Vailoces ... is a
more, this Court is called upon to apply disciplinary person of good moral character, whose integrity is beyond
sanction on an errant member, and again it will not question" 8 ; and the clearance certificates issued by Judge
shirk from its responsibility. Thus, this Court imposes Romeo R. Solis of the City Court of Dumaguete, Provincial
on respondent the only penalty that he deserves – that Fiscal Andrew S. Namukatkat of Negros Oriental, and City
of dismissal from the service. Fiscal Pablo E. Cabahug of Dumaguete City, to the effect that
Finally, respondent is sternly warned that the practice of law is a petitioner "is a person of good moral character" and that since
privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards his release from the national penitentiary he "has never been
of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and accused or convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude." 9
faithful compliance with the rules of legal profession are the When asked to comment, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the through its then president, Atty. Marcelo D. Fernan, favorably
bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.6 indorsed petitioner's request for reinstatement.
ACCORDINGLY, the order suspending respondent Atty. Gilbert On February 13, 1978, Ledesma de Jesus-Paras, complainant
Soriano from the practice of law is LIFTED. The monetary in the original disbarment proceedings, filed an opposition to
equivalent of his accrued leave credits is ordered RELEASED. the petitions for reinstatement; and this was followed by a
However, respondent shall REMAIN DISQUALIFIED for re- telegram of Nicanor Vailoces, barangay captain of Domolog,
employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government Bindoy, Negros, Oriental, addressed to his Excellency,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and referred to this Court,
The Fiscal Management and Budget Office is directed to compute the opposing petitioner's readmission to the bar "on grounds of his
monetary equivalent of respondent's accrued leave credits and release non-reformation, immoral conduct and pretensions of being a
the same to him. licensed lawyer."
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land Anent these oppositions, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the through Atty. Fernan, made the following observations:
Bar Confidant. Let this Resolution be also made of record in the By resolution of the Court En Banc dated
personal files of the respondent. August 24, 1978, the following matters have
SO ORDERED. been referred to the Integrated Bar for
A.M. No. 439 September 30, 1982 comment:
IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES (1) The opposition of
complainant Ledesma de
ESCOLIN, J.: Jesus-Paras to
This is a petition filed by Quinciano D. Vailoces for readmission respondent's petition and
to the practice of law and the inclusion of his name in the roll of supplementary petition for
attorneys. reinstatement in the roll of
The records disclose that the Court of First Instance of Negros attorneys; and
Oriental in a decision promulgated on September 30, 1955 (2) The telegram dated
found petitioner guilty of falsification of public document, February 16, 1978 of
penalized under Article 117 of the Revised Penal Code, and Nicanor Vailoces,
imposed on him an indeterminate sentence ranging from 2 Barangay Captain of
years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 8 Domolog, Bindoy, Negros
years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the Oriental, addressed to his
accessory penalties to the law, plus fine and costs. In its Excellency Ferdinand E.
decision the court found that petitioner, as a member of the bar Marcos, requesting the
and in his capacity as a notary public, aknowledged the Office of the President to
execution of a document purporting to be the last will and oppose the petition of
testament of one Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus. Presented for Quinciano Vailoces for
probate before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, reinstatement in the Roll of
the genuineness of the document was impugned by the forced Attorneys on grounds
heirs of the alleged testatrix, and the court, finding that the stated therein.
document was a forgery, denied probate to the will. It may be recalled that on January 17, 1978,
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar
conviction; and upon finality thereof, petitioner commenced transmitted to the Honorable Supreme Court
service of the sentence. for its favorable consideration the above
Thereafter, Ledesma de Jesus-Paras, complainant in the stated petition for reinstatement.
criminal case, instituted before this Court disbarment Subsequent to its being served with a copy
proceedings against petitioner. The same culminated in his of the resolution of the Supreme Court, the
disbarment on April 12, 1961. 1 Integrated Bar received a petition dated
On December 27, 1967, the President of the Philippines February 14, 1978 signed by 'the people of
granted petitioner "absolute and unconditional pardon" and the Municipality of Bindoy, Province of
restored him "to full civil and political rights. 2 Negros Oriental' vehemently opposing the
Since August 23, 1968, petitioner had repeatedly sought reinstatement of Mr. Vailoces in the Roll of
readmission to the practice of law, the first of which was denied Attorneys. On October 5, 1978 the President
by this Court in a minute resolution dated August 30, 1968. of the Integrated Bar wrote to Mr. Vailoces
On February 27, 1970, petitioner reiterated his plea, but asking him to comment on the above
consideration thereof was deferred "until after the integration of mentioned petitions and telegram.
the bar has been effected." 3 This Office is now in receipt of Mr. Vailoces'
On December 12, 1977, he filed another petition, attaching comment dated November 3, 1978, which is
thereto copies, among others, of the following documents, to being forwarded herewith to the Honorable
wit: the resolution of the Negros Oriental Bar Association Supreme Court together with other pertinent
signed by 78 members thereof, indorsing his plea for papers.
reinstatement 4 ; the certificate of the mayor of the municipality It is believed that Mr. Vailoces' comment is a
of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, where petitioner has been residing, satisfactory answer to the adverse
to the effect that the latter "is a person of exemplary moral allegations and charges which have been
character, a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen 5 a referred to him. The charges of immorality
certification of Governor William B. Villegas of Negros Oriental, (publicly maintaining a querida) and
attesting to the fact that since the grant of absolute pardon to
gambling are general statements devoid of Petitioner's conduct after disbarment can stand searching
particular allegations of fact and may well be scrutiny. He has regained the respect and confidence of his
disregarded. Then, too, the Municipal Mayor fellow attorneys as well as of the citizens of his community.
of Bindoy, Negros Oriental - namely, Mr. The favorable indorsements of both the Integrated Bar of the
Jesus A. Mana-ay - who tops the list of Philippines and its Negros Oriental Chapter, the testimonials
persons who have signed the February 14, expressed in his behalf by the provincial governor of Negros
1978 petition vehemently opposing the Oriental as well as the municipal and barrio officials of Bindoy,
reinstatement of Mr. Vailoces, appears to be Negros Oriental, his active participation in civic and social
the very same official who on October 25, undertakings in the community attest to his moral reform and
1977 issued a Certification to the effect that rehabilitation and justify his reinstatement. Petitioner, now 69
Mr. Vailoces 'is personally known to me as a years of age, has reached the twilight of his life. He has been
person of exemplary character, a peace barred from the practice of his profession for a period of 21
loving and law abiding citizen' and that 'he is years. Adequate punishment has been exacted.
cooperative in all our civic and social Chastened by his painful and humiliating experience, he further
activities and that he is one of our "pledges with all his honor ... that if reinstated in the roll of
respectable citizens in our community.' That attorneys he will surely and consistently conduct himself
this official should now sign a petition honestly, uprightly and worthily." Indeed, there is reasonable
containing statements exactly opposite in expectation that he will endeavor to lead an irreproachable life
thrust and tenor is very intriguing, to say the and maintain steadfast fidelity to the lawyer's oath.
least, and it is not altogether difficult to WHEREFORE, petitioner Quinciano D. Vailoces is hereby
believe Mr. Vailoces' imputations of politics ordered reinstated in the roll of attorneys.
in the conduct of Mayor Mana-ay. SO ORDERED.
As for the opposition of Mrs. Ledesma de A.C. No. 6713 December 8, 2008
Jesus-Paras, the alleged absence of ZENAIDA B. GONZALES, petitioner,
remorse on the part of Mr. Vailoces, and his vs.
alleged belligerence and display of open ATTY. NARCISO PADIERNOS, respondent.
defiance and hostility, etc. are matters so DECISION
subjective in character that her general BRION, J.:
allegations and charges in this regard cannot Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment of Atty. Narciso
be properly considered. It is significant that Padiernos (respondent) filed on May 12, 2003 by Ms. Zenaida B.
Mr. Vailoces in his comment states: "If she is Gonzales (complainant) with the Commission on Bar Discipline of
indeed that much desperately so in need of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Commissioner Milagros
cash assistance, considering really that she V. San Juan conducted the fact-finding investigation on the
is an old woman being recently widowed the complaint.
second time, for her satisfaction and as a Commissioner San Juan submitted a Report and Recommendation1
gesture of goodwill, I am willing to assist her dated September 10, 2004 to the IBP Board of Governors who
but only with a modest amount because I am approved this Report and Recommendation in a resolution dated
only a small farmer with still three college November 4, 2004.
students to support." In a letter2 dated March 14, 2005, IBP Director for Bar Discipline
Regarding the telegram dated February 16, Rogelio A. Vinluan transmitted to the Office of Chief Justice Hilario
1978 of one Nicanor Vailoces stating as G. Davide, Jr. (retired) a Notice of Resolution3 and the records of the
grounds for denial of Mr. Quinciano D. case.
Vailoces' petition for reinstatement the The Factual Background
alleged 'grounds of non-reformation, immoral The complainant alleged in her complaint for disbarment that on
conduct and pretensions of being a licensed three (3) separate occasions the respondent notarized the following
lawyer by soliciting cases,' there is such a documents: (1) a Deed of Absolute Sale4 dated July 16, 1979 which
lack of specificity and particularity in such disposed of her property in Jaen, Nueva Ecija in favor of Asterio,
statement of grounds that one is at a loss as Estrella and Rodolfo, all surnamed Gonzales; (2) a Subdivision
to how a person in the place of Mr. Agreement5 dated September 7, 1988 which subdivided her property
Quinciano D. Vailoces could properly defend among the same persons; and (3) an affidavit of Non-Tenancy6 dated
himself against such charges. March 3, 1988 which certified that her property was not tenanted. All
Thus, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines reaffirmed its three documents were purportedly signed and executed by
indorsement of petitioner's "reinstatement in the rolls of complainant. All three documents carried forged signatures and
attorneys." falsely certified that the complainant personally appeared before the
This Court likewise referred the oppositions interposed by Mrs. respondent and that she was "known to me (the respondent) to be the
Ledesma de Jesus-Paras and Nicanor Vailoces to the Solicitor same person who executed the foregoing and acknowledged to me
General for investigation and recommendation; and on August that the same is her own free act and voluntary deed." The
4, 1982, the latter, after conducting an investigation, submitted complainant claimed that she never appeared before respondent on
his report, recommending that "Quinciano D. Vailoces be the dates the documents were notarized because she was then in the
reinstated in the roll of attorneys upon taking his oath anew of United States.
the corresponding oath of office." The respondent filed his Answer7 on June 16, 2003. He admitted that
The Court sustains the conclusion of the Solicitor General that he notarized the three documents, but denied the "unfounded and
petitioner has sufficiently proven himself fit to be readmitted to malicious imputation" that the three documents contained the
the practice of law. True it is that the plenary pardon extended complainant's forged signatures. On the false certification aspect, he
to him by the President does not of itself warrant his countered that "with the same or identical facts obtained in the instant
reinstatement. case, the Highest Tribunal, the Honorable Supreme Court had this to
Evidence of reformation is required before say – That it is not necessary to know the signatories personally,
applicant is entitled to reinstatement, provided he or she or they signed in the presence of the Notary,
notwithstanding the attorney has received a alleging that they are the same persons who signed the names."
pardon following his conviction, and the On October 13, 2003, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint
requirements of reinstatement had been held for lack of verification and notification of the date of hearing.8
to be the same as for original admission to On December 19, 2003, complainant amended her complaint.9 This
the bar, except that the court may require a time, she charged respondent with gross negligence and failure to
greater degree of proof than in an original exercise the care required by law in the performance of his duties as a
evidence [7 C.J.S. Attorney & Client, Sept. notary public, resulting in the loss of her property in Jaen, Nueva
41, p. 815] Ecija, a 141,497 square meters of mango land covered by TCT NT-
The decisive question on an application for 29578. The complainant claimed that because of the respondent’s
reinstatement is whether applicant is 'of good negligent acts, title to her property was transferred to Asterio
moral character' in the sense in which that Gonzales, Estrella Gonzales and Rodolfo Gonzales. She reiterated
phrase is used when applied to attorneys-at- that when the three documents disposing of her property were
law and is a fit and proper person to be notarized, she was out of the country. Estrella Gonzales Mendrano,
entrusted with the privileges of the office of one of the vendees, was also outside the country as shown by a
an attorney ... [7 C.J.S. Attorney & Client, certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
Sept. 41, p. 816]. (BID) on September 14, 1989.10 She likewise claimed that Guadalupe
Ramirez Gonzales (the widow of Rodolfo Gonzales, another vendee)
executed an affidavit describing the "Deed of Absolute Sale and
Subdivision Agreement" as spurious and without her husband's in the presence of the notary, alleging that they are the persons who
participation.11 The affidavit further alleged that the complainant’s signed the names." The respondent not only failed to identify the
signatures were forged and the respondent did not ascertain the cited case; he apparently also cited it out of context. A notary public
identity of the person who came before him and posed as vendor is duty bound to require the person executing a document to be
despite the fact that a large tract of land was being ceded and personally present, and to swear before him that he is the person
transferred to the vendees. named in the document and is voluntarily and freely executing the act
The complainant prayed for the revocation of the respondent's mentioned in the document.19 The notary public faithfully discharges
notarial commission and his suspension from the practice of law due this duty by at least verifying the identity of the person appearing
to "his deplorable failure to hold the importance of the notarial act before him based on the identification papers presented.
and observe [with] utmost care the basic requirements in the For violating his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public, as well as
performance of his duties as a notary public which include the for the grave injustice inflicted on the complainant, it is only proper
ascertainment that the person who signed the document as the very that the respondent be penalized and suffer the consequences of his
person who executed and personally appeared before him." acts. We note in this regard that in her amended complaint, the
On May 3, 2004, the complainant moved that the case be considered complainant no longer sought the disbarment of respondent; she
submitted for resolution in view of respondent's failure to answer the confined herself to the revocation of the respondent’s notarial
amended complaint.12 commission and his suspension from the practice of law. Thus, the
The IBP Findings recommendation of the IBP is for revocation of his notarial
In her report to the IBP Board of Governors,13 Commissioner San commission and for his suspension from the practice of law for three
Juan categorically noted the respondent’s admission that he notarized (3) months. We approve this recommendation as a sanction
the three documents in question – the Deed of Absolute Sale on July commensurate with the transgression committed by the respondent as
16, 1979; the Subdivision Agreement on September 7, 1988 and the a member of the bar and as a notary public.
affidavit of Non-Tenancy on March 3, 1988. Commissioner San Juan WHEREFORE, premises considered, ATTY. NARCISO
also noted that the complainant’s documentary evidence supported PADIERNOS of 103 Del Pilar Street, Cabanatuan City, is
her claim that she never executed these documents and never SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3)
appeared before the respondent to acknowledge the execution of MONTHS, and his notarial commission is hereby REVOKED.
these documents. These documentary evidence consisted of the SO ORDERED.
certification from the BID that complainant did not travel to the A.C. No. 7036 June 29, 2009
Philippines on the dates the documents were allegedly notarized;14 JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, Complainant,
and the affidavit of Guadalupe Ramirez Gonzales described above.15 vs.
Commissioner San Juan found that the respondent had no ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, Respondent.
participation in the preparation or knowledge of the falsity of the DECISION
spurious documents, and found merit in the complainant's contention PUNO, CJ.:
that the respondent "was negligent in the performance of his duties as This administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (Atty.
a notary public." She faulted the respondent for not demanding proof Quintana) stemmed from a letter1 addressed to the Court filed by
of the identity of the person who claimed to be complainant Zenaida Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum (Judge Laquindanum)
Gonzales when the documents were presented to him for notarization. of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato requesting that
She concluded that the respondent failed to exercise the diligence proper disciplinary action be imposed on him for performing notarial
required of him as notary public to ensure the integrity of the functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial
presented documents. She recommended that the respondent's jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial
notarial commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the commission, and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his
practice of law for a period of three months. absence.
The Court's Ruling In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No.
Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice16 provides: 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to closely monitor the
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment" activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of their
refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public shall not extend
(a) appears in person before the notary public and notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, she
present an integrally complete instrument on wrote a letter2 to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing
document; documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
(b) is attested to be personally known to the Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is outside the territorial
notary public or identified by the notary public jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial
through competent evidence of identity as commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao)
defined by these Rules; and since certain documents3 notarized by him had been reaching her
(c) represents to the notary public that the office.
signature on the instrument or document was However, despite such directive, respondent continuously performed
voluntarily affixed by him for the purpose stated notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato as evidenced by: (1) the
in the instrument or document, declares that he Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card4 executed by Kristine C. Guro; and
has executed the instrument or document as his (2) the Affidavit of Loss of Driver’s License5 executed by Elenita D.
free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in Ballentes.
a particular representative capacity that he has the Under Sec. 11, Rule III6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty.
authority to sign in that capacity." Quintana could not extend his notarial acts beyond Cotabato City and
Under the given facts, the respondent clearly failed to faithfully the Province of Maguindanao because Midsayap, Cotabato is not part
comply with the foregoing rules when he notarized the three of Cotabato City or the Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap is part
documents subject of the present complaint. The respondent did not of the Province of Cotabato. The City within the province of
know the complainant personally, yet he did not require proof of Cotabato is Kidapawan City, and not Cotabato City.
identity from the person who appeared before him and executed and Judge Laquindanum also alleged that, upon further investigation of
authenticated the three documents. The IBP Report observed that had the matter, it was discovered that it was Atty. Quintana’s wife who
the respondent done so, "the fraudulent transfer of complainant's performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office as attested
property could have been prevented." to by the Joint Affidavit7 executed by Kristine C. Guro and Elenita D.
Through his negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary Ballentes.
public resulting in the loss of property of an unsuspecting private In a Resolution dated February 14, 2006,8 we required Atty. Quintana
citizen, the respondent eroded the complainant’s and the public’s to comment on the letter of Judge Laquindanum.
confidence in the notarial system; he brought disrepute to the system. In his Response,9 Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition for
As we held in Pantoja Mumar vs. Flores,17 he thereby breached notarial commission before Branch 18, Regional Trial Court,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (which requires Midsayap, Cotabato. However, the same was not acted upon by
lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and Judge Laquindanum for three weeks. He alleged that the reason for
promote respect for the law and legal processes) as well as Rule 1.01 Judge Laquindanum’s inaction was that she questioned his affiliation
of the same Code (which prohibits lawyers from engaging in with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cotabato City
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct). Chapter, and required him to be a member of IBP Kidapawan City
The respondent should be reminded that a notarial document is, on its Chapter and to obtain a Certification of Payments from the latter
face and by authority of law, entitled to full faith and credit. For this chapter. Because of this, he opted to withdraw his petition. After he
reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with withdrew his petition, he claimed that Judge Laquindanum sent a
the formalities intended to ensure the integrity of the notarized clerk from her office to ask him to return his petition, but he did not
document and the act or acts it embodies.18 oblige because at that time he already had a Commission for Notary
We are not persuaded by the respondent's argument that this Court, in Public10 issued by Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional
a similar case or one with identical facts, said "that it is not necessary Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City.
to know the signatories personally provided he or she or they signed
Atty. Quintana lamented that he was singled out by Judge his petition for notarial commission in 2004, he had not yet
Laquindanum, because the latter immediately issued notarial completely paid his IBP dues.
commissions to other lawyers without asking for so many In its Report and Recommendation,28 the OBC recommended that
requirements. However, when it came to him, Judge Laquindanum Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary
even tracked down all his pleadings; communicated with his clients; public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial commission still
and disseminated information through letters, pronouncements, and exists, the same should be revoked for two (2) years. The OBC found
directives to court clerks and other lawyers to humiliate him and be the defenses and arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be without
ostracized by fellow lawyers. merit, viz:
Atty. Quintana argued that he subscribed documents in his office at Apparently, respondent has extended his notarial acts in Midsayap
Midsayap, Cotabato; and Midsayap is part of the Province of and Kabacan, Cotabato, which is already outside his territorial
Cotabato. He contended that he did not violate any provision of the jurisdiction to perform as Notary Public.
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, because he was equipped with a Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
notarial commission. He maintained that he did not act outside the "Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public
province of Cotabato since Midsayap, Cotabato, where he practices may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
his legal profession and subscribes documents, is part of the province jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years
of Cotabato. He claimed that as a lawyer of good moral standing, he commencing the first day of January of the year in which the
could practice his legal profession in the entire Philippines. commissioning court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary
Atty. Quintana further argued that Judge Laquindanum had no public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
authority to issue such directive, because only Executive Judge Reno Under the rule[,] respondent may perform his notarial acts within the
E. Concha, who issued his notarial commission, and the Supreme territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha,
Court could prohibit him from notarizing in the Province of Cotabato. which is in Cotabato City and the [P]rovince of Maguindanao only.
In a Resolution dated March 21, 2006, 11 we referred this case to the But definitely he cannot extend his commission as notary public in
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report and Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of the province of Cotabato as
recommendation. he is not commissioned thereat to do such act. Midsayap and
In the February 28, 2007 Hearing12 before the OBC presided by Atty. Kabacan are not part of either Cotabato City or [P]rovince of
Ma. Crisitina B. Layusa (Hearing Officer), Judge Laquindanum Maguindanao but part of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the
presented a Deed of Donation, 13 which was notarized by Atty. claim of respondent that he can exercise his notarial commission in
Quintana in 2004.14 Honorata Rosil appears as one of the signatories Midsayap, Cotabato because Cotabato City is part of the province of
of the document as the donor’s wife. However, Honorata Rosil died Cotabato is absolutely devoid of merit.
on March 12, 2003, as shown by the Certificate of Death 15 issued by xxxx
the Civil Registrar of Ibohon, Cotabato. Further, evidence on record also shows that there are several
Judge Laquindanum testified that Atty. Quintana continued to documents which the respondent’s wife has herself notarized.
notarize documents in the years 2006 to 2007 despite the fact that his Respondent justifies that he cannot be blamed for the act of his wife
commission as notary public for and in the Province of Maguindanao as he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in his
and Cotabato City had already expired on December 31, 2005, and he absence. According to him[,] he even scolded and told his wife not to
had not renewed the same.16 To support her claim, Judge do it anymore as it would affect his profession.
Laquindanum presented the following: (1) Affidavit of Loss [of] In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June
Title17 executed by Betty G. Granada with subscription dated April 8, 15, 2006 the Court held, thus:
2006 at Cotabato City; (2) Certificate of Candidacy18 of Mr. Elias "A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his
Diosanta Arabis with subscription dated July 18, 2006; (3) Affidavit notarial register; He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by
of Loss [of] Driver’s License19 executed by Anecito C. Bernabe with passing the buck to their (sic) secretaries"
subscription dated February 20, 2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato; and (4) A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full
Affidavit of Loss20 executed by Santos V. Magbanua with responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent
subscription dated February 22, 2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato. cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife’s act and that he did
For his part, Atty. Quintana admitted that all the signatures appearing not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally
in the documents marked as exhibits of Judge Laquindanum were his accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his
except for the following: (1) Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card 21 personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary.
executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) Affidavit of Loss of Driver’s Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent notarized in 2004 a Deed
License22 executed by Elenita D. Ballentes; and (3) Affidavit of of Donation (Rollo, p. 79) wherein, (sic) Honorata Rosel (Honorata
Loss23 executed by Santos V. Magbanua. He explained that those Rosil) one of the affiants therein, was already dead at the time of
documents were signed by his wife and were the result of an notarization as shown in a Certificate of Death (Rollo, p.80) issued
entrapment operation of Judge Laquindanum: to let somebody bring by the Civil Registrar General of Libungan, Cotabato.
and have them notarized by his wife, when they knew that his wife is Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides,
not a lawyer. He also denied the he authorized his wife to notarize thus[:]
documents. According to him, he slapped his wife and told her to "A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
stop doing it as it would ruin his profession. signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notary’s
Atty. Quintana also claimed that Judge Laquindanum did not act on presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not
his petition, because he did not comply with her requirements for him personally known to the notary public through competent evidence of
to transfer his membership to the Kidapawan Chapter, wherein her identity as defined by these Rules."
sister, Atty. Aglepa, is the IBP President. Clearly, in notarizing a Deed of Donation without even determining
On the one hand, Judge Laquindanum explained that she was only the presence or qualifications of affiants therein, respondent only
performing her responsibility and had nothing against Atty. Quintana. shows his gross negligence and ignorance of the provisions of the
The reason why she did not act on his petition was that he had not 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
paid his IBP dues,24 which is a requirement before a notarial xxxx
commission may be granted. She told his wife to secure a Furthermore, respondent claims that he, being a lawyer in good
certification of payment from the IBP, but she did not return. standing, has the right to practice his profession including notarial
This was denied by Atty. Quintana, who claimed that he enclosed in acts in the entire Philippines. This statement is barren of merit.
his Response the certification of good standing and payments of his While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage
IBP dues. However, when the same was examined, there were no in the practice of law in the Philippines.(sic) However, not every
documents attached thereto. Due to oversight, Atty. Quintana prayed lawyer even in good standing can perform notarial functions without
that he be given time to send them later which was granted by the having been commissioned as notary public as specifically provided
Hearing Officer. for under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He must have
Finally, Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness for what he had done submitted himself to the commissioning court by filing his petition
and promised not to repeat the same. He also asked that he be given for issuance of his notarial (sic) Notarial Practice. The
another chance and not be divested of his privilege to notarize, as it commissioning court may or may not grant the said petition if in his
was the only bread and butter of his family. sound discretion the petitioner does not meet the required
On March 5, 2007, Atty. Quintana submitted to the OBC the qualifications for [a] Notary Public. Since respondent herein did not
documents25 issued by the IBP Cotabato City Chapter to prove that he submit himself to the procedural rules for the issuance of the notarial
had paid his IBP dues. commission, he has no reason at all to claim that he can perform
In a Manifestation26 dated March 9, 2007, Judge Laquindanum notarial act[s] in the entire country for lack of authority to do so.
submitted a Certification27 and its entries show that Atty. Quintana Likewise, contrary to the belief of respondent, complainant being the
paid his IBP dues for the year 2005 only on January 9, 2006 per commissioning court in Midsayap, Cotabato has the authority under
Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 610381. Likewise, the arrears of his IBP Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to monitor the duties
dues for the years 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1998 to 2003 were also paid and responsibilities including liabilities, if any, of a notary public
only on January 9, 2006 per O.R. No. 610387. Hence, when he filed commissioned or those performing notarial acts without authority in
her territorial jurisdiction.29
xxxx The facts of CBD Case No. 06-1830, as stated in the Report and
We adopt the findings of the OBC. However, we find the penalty of Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), read as follows:
and suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) II. Statement of the Complaint
years more appropriate considering the gravity and number of his Complainants ... are residents of Highway, Sapang I, Ternate, Cavite.
offenses. Respondent Atty. Amado Ibañez is a practicing lawyer who holds
After a careful review of the records and evidence, there is no doubt office at 2101 Carolina (now Madre Ignacia) St., Malate, Manila.
that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and The lengthy and confusing narrative of what appears to be a bitter
the Code of Professional Responsibility when he committed the land dispute notwithstanding, it can be gleaned from the Complaint
following acts: (1) he notarized documents outside the area of his and Position Paper, and the personal clarification by the complainants
commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial acts with an themselves after questioning by the undersigned during the
expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his Mandatory Conference, that the present administrative case is limited
absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the to an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" which respondent
signatories therein was already dead at that time. Atty. Amado Ibañez allegedly notarized in the City of Manila on 18
The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is February 1979, and entered in his Notarial Book as Doc. No. 735, p.
not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 157 and Book No. II, Series of 1979.
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of The complainants denied that they executed the said document or that
law and falsification.30 Notarizing documents with an expired they ever appeared before respondent Atty. Ibañez for this purpose.
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more They alleged that respondent Atty. Ibañez did not even have the
specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is authority to notarize the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale"
deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also as he did not have a commission as a notary public at that time.
amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath The complainants alleged that the respondent and his relatives are
proscribes.31 Notarizing documents without the presence of the presently using the said document in judicial proceedings pending
signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of before the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite to their damage and
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,32 Rule 1.01 of the Code of prejudice.
Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer’s oath which The complainants contend that respondent Atty. Ibañez’s act of
unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood. notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" without
Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally accountable for the documents requiring the presence of the parties thereto, and despite his alleged
that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself lack of a notarial commission, constitutes professional misconduct
of liability by passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of for which reason he should be disbarred.
violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which In support of their allegations, the complainants attached to their
requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized Complaint and Position Paper the following documents:
practice of law. 1. Tax Declaration Nos. 20-004-00052, 1356, 1809 in the
All told, Atty. Quintana fell miserably short of his obligation under name of Barselisa Angeles, and Tax Declarations 198, 283,
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs 403 and 1544, in the name of Juan Angeles.
every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the 2. Certification dated 24 March 2006 issued by the Office
legal profession. of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
That Atty. Quintana relies on his notarial commission as the sole stating that the Master List of Notaries Public shows that
source of income for his family will not serve to lessen the penalty Atty. Amado O. Ibañez was not appointed as such for and
that should be imposed on him. On the contrary, we feel that he in the City of Manila for the year 1976-1977.
should be reminded that a notarial commission should not be treated 3. Certification dated 28 April 2006 issued by the National
as a money-making venture. It is a privilege granted only to those Archives stating that there is no notarial record on file with
who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. As the said office of Amado Ibañez, a notary public for and
we have declared on several occasions, notarization is not an empty, within the City of Manila, and it has no copy on file of an
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public affidavit allegedly executed by Gabriel, Estebana, Eutiquio,
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act Gloria, Leocadio, Jovita, Samonte, and Renato, all
as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires surnamed Angeles, ratified sometime in 1977 by the said
that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from notary public and acknowledged as Doc. No. 202, Page No.
imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in 42, Book No. 1, Series of 1977.
general. It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public 4. Certification dated 11 April 2006 issued by the National
converts a private document into a public document, making that Archives stating that there is no notarial record on file with
document admissible in evidence without further proof of the the said office of Amado Ibañez, a notary public for and
authenticity thereof.33 within the City of Manila, and it has no copy on file of a
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q. partition w/renunciation [sic] and affidavit allegedly
Quintana, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is executed by and among Gabriela, Estebana, Eutiquio,
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for a Gloria, Leocadio, Jovita, Samonte and Renato, all
period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of surnamed Angeles, ratified sometime in 1977 by the said
law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING that notary public and acknowledged as Doc. No. 201, Page No.
the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more 41, Series of 1977.
severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this 5. Two (2) versions of a "Partihang Labas sa Hukuman at
Decision to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall Ganap na Bilihan" dated 28 March 1978, executed by and
take effect.1avvphi1 between Gloria Angeles, Leocadio Angeles and Gabriela,
Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records of Estebana, Eutiquio, Jovita, Samonte and Renato, all
respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Bar surnamed Torres.
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Court 6. Flow chart showing the history of Tax Declaration No.
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. 403, from 1948 to 1974.
SO ORDERED. 7. Application for Free Patent over Cadastral Lot No. 460-
A.C. No. 7860 January 15, 2009 C of the Ternate Cadastral Sketching (CADS-617-D),
AVELINO O. ANGELES, LAURO O. ANGELES, MARIA O. SWO-04-000598 and Cadastral Lot No. 460-B, executed
ANGELES, ROSALINA O. ANGELES, CONNIE M. by Atty. Amado O. Ibañez.
ANGELES, Complainants, 8. Certification dated 24 March 2006 issued by the Office
vs. of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
ATTY. AMADO O. IBAÑEZ, Respondent. stating that the Master List of Notaries Public shows that
DECISION Atty. Amado O. Ibañez was not appointed as such for and
CARPIO, J.: in the year 1978-1979.
The Case 9. "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" (with
This is a complaint filed by Avelino O. Angeles, Maria O. Angeles, various marginal notes made by the complainants)
Lauro O. Angeles, Rosalina O. Angeles, and Connie M. Angeles in notarized by Atty. Amado Ibañez in the City of Manila on
representation of the deceased Loreto Angeles (collectively, 18 February 1979, and entered in his Notarial Book as Doc.
complainants) against Atty. Amado O. Ibañez (respondent) for No. 735, p. 147 and Book No. II, Series of 1979.
disbarment for notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute 10. Real Estate Mortgage executed by Flora Olano in favor
Sale" without a notarial commission and in the absence of the of the Rural Bank of Naic, Inc., in the amount of
affiants. Php350.00, covering property located in Zapang, Ternate,
The Facts Cavite and described in Tax Declaration No. 1657-1658.
11. Certification dated 12 January 2007 issued by the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of
Trece Martires City stating that Atty. Amado O. Ibañez was Angeles, Lauro Angeles and Avelino Angeles in favor of
not duly commissioned as a notaryt [sic] public for and Rosalina Angeles.1
within the Province of Cavite in the year 1979, and that it The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
has no copy in its records of an "Extrajudicial Partition In a Report2 dated 21 January 2008, IBP Commissioner for Bar
with Absolute Sale" allegedly notarized by Atty. Amado Discipline Rico A. Limpingco (Commissioner Limpingco) found that
Ibañez on 18 February 1979 and entered in his Notarial respondent notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale"
Book as Doc. No. 735, p. 147 and Book No. II. Series of in the absence of affiants and without a notarial commission. Thus:
1979. As stated earlier, the present administrative complaint may seem at
III. Respondents’ Position/Defense first to be one for falsification, land grabbing, etc., but a closer
In his Motion to Dismiss and Position Paper, respondent Atty. Ibañez examination of the complainants’ allegations coupled with their own
contended that the complainants are guilty of forum-shopping verbal confirmation during the Mandatory Conference, shows that the
inasmuch as they had previously filed the same complaint, docketed complainants are actually accusing respondent Atty. Amado Ibañez
as Administrative Case No. 3581, which was eventually dismissed by of notarizing an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the
then IBP CBD Comm. Victor Fernandez. City of Manila on 18 February 1979 (entered in his Notarial Book as
The respondent admitted that he notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition Doc. No. 735, p. 147 and Book No. II, Series of 1979) without
with Absolute Sale" but clarified that he did so as Notary Public of requiring the presence of the parties thereto, and further, for
the Province of Cavite, with a notarial commission issued by the notarizing the said document even if he did not have a notarial
Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 1, Trece Martires City. He commission at that time.
explained that the designation of "Manila" as the place of execution The respondent contends that the complainants have previously filed
of the said document was a mistake of his former legal secretary, who the same administrative complaint against him, docketed as
failed to correct the same through oversight. Administrative Case No. 3581, and that the same was eventually
Respondent Atty. Ibañez alleged that he notarized the "Extrajudicial dismissed by the Supreme Court. He alleged that as in this prior
Partition with Absolute Sale" in his capacity as the official Notary complaint, the present case must likewise be dismissed for forum
Public of Puerto Azul, and the same was actually prepared and shopping.
typewritten by complainant Rosalina Angeles for a consideration of It appears, however, that Administrative Case No. 3581 is entirely
Php20,000.00 as evidenced by a photocopy of Commercial Bank & different and distinct from the present complaint. A reading of the
Trust Co. Cashier’s Check dated 31 January 1979 on file with the photocopy of IBP Board of Governors Resolution dated 27 June
Puerto Azul office, as well as an "Exclusive Authority" attached to 1999, adopting and approving the attached Report and
the said document. The respondent also alleged that complainant Recommendation of Comm. Victor Fernandez dismissing
Rosalina Angeles was at that time employed as a typist at Puerto Administrative Case No. 3581, entitled "Rosalina Angeles, et al. vs.
Azul and that she enjoyed the trust and confidence of the Puerto Azul Atty. Amado Ibañez" (as attached by the respondent himself in his
management. Motion to Dismiss) shows that this earlier complaint pertains to
The respondent stated that the land subject of the sale was surveyed herein respondent’s alleged "land-grabbing" of two (2) parcels of
for Mrs. Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez by the late Angel Salvacion, the land in Bgy. Zapang, Ternate, Cavite. As stated in the report authored
official surveyor of Puerto Azul, and was submitted to the Bureau of by then Commissioner Victor Fernandez, the earlier administrative
Lands for verification and approval and was approved on 14 February case relates to the sale of the said property to the Sps. Danilo Andra
1985 as CCN No. 04-000038-D. Respondent Atty. Ibañez alleged and Angela Olano, and its subsequent sale to the respondent, Atty.
that the property is presently in the actual possession of Puerto Azul, Amado Ibañez, who for his part later applied for, and was granted,
with former Sapang I Bgy. Captain Johnny Andra as tenant. free patent titles over the same. Branding the transaction as land-
The respondent alleged that Puerto Azul’s ownership of the property grabbing, the complainants filed an action in court to recover
is anchored on the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale," possession and annul the titles but the case was eventually dismissed
which is in turn the subject of a case, CA GR SP No. 2006-1668, by the Supreme Court for lack of merit. The complainants then filed
which is presently pending in the Court of Appeals. the same complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, the Dept. of
Respondent Atty. Ibañez alleged that a defect in the notarization of a Justice, the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Supreme Court,
document of sale does not invalidate the transaction, and he stated which eventually referred the matter to the IBP. In his report, then-
that his failure to require the presence of the parties to the Commissioner Victor Fernandez declared that the complainants were
"Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" is wholly justified engaged in forum-shopping, reasoning that unsuccessful in their
because of the assurance of complainant Rosalina Angeles that the effort to obtain the result they desire from the courts, they would
signatures appearing in the said document were indeed those of her attempt to refile their dismissed action under the guise of an
co-heirs. The respondent also alleged that almost all the complainants administrative case.
submitted their residence certificates, the numbers of which were The present administrative complaint may be in one way or another
recorded in the acknowledgement portion of the document. related to the alleged land-grabbing which was the subject of
The respondent denied that he had committed any crime when he Administrative Case No. 3581, but it pertains to an altogether
notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" because the different matter. In the present complaint, respondent Atty. Ibañez is
offenses in the Revised Penal Code are "mala in se" where the not being accused of land-grabbing or falsification, but rather, for
intention to commit the crime is required, which is lacking in his misconduct in notarizing a document.
case. The respondent added that there is regularity in the performance We would point out that respondent Atty. Amado Ibañez admitted
of his duty as the official notary public of Puerto Azul. that he did not require the presence of the parties to the document
The respondent pointed out that nearly twenty eight (28) years have because he was assured as to the authenticity of their signatures. We
lapsed without anyone questioning not only the sale of the said would also stress that the respondent never denied that he notarized
property, but Puerto Azul’s long possession of the same as well. He the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale," but claimed that he
alleged that the complainants are now denying the sale because they did so not in Manila as stated in document, but in Cavite where he
want to make it appear that they have land within or adjoining a claimed to be a commissioned notary public; he attributed the
quarry site which they have invaded and taken over. He reiterated mistake to his legal secretary, and he insisted that the sale remained
that the defect in his notarization of the sale document valid despite the defects in notarization.
notwithstanding, the sale remains valid. That is not the point, however. The validity of the transaction covered
By way of his defense, respondent Atty. Ibañez submitted the by the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" is not at issue in
following documents: this administrative case for that is a matter for the courts to
1. Photocopy of a Supreme Court Resolution dated 31 July adjudicate, if they have not already done so.
2000 denying the complainants’ motion for reconsideration As it is, no less than the respondent himself categorically
in Administrative Case No. 3581, entitled "Rosalina admitted that he notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with
Angeles, et al. vs. Atty. Amado Ibañez" Absolute Sale" in the absence of the parties thereto. To make
2. Photocopy of IBP Board of Governors Resolution dated matters worse, the certifications submitted by the complainants
27 June 1999, adopting and approving the Report and clearly indicate that respondent Atty. Amado Ibañez did not have
Recommendation of Comm. Victor Fernandez dismissing any notarial commission whether for Manila or Cavite, in 18
Administrative Case No. 3581, entitled "Rosalina Angeles, February 1979 when he notarized the subject document. The
et al. vs. Atty. Amado Ibañez" respondent, for his part, has been completely unable to proffer
3. Photocopy of a Counter-Affidavit filed by Atty. Amado any kind of proof of his claim that he had a commission as a
Ibañez in OMB-1-C 06-0368-C/OMB-L C 06-0272-C, notary public for and in the Province of Cavite in 1979, or of his
entitled "Mario O. Angeles vs. Sony Peji, et al.," submission of notarial reports and notarial register during the
4. "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" notarized by said period.
Atty. Amado Ibañez in the City of Manila on 18 February xxx
1979, and entered in his Notarial Book as Doc. No. 735, p. While the case of respondent Atty. Amado Ibañez is not perfectly
147 and Book No. II, Series of 1979, with attached identical to the facts and circumstances obtaining in these cases, his
"Exclusive Authority" executed by Maria Angeles, Flora act of notarizing a document without the necessary commission is
nonetheless clear and undeniable. Guided by the foregoing rulings of
the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the facts in the present complaint, it is immediately, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
therefore respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Amado similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Ibañez: Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar
1. Be barred from being commissioned as a notary public Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal record as
for a period of two (2) years, and in the event that he is attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of
presently commissioned as a notary public, that his the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and
commission be immediately revoked and suspended for guidance.
such period; and SO ORDERED.
2. Be suspended from the practice of law for a period of A.C. No. 8010 June 16, 2009
one (1) year. KELD STEMMERIK, represented by ATTYS. HERMINIO A.
Respectfully submitted.3 (Emphasis added) LIWANAG and WINSTON P.L. ESGUERRA, Complainant,
In a Resolution4 dated 6 February 2008, the IBP Board of Governors vs.
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS, Respondent.
Commissioner Limpingco. The Office of the Bar Confidant received RESOLUTION
the notice of the Resolution and the records of the case on 10 April Per Curiam:
2008. Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark.
Respondent filed a supplemental position paper on 28 May 2008 In one of his trips to the Philippines, he was introduced to respondent
before the IBP Board of Governors. In a Resolution dated 29 May Atty. Leonuel N. Mas. That was his misfortune.
2008, the IBP Board of Governors referred respondent’s submission In one visit to the Philippines, complainant marveled at the beauty of
to the Office of the Bar Confidant. Respondent attached photocopies the country and expressed his interest in acquiring real property in the
of the following: respondent’s Petition for Commission as Notary Philippines. He consulted respondent who advised him that he could
Public for and within the Province of Cavite filed before the said legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines. Respondent
Court on 16 February 1978; respondent’s commission as Notary even suggested an 86,998 sq.m. property in Quarry, Agusuin, Cawag,
Public for the province of Cavite for the term 1978 until 1979 issued Subic, Zambales with the assurance that the property was alienable.
by Executive Judge Pablo D. Suarez on 21 February 1978; and Trusting respondent, complainant agreed to purchase the property
respondent’s oath of office as notary public dated 21 February 1978. through respondent as his representative or attorney-in-fact.
The Ruling of the Court Complainant also engaged the services of respondent for the
We sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt its recommendations preparation of the necessary documents. For this purpose, respondent
with modification. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the demanded and received a P400,000 fee.
Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the Confident that respondent would faithfully carry out his task,
"Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the absence of the complainant returned to Denmark, entrusting the processing of the
affiants. necessary paperwork to respondent.
Respondent Notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Thereafter, respondent prepared a contract to sell the property
Sale" in the Absence of the Affiants between complainant, represented by respondent, and a certain
Respondent himself admits that he merely relied on the Bonifacio de Mesa, the purported owner of the property.1
representation of Rosalina Angeles that the signatures appearing on Subsequently, respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale in
the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" subject of the present which de Mesa sold and conveyed the property to a certain Ailyn
complaint are those of her co-heirs. 5 Respondent claims that he Gonzales for P3.8 million.2 Respondent also drafted and notarized an
reposed confidence upon Rosalina Angeles because she is his agreement between complainant and Gonzales stating that it was
confidential secretary. Unfortunately for respondent, he cannot complainant who provided the funds for the purchase of the
exculpate himself from the consequences of his recklessness and his property.3 Complainant then gave respondent the full amount of the
failure to comply with the requirements of the law by relying on his purchase price (P3.8 million) for which respondent issued an
confidential secretary. acknowledgment receipt.4
Time and again, we have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries After the various contracts and agreements were executed,
public that the affiants must personally appear before them. Section 1 complainant tried to get in touch with respondent to inquire about
of Public Act No. 2103, or the Notarial Law, provides: when the property could be registered in his name. However,
Sec. 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be before a notary public or respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer
an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take complainant’s calls and e-mail messages.
acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where When complainant visited the Philippines again in January 2005, he
the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the engaged the services of the Jimenez Gonzales Liwanag Bello Valdez
acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the Caluya & Fernandez Law Office to ascertain the status of the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same property he supposedly bought. He was devastated to learn that aliens
person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act could not own land under Philippine laws. Moreover, verification at
and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office (CENRO)
required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in
Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 Olongapo City revealed that the property was inalienable as it was
reads: situated within the former US Military Reservation.5 The CENRO
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as also stated that the property was not subject to disposition or
signatory to the instrument or document - acquisition under Republic Act No. 141.6
(1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of Thereafter, complainant, through his attorneys-in-fact,7 exerted
the notarization; and diligent efforts to locate respondent for purposes of holding him
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or accountable for his fraudulent acts. Inquiry with the Olongapo
otherwise identified by the notary public through Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) disclosed that
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. respondent was in arrears in his annual dues and that he had already
The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to abandoned his law office in Olongapo City.8 Search of court records
verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties of cases handled by respondent only yielded his abandoned office
and to ascertain that the document is the parties’ free act and deed.6 address in Olongapo City.1avvphi1
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent in
public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP.9 He deplored
its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at respondent’s acts of serious misconduct. In particular, he sought the
large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a expulsion of respondent from the legal profession for gravely
notary public and appended to a private instrument. Notarization is misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally acquire land in the
not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a Philippines and for maliciously absconding with complainant’s P3.8
substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires million.10
preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries Respondent failed to file his answer and position paper despite
public from imposing upon the public and the courts and service of notice at his last known address. Neither did he appear in
administrative offices generally.7 the scheduled mandatory conference. In this connection, the CBD
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent’s notarial found that respondent abandoned his law practice in Olongapo City
commission should not only be suspended but respondent must also after his transaction with complainant and that he did not see it fit to
be suspended from the practice of law. contest the charges against him.11
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez The CBD ruled that respondent used his position as a lawyer to
GUILTY of notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute mislead complainant on the matter of land ownership by a foreigner. 12
Sale" in the absence of the affiants. Accordingly, the Court He even went through the motion of preparing falsified and fictitious
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year, REVOKES contracts, deeds and agreements. And for all these shameless acts, he
his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS him collected P400,000 from complainant. Worse, he pocketed the P3.8
from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, effective million and absconded with it.13
The CBD found respondent to be "nothing more than an embezzler" by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him
who misused his professional status as an attorney as a tool for into parting with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and
deceiving complainant and absconding with complainant’s money.14 unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and misappropriating the
Respondent was dishonest and deceitful. He abused the trust and P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the property,
confidence reposed by complainant in him. The CBD recommended respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in
the disbarment of respondent.15 nature.1avvphi1
The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the findings and Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he
recommendation of the CBD with the modification that respondent committed unethical act after unethical act, wantonly violating laws
was further required to return the amount of P4.2 million to and professional standards.
respondent.16 For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyer’s oath and Canon
We agree with the IBP. 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He also transgressed the
Sufficiency Of Notice Of following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
The Disbarment Proceedings Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
We shall first address a threshold issue: was respondent properly immoral or deceitful conduct.
given notice of the disbarment proceedings against him? Yes. Rule 1.02. – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
The respondent did not file any answer or position paper, nor did he defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
appear during the scheduled mandatory conference. Respondent in CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
fact abandoned his last known address, his law office in Olongapo THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
City, after he committed the embezzlement. PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing INTEGRATED BAR.
act. He can neither defeat this Court’s jurisdiction over him as a CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere ruse FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
of concealing his whereabouts. Thus, service of the complaint and TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
other orders and processes on respondent’s office was sufficient CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
notice to him. MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
Indeed, since he himself rendered the service of notice on him COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
impossible, the notice requirement cannot apply to him and he is thus CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF
considered to have waived it. The law does not require that the HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST
impossible be done. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile.17 The law obliges AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. (emphasis supplied)
no one to perform an impossibility. Laws and rules must be A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and
interpreted in a way that they are in accordance with logic, common uses his legal knowledge to further his selfish ends to the great
sense, reason and practicality.18 prejudice of others, poses a clear and present danger to the rule of law
In this connection, lawyers must update their records with the IBP by and to the legal system. He does not only tarnish the image of the bar
informing the IBP National Office or their respective chapters19 of and degrade the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, he also
any change in office or residential address and other contact details. 20 betrays everything that the legal profession stands for.
In case such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the It is respondent and his kind that give lawyering a bad name and
office or residential address appearing in the records of the IBP make laymen support Dick the Butcher’s call, "Kill all lawyers!" 27 A
National Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for disgrace to their professional brethren, they must be purged from the
purposes of administrative proceedings against him. bar.
Respondent’s Administrative Infractions WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is hereby
And His Liability Therefor DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately strike
Lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have the duty to promote out the name of respondent from the Roll of Attorneys.
respect for the law and uphold the integrity of the bar. As men and Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant Keld
women entrusted with the law, they must ensure that the law Stemmerik the total amount of P4.2 million with interest at 12% per
functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument of oppression or annum from the date of promulgation of this resolution until full
deception. payment. Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court
Respondent has been weighed by the exacting standards of the legal proof of payment of the amount within ten days from payment.
profession and has been found wanting. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is ORDERED to locate
Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is Atty. Mas and file the appropriate criminal charges against him. The
also guilty of culpable violation of the Code of Professional NBI is further DIRECTED to regularly report the progress of its
Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal profession. action in this case to this Court through the Bar Confidant.
All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant who shall
and to do no falsehood.21 That oath is neither mere formal ceremony forthwith record it in the personal file of respondent, the Court
nor hollow words. It is a sacred trust that should be upheld and kept Administrator who shall inform all courts of the Philippines, the
inviolable at all times.22 Integrated Bar of the Philippines which shall disseminate copies to all
Lawyers are servants of the law23 and the law is their master. They its chapters and members and all administrative and quasi-judicial
should not simply obey the laws, they should also inspire respect for agencies of the Republic of the Philippines.
and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars worthy of emulation. SO ORDERED.
Indeed, that is the first precept of the Code of Professional 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
Responsibility: PHILIPPINES
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE ARTICLE VIII
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution provides: and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
This Court has interpreted this provision, as early as the 1947 case grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
Krivenko v. Register of Deeds,24 to mean that "under the Constitution, on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
aliens may not acquire private or agricultural lands, including Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe,
residential lands." The provision is a declaration of imperative and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
constitutional policy.25 deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated
Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental in Section 5 hereof.
constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines
gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents the security of tenure of its Members.
that he knew were void and illegal. Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations
By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the
complainant and that de Mesa thereafter sold the property to amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall
Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he be automatically and regularly released.
falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Section 4.
Law.26 1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice
Respondent’s misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its
that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members.
Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the
alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. occurrence thereof.
He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him
2. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall
heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases serve for four years, the professor of law for three years,
which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of
banc, including those involving the constitutionality, the private sector for one year.
application, or operation of presidential decrees, 3. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a proceedings.
majority of the Members who actually took part in the 4. The regular Members of the Council shall receive such
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court.
3. Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the
resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the appropriations for the Council.
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the 5. The Council shall have the principal function of
issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without recommending appointees to the judiciary. It may exercise
the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may
the required number is not obtained, the case shall be assign to it.
decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower
law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three
or in division may be modified or reversed except by the nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
court sitting en banc. vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: For the lower courts, the President shall issued the appointment
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting within ninety days from the submission of the list.
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be
warranto, and habeas corpus. fixed by law. During the continuance in office, their salary shall not
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or be decreased.
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the
final judgments and orders of lower courts in: lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they reach
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the
of any treaty, international or executive duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the
agreement, law, presidential decree, power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or a vote of majority of the Members who actually took part in the
regulation is in question. deliberations on the issues in the case and voted in thereon.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing
imposed in relation thereto. quasi-judicial or administrative function.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case
court is in issue. submitted to it for the decision en banc or in division shall be reached
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed in consultation before the case the case assigned to a Member for the
is reclusion perpetua or higher. writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect
e. All cases in which only an error or question of signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof
law is involved. attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision
as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements
shall not exceed six months without the consent of the shall be observed by all lower collegiate court.
judge concerned. Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
miscarriage of justice. which it is based.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, legal basis therefor.
the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under- Section 15.
privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and 1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall four months from date of submission for the Supreme
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve
of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme all other lower courts.
Court. 2. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
accordance with the Civil Service Law. memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision court itself.
over all courts and the personnel thereof. 3. Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
Section 7. certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the
1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof
Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural- attached to the record of the case or matter, and served
born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision
Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said
been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or period.
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. 4. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period,
2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may
lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or
unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for
Philippine Bar. determination, without further delay.
3. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the
competence, integrity, probity, and independence. opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the
Section 8. President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and
1. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the activities of the Judiciary.
supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief ARTICLE XI
Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve
retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act
of the private sector. with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
2. The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
the President for a term of four years with the consent of Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and
the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, against public officials or employees of the Government, or any
and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in
trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the
office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. result thereof.
Section 3. Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
1. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive powers, functions, and duties:
power to initiate all cases of impeachment. 1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any
2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or
Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten 2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public
session days, and referred to the proper Committee within official or employee of the Government, or any
three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of
and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its any government-owned or controlled corporation with
report to the House within sixty session days from such original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty
referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse
resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the or impropriety in the performance of duties.
House within ten session days from receipt thereof. 3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action
3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House against a public official or employee at fault, and
shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member 4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and
shall be recorded. subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, to
4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or
is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the transactions entered into by his office involving the
House, the same shall constitute the Articles of disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and
Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for
proceed. appropriate action.
5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the 5. Request any government agency for assistance and
same official more than once within a period of one year. information necessary in the discharge of its
6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent
cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the records and documents.
Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the 6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when
President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.
the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No 7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape,
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government
thirds of all the Members of the Senate. and make recommendations for their elimination and the
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.
than removal from office and disqualification to hold any 8. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other
office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party powers or perform such functions or duties as may be
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to provided by law.
prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law. Section 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal
8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to autonomy. Its approved annual appropriations shall be automatically
effectively carry out the purpose of this section. and regularly released.
Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan Section 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully
shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their
hereafter may be provided by law. nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches,
Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the or estoppel.
Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial
Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for accommodation for any business purpose may be granted, directly or
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military indirectly, by any government-owned or controlled bank or financial
establishment may likewise be appointed. institution to the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
Section 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional
Ombudsman, other than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in which they
Ombudsman, according to the Civil Service Law. have controlling interest, during their tenure.
Section 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of
Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a
exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the
except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
under this Constitution. Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional
Section 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the
citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment, at armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be
least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence, and disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.
members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates Section 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this
for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. The Constitution allegiance at all times and any public officer or
Ombudsman must have, for ten years or more, been a judge or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications by law.
and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article 1X-A of this ARTICLE III
Constitution. BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by
the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. protection of the laws.
All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur. Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
Section 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
Chairman and Members, respectively, of the Constitutional seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
Commissions, and they shall receive the same salary which shall not and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
be decreased during their term of office. probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
Section 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
of seven years without reappointment. They shall not be qualified to witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their searched and the persons or things to be seized.
cessation from office.
Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the Section 3.
people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be 2. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by duly convicted.
law. Section 19.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding 1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death
proceeding. penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. to reclusion perpetua.
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of 2. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious conditions shall be dealt with by law.
test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the of a poll tax.
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
may be provided by law. prosecution for the same act.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659 June 18, 2009
documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court,
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, Complainant,
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such vs.
limitations as may be provided by law. JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA, Municipal Circuit Trial
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the Court, Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte, Respondent.
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. A.M. No. P-06-2254 June 18, 2009
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA, Municipal Circuit Trial
just compensation. Court, Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte, Complainant,
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be vs.
passed. ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court,
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, Respondent.
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
of poverty. A.M. No. MTJ-09-1730 June 18, 2009
Section 12. ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court,
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, Complainant,
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to vs.
remain silent and to have competent and independent JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA, Municipal Circuit Trial
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot Court, Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte, Respondent.
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with DECISION
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in CARPIO, J.:
the presence of counsel. The Case
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any Before the Court are two complaints for grave misconduct filed by
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against Anna Jane D. Lihaylihay (Lihaylihay), Clerk III, Regional Trial
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or Court (RTC), Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, against Judge
other similar forms of detention are prohibited. Alejandro T. Canda (Judge Canda), Municipal Circuit Trial Court
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this (MCTC), Liloy-Tampilisan, Judicial Region IX, Zamboanga del
or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence Norte.
against him. The Facts
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for On 25 February 2005, Sheriff IV Camilo Bandivas (Sheriff Bandivas)
violations of this Section as well as compensation to the of the RTC retired from the service. Lihaylihay alleged that Judge
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and Canda asked Process Server Emmanuel Tenefrancia (Tenefrancia) of
their families. the RTC to apply for the position vacated by Sheriff Bandivas. To the
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses dismay of Judge Canda, a certain Jesus V. Alimpolo (Alimpolo)
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, applied for the vacated position. Judge Canda strongly opposed
shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be Alimpolo’s application.
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to Judge Canda was of the impression that Lihaylihay was assisting
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of Alimpolo in his application for the position of Sheriff IV. On 5
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. January 2006, Judge Canda sent a text message to Lihaylihay stating,
Section 14. "Maayo tingali modistansya ka anang mga tawhana kay basin
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense masabit ka, pakiusap lang ni." Taking the text message as a threat,
without due process of law. Lihaylihay reported it to the police and requested that a blotter entry
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed be made. On 6 January 2006, Judge Canda sent another text message
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the stating, "For maliciously causing it to appear as threatening in the
right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of police blotter of what is otherwise a very harmless text message of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have appeal I consider the same as declaration of war, don’t worry you
a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses will have your owned [sic] fair share of trouble in due time."
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the In a letter1 dated 9 January 2006 and addressed to Executive Judge
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in Oscar D. Tomarong (Judge Tomarong) of the RTC, Judge Canda
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed accused Lihaylihay of (1) actively supporting Alimpolo; (2) using the
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that facilities of the RTC in preparing Alimpolo’s medical certificate; (3)
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is being at the beck and call of Alimpolo; (4) blatantly disregarding the
unjustifiable. Code of Conduct for Court Personnel; (5) fraudulently scheming
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be against the court; (6) performing highly contemptuous acts; (7) being
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public unworthy of her position as Clerk III; (8) failing to distance herself
safety requires it. from Alimpolo; (9) failing to stay neutral; (10) having a distorted
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of sense of values that deserves disciplinary action; (11) being arrogant,
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. insolent and cocky; and (12) disrespecting him. He added that:
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against And speaking of Ms. Lihaylihay, it is the observation of the Court
himself. employees and the public that her personality does not speak well of
Section 18. her employment with the judiciary which is characterized by the
1. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political inappropriateness of her attire. She exudes herself like a GRO or
beliefs and aspirations. going to a party when reporting to work, not to mention her very
undignified appearance as a chain smoker which is akin to a
WHORE and who does not hesitate to smoke inside the office in the objectivity; (2) Judge Canda published his 11 January 2006 letter in
very eyes of her office mates and the public. But what is very the newspaper; (3) Tingog Peninsula published her comment without
disgusting in spite of her being very new to her position is her being asking for her permission; and (4) Judge Canda was arrogant.
an UPSTART who doesn’t care to get involve [sic] in matters that Lihaylihay filed another complaint10 dated 4 May 2006 with the OCA
earns the ire and contempt of the court users and her co-workers. She containing the same allegations as her 20 January 2006 complaint
is that repulsive "PAKIALAMERA" type very few would want to with the additional allegation that Judge Canda had several
associate with. (Emphasis supplied) documents sworn to before MCTC Clerk of Court Rosalio M.
In another letter2 dated 11 January 2006 and addressed to Judge Manigsaca without paying the required legal fees. The case was
Tomarong, Judge Canda charged Lihaylihay with violation of docketed as MTJ-09-1730.
reasonable office rules and regulations. He stated that: In its 1st Indorsement11 dated 20 July 2006, the OCA directed Judge
On my behalf and in behalf of all the Court employees especially Canda to comment on the 4 May 2006 complaint. In his comment12
within the administrative area of your court, I would like to make dated 16 August 2006, Judge Canda denied the allegation that he
manifest this FORMAL PROTEST against Ms. Ana [sic] Jane D. failed to pay the required legal fees.
Lihaylihay, Docket Clerk III of your Court for her actuations which is In its Report13 dated 24 August 2006, the OCA found that Lihaylihay
[sic] highly offensive and demeaning not only to your Court but the and Judge Canda failed to preserve the good image of the judiciary.
entire judiciary as well, to wit: The OCA stated that:
1) The unmitigated inappropriateness of her attire when This Office is disappointed, nay, ashamed of the actuations of the
reporting to work which to us is very offensive to the taste complainant and respondent in this case. Their disgraceful behavior
of decency because she exudes herself like a GRO (Guest adversely affects the good image of the judiciary. Their actuations
Relations Officer). She is supposed to be wearing uniform degraded the image of the courts before the eyes of the public.
or decent attire instead of very tight fitting jeans and In the instant case, respondent, although not directly responsible for
blouses with very low hemline [sic] that almost exposes the publication of her comment should have exercised prudence in
[sic] her breast or cocktail dresses as if she is [sic] going to dealing with the media considering the interest generated by the
a party or attending high profile gatherings of elite [sic]. publication of the complaint against her by Judge Canda. She should
2) her [sic] very undignified and repulsive appearance have known that the media would take advantage of the opportunity
as a chain smoker with heavily made up face which to sensationalize the case considering the personalities involved.
reminds us of her to be like a WHORE, and who [sic] Complainant Judge Canda, on the other hand, should not have caused
does not hesitate to smoke inside the office in the very eyes the publication of his complaint against the respondent. As a judge,
of her office mates and the public, an act which is in gross complainant should have known that administrative proceedings
violation of existing rules and regulations against smoking before the Court are confidential in nature in order to protect the
in public places and government offices. (Emphasis respondent therein who may later turn out to be innocent of the
supplied) charges. The public airing of his complaint unnecessarily exposed the
In his 1st Indorsement3 dated 12 January 2006, Judge Tomarong Court to the eyes of the public. No justifiable or unselfish purpose
directed Lihaylihay to comment on Judge Canda’s 9 and 11 January would be served by such media exposure of the complaint already
2006 letters. On 13 January 2006, before Lihaylihay could comment filed in Court and therefore covered by the mantle of confidentiality,
on the letters, Judge Canda gave a copy of the 11 January 2006 letter except to sensationalize the same and to defile the reputation of the
to the desk editor of the Mindanao Observer and asked that it be respondent.
published in the newspaper. In his affidavit4 dated 27 February 2006, The OCA recommended that Lihaylihay be admonished and that her
Dennis C. Baguio stated that (1) he was a reporter and photographer 22 March 2006 comment be treated as a complaint for gross
of the Mindanao Observer; (2) he saw Judge Canda talking with the misconduct against Judge Canda.
desk editor of the Mindanao Observer; (3) he saw Judge Canda In a Resolution14 dated 9 October 2006, the Court admonished
giving a copy of the letter to the desk editor; and (4) he heard Judge Lihaylihay for her irresponsible behavior and consolidated A.M. No.
Canda asking the desk editor to publish the letter. P-06-2254 with A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659. In the same Resolution, the
The 11 January 2006 letter was published in the 15 January 2006 Court treated Lihaylihay’s 22 March 2006 comment as a complaint
issue of the Mindanao Observer. The front page headline read, for gross misconduct against Judge Canda, re-docketed the 22 March
"Huwes miprotesta batok sa seksi nga docket clerk." The text of the 2006 comment as a regular administrative matter, and directed Judge
letter was printed in the newspaper with the omission of words which Canda to comment.
were deemed unprintable. In his comment15 dated 5 December 2006, Judge Canda stated that his
In her comment5 dated 20 January 2006, Lihaylihay stated that (1) description of Lihaylihay as a GRO and a whore was not a "malicious
she did not participate in Alimpolo’s application for the position of imputation" but a "formal accusation," and that the publication of his
Sheriff IV; (2) Judge Canda ridiculed, humiliated, and besmirched 11 January 2006 letter in the newspaper was a "journalistic
her reputation by publishing in the newspaper the 11 January 2006 endeavour."
letter describing her as a GRO and a whore; (3) Judge Canda’s text In a Resolution16 dated 12 January 2009, the Court (1) docketed the 4
messages threatened her; and (4) she followed the office dress code. May 2006 complaint as a regular administrative matter; (2)
Lihaylihay alleged that Judge Canda wanted Tenefrancia to apply for consolidated A.M. No. MTJ-09-1730 with A.M. No. P-06-2254 and
the position of Sheriff IV so that Tenefrancia’s position as process A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659; and (3) directed Judge Canda to comment
server would become vacant — Judge Canda’s son, Alejandro Canda, on the allegation that he sent threatening and indecent text messages.
was qualified for the position of process server. Lihaylihay also In his comment17 dated 23 February 2009, Judge Canda (1) denied
alleged that, before the present case started, Judge Canda sent her that he sent Lihaylihay indecent text messages; (2) described his 5
several indecent text messages stating, "You’re sexy today," "I January 2006 text message as "brotherly;" and (3) stated that his 6
missed your gorgeous face," and "I missed your golden voice when January 2006 text message was not intimidating — it only reflected
you sing." Lihaylihay also alleged that she was shocked and the natural reaction of an angry person.
disgusted when Judge Canda invited her to go out of town with him. The OCA’s Report and Recommendations
Alan D. Marapao (Marapao), publisher and editor of Tingog In its Report18 dated 7 October 2008, the OCA found Judge Canda
Peninsula, contacted Lihaylihay. He asked her if he could interview liable for using inappropriate language. The OCA recommended that
her, have a copy of her 20 January 2006 comment, and take her (1) Judge Canda be found guilty of gross misconduct; (2) Judge
picture. Lihaylihay agreed. Without asking for Lihaylihay’s Canda be fined P21,000; (3) the 4 May 2006 complaint be docketed
permission, Marapao published the 20 January 2006 comment in the as a regular administrative matter; (4) A.M. No. MTJ-09-1730 be
22 January 2006 issue of the Tingog Peninsula. Irked, Judge Canda consolidated with A.M. No. P-06-2254 and A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659;
filed a criminal case for libel against Lihaylihay. and (5) Judge Canda be directed to comment on the allegation that he
Lihaylihay filed a complaint6 dated 20 January 2006 with the Office sent Lihaylihay indecent text messages. The OCA stated that:
of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Canda of (1) Judge Canda’s contention that he had nothing to do with the
bullying her; (2) ridiculing, humiliating, and besmirching her publication of his complaint as it was the Mindanao Observer which
reputation by publishing in the newspaper the 11 January 2006 letter decided to pursue the story runs on shallow grounds.
describing her as a GRO and a whore; (3) sending her threatening xxxx
text messages; and (4) sending her indecent text messages. The case Judge Canda already did the right thing when he brought to the
was docketed as MTJ-06-1659. attention of the Executive Judge the matter of Ms. Lihaylihay’s
Judge Canda filed a complaint7 dated 25 January 2006 with the OCA alleged administrative transgressions. However, he stepped out of
charging Lihaylihay with conduct unbecoming a court employee for bounds when he allowed the Mindanao Observer to publish a copy of
publishing in the newspaper her 20 January 2006 comment. The case his complaint. The newspaper would not have had the audacity to
was docketed as A.M. No. P-06-2254. publish the complaint if Judge Canda did not consent to it. Suffice it
In its 1st Indorsement8 dated 15 February 2006, the OCA directed to say, Judge Canda should have known better.
Lihaylihay to comment on Judge Canda’s 25 January 2006 Judge Canda stands accused of Gross Misconduct. He did not only
complaint. In her comment9 dated 22 March 2006, Lihaylihay stated refer to Ms. Lihaylihay as a "whore" in the complaint he filed before
that (1) the publishing of her 20 January 2006 comment in the the Executive Judge; he also caused the publication of the document
newspaper unlikely affected Judge Tomarong’s impartiality and in a newspaper. If the Court can penalize a judge for uttering a foul
term, it can definitely provide for a heavier penalty in the instant case Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross misconduct
where respondent judge even contributed to the publication of his constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a serious
utterance. offense. It is punishable by (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture
The Court’s Ruling of benefits, and disqualification from reinstatement to any public
The Court finds Judge Canda liable for gross misconduct. office; (2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits
Judge Canda harassed and publicly humiliated Lihaylihay: (1) he for more than three months but not exceeding six months; or (3) a
asked her to stay away from Alimpolo; (2) when she reported the fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.22
matter to the police, he took it as a "declaration of war" and warned The Court notes that this is Judge Canda’s second offense. In
her that she will have her "fair share of trouble in due time"; (3) Barbarona v. Judge Canda,23 the Court fined him for violation of
indeed, three days after sending the threatening text message, he filed Circular No. 1-90 and warned him that the repetition of similar acts
a complaint with Judge Tomarong accusing her of several things, would be dealt with more severely. Considering the gravity of Judge
asking that she be disciplined and removed from the service, and Canda’s offense and the fact that this is his second offense, the Court
describing her as a "GRO," "undignified," a "whore," "disgusting," fines him P40,000.
"repulsive," and "pakialamera"; (4) two days after filing the first The charges that Judge Canda sent Lihaylihay indecent text messages
complaint, he filed another complaint accusing her of violating office and that he failed to pay the required legal fees are unsubstantiated,
rules and describing her as "offensive," "demeaning," thus, they must be dismissed. In administrative proceedings, the
"inappropriate," a "GRO," "undignified," "repulsive," and a "whore"; complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence or
(5) still unsatisfied, he had his second complaint published in the such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
newspaper; and (6) when she published her comment in the to support a conclusion, the allegations in the complaint. The Court
newspaper, he filed a criminal case for libel against her. cannot rely on mere conjectures or suppositions.24
Section 1, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Alejandro T. Canda,
Philippine Judiciary states that "Judges shall ensure that not only is Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Liloy-Tampilisan, Judicial Region IX,
their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in Zamboanga del Norte, GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT
the view of a reasonable observer." Section 2, Canon 2 of the Code CONSTITUTING VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF
states that "The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the JUDICIAL CONDUCT. Accordingly, the Court FINES him
people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary." Section 2, Canon 4 P40,000 and STERNLY WARNS him that a repetition of the same
of the Code states that "As a subject of constant public scrutiny, or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as SO ORDERED.
burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and RULES OF COURT
willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way RULE 71
that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office." Section 6, Contempt
Canon 4 of the Code states that "Judges, like any other citizen, are Section 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. — A person
entitled to freedom of expression x x x, but in exercising such guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to
[right], they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same,
to preserve the dignity of the judicial office." Section 6, Canon 6 of including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities
the Code states that "Judges shall x x x be x x x dignified and toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a
courteous." Judge Canda violated these provisions.lavvphil witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully
Judges are required to be temperate in their language at all times. required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in contempt by
They must refrain from inflammatory or vile language. They should such court and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand
be dignified in demeanor and refined in speech, exhibit that pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if
temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint, and be considerate, it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher
courteous, and civil to all persons.19 In Juan de la Cruz v. Carretas,20 rank, or by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or
the Court held that: imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a
A judge should possess the virtue of gravitas. He should be x x x lower court. (1a)
dignified in demeanor, refined in speech and virtuous in Section 2. Remedy therefrom. — The person adjudged in
character. x x x [H]e must exhibit that hallmark judicial direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but
temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint. x x x may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition.
[A] judge must at all times be temperate in his language. He must The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending
choose his words, written or spoken, with utmost care and
resolution of such petition, provided such person files a bond
sufficient control. x x x
fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and
[A] judge should always keep his passion guarded. He can never
conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment
allow it to run loose and overcome his reason. He descends to the
should the petition be decided against him. (2a)
level
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and
of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he utters
hearing. — After a charge in writing has been filed, and an
harsh words [or] snide remarks x x x. As a result, he degrades the
opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within
judicial office and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by
(Emphasis supplied)
himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts
In Re: Anonymous Complaint dated February 18, 2005 of a "Court
may be punished for indirect contempt;
Personnel" against Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Branch
12, Ormoc City,21 the Court held that: (a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
[A] judge x x x ought to conduct himself in a manner befitting a performance of his official duties or in his official
gentleman and a high officer of the court. transactions;
xxxx (b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
The Court has repeatedly reminded members of the bench to process, order, or judgment of a court, including the
conduct themselves irreproachably, not only while in the discharge act of a person who, after being dispossessed or
of official duties but also in their personal behavior every day. x x x ejected from any real property by the judgment or
It bears stressing that as a dispenser of justice, respondent should process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters
exercise judicial temperament at all times, avoiding vulgar and or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon
insulting language. He must maintain composure and such real property, for the purpose of executing acts
equanimity. of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs
The judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and the possession given to the person adjudged to be
imposes a number of restrictions. This is a price that judges have to entitled thereto;
pay for accepting and occupying their exalted positions in the (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
administration of justice. Irresponsible or improper conduct on their processes or proceedings of a court not constituting
part erodes public confidence in the judiciary. Thus, it is their duty to direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
avoid any impression of impropriety in order to protect the image and (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
integrity of the judiciary. (Emphasis supplied) indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
Judge Canda’s acts of (1) threatening Lihaylihay with her "fair share administration of justice;
of trouble in due time"; (2) filing administrative complaints and a (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court,
criminal case to harass her; (3) describing her as a "GRO," and acting as such without authority;
"undignified," a "whore," "disgusting," "repulsive," "pakialamera," (f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
"offensive," "demeaning," and "inappropriate"; and (4) publishing (g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or
such foul remarks in the newspaper are very unbecoming a judge. property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an
The image of the judiciary is reflected in the conduct of its officials order or process of a court held by him.
and Judge Canda subjected the judiciary to embarrassment. But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent
the court from issuing process to bring the respondent into
court, or from holding him in custody pending such exercising quasi-judicial functions, or shall have suppletory
proceedings. (3a) effect to such rules as they may have adopted pursuant to
Section 4. How proceedings commenced. — Proceedings for authority granted to them by law to punish for contempt. The
indirect contempt may be initiated motu propio by the court Regional Trial Court of the place wherein the contempt has
against which the contempt was committed by an order or any been committed shall have jurisdiction over such charges as
other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause may be filed therefor. (n)
why he should not be punished for contempt. RULE 135
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be Powers and Duties of Courts and Judicial Officers
commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars
and certified true copies of documents or papers involved Section 1. Courts always open; justice to be promptly and
therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for impartially administered. — Courts of justice shall always be open,
filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. except on legal holidays, for the filing of any pleading, motion or
If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a other papers, for the trial of cases, hearing of motions, and for the
principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt issuance of orders or rendition of judgments. Justice shall be
shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard impartially administered without unnecessary delay.
and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders Sec 2. Publicity of proceedings and records. — The sitting of every
the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal court of justice shall be public, but any court may, in its discretion,
action for joint hearing and decision. (n) exclude the public when the evidence to be adduced is of such nature
Section 5. Where charge to be filed. — Where the charge for as to require their exclusion in the interest of morality or decency.
indirect contempt has been committed against a Regional Trial The records of every court of justice shall be public records and shall
Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an be available for the inspection of any interested person, at all proper
officer appointed by it, the charge may be filed with such court. business hours, under the supervision of the clerk having custody of
Where such contempt has been committed against a lower such records, unless the court shall, in any special case, have
court, the charge may be filed with the Regional Trial Court of forbidden their publicity, in the interest of morality or decency.
the place in which the lower court is sitting; but the Section 3. Process of superior courts enforced throughout the
proceedings may also be instituted in such lower court subject Philippines. — Process issued from a superior court in which a case
to appeal to the Regional Trial Court of such place in the same is pending to bring in a defendant, or for the arrest of any accused
manner as provided in section 11 of this Rule. (4a; Bar Matter person, or to execute any order or judgment of the court, may be
No. 803, 21 July 1998) enforced in any part of the Philippines.
Section 6. Hearing; release on bail. — If the hearing is not Section 4. Process of inferior courts. — The process of inferior
ordered to be had forthwith, the respondent may be released courts shall be enforceable within the province where the
from custody upon filing a bond, in an amount fixed by the municipality or city lies. It shall not be served outside the boundaries
court, for his appearance at the hearing of the charge. On the of the province in which they are compromised except with the
day set therefor, the court shall proceed to investigate the approval of the judge of first instance of said province, and only in
charge and consider such comment, testimony or defense as the following cases:
the respondent may make or offer. (5a) (a) When an order for the delivery of personal property
Section 7. Punishment for indirect contempt. — If the lying outside the province is to be complied with;
respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed (b) When an attachment of real or personal property lying
against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher outside the province is to be made;
rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty (c) When the action is against two or more defendants
thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, residing in different provinces; and
or both. If he is adjudged guilty of contempt committed against (d) When the place where the case has been brought is that
a lower court, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding five specified in a contract in writing between the parties, or is
thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, the place of the execution of such contract as appears
or both. If the contempt consists in the violation of a writ of therefrom.
injunction, temporary restraining order or status quo order, he Writs of execution issued by inferior courts may be enforced in any
may also be ordered to make complete restitution to the party part of the part of the Philippines without any previous approval of
injured by such violation of the property involved or such the judge of first instance.
amount as may be alleged and proved. Criminal process may be issued by a justice of the peace or other
The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions, shall issue for inferior court, to be served outside his province, when the district
judge, or in his absence the provincial fiscal, shall certify that in his
the enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine unless the court
opinion the interest of justice require such service.
otherwise provides. (6a)
Section 5. Inherent powers of court. — Every court shall have
Section 8. Imprisonment until order obeyed. — When the
power:
contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which
(a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate
is yet in the power of the respondent to perform, he may be
presence;
imprisoned by order of the court concerned until he performs it.
(b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a
(7a)
person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial
Section 9. Proceeding when party released on bail fails to
investigation under its authority;
answer. — When a respondent released on bail fails to appear
(c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
on the day fixed for the hearing, the court may issue another processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court,
order of arrest or may order the bond for his appearance to be in a case pending therein;
forfeited and confiscated, or both; and, if the bond be (d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
proceeded against, the measure of damages shall be the ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner
extent of the loss or injury sustained by the aggrieved party by connected with a case before it, in every manner
reason of the misconduct for which the contempt charge was appertaining thereto;
prosecuted, with the costs of the proceedings, and such (e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case
recovery shall be for the benefit of the party injured. If there is pending therein;
no aggrieved party, the bond shall be liable and disposed of as (f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a
in criminal cases. (8a) case pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be
Section 10. Court may release respondent. — The court which necessary in the exercise of its powers;
issued the order imprisoning a person for contempt may (g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to
discharge him from imprisonment when it appears that public make them conformable to law and justice;
interest will not be prejudiced by his release. (9a) (h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or
Section 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay. other paper to be filed and used instead of the original, and
— The judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and
contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in criminal proceedings.
cases. But execution of the judgment or final order shall not be Section 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. — When by law
suspended until a bond is filed by the person adjudged in jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary
contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from which the writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may
appeal is taken, conditioned that if the appeal be decided be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be
against him he will abide by and perform the judgment or final followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically
order. (10a) pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of
Section 12. Contempt against quasi-judicial entities. — Unless proceeding may be adopted which appears comfortable to the spirit of
otherwise provided by law, this Rule shall apply to contempt the said law or rules.
committed against persons, entities, bodies or agencies
Section 7. Trials and hearings; orders in chambers. — All trials copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath shall be transmitted
upon the merits shall be conducted in open court and so far as to the Supreme Court.
convenient in a regular court room. All other acts or proceeding may An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of relationship within
be done or conducted by a judge in chambers, without the attendance the fourth degree of consanguinity of affinity to any of the parties of
of the clerk or other court officials. their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias, or his having acted as
Section 8. Interlocutory orders out of province. — A judge of first counsel to his acting as such Investigator. Where the Investigator
instance shall have power to hear and determine, when within the does not disqualify himself, a party may appeal to the IBP Board of
district though without his province, any interlocutory motion or Governors, which by majority vote of the members present, there
issue after due and reasonable notice to the parties. On the filing of a being a quorum, may order his disqualification.
petition for the writ of habeas corpus or for release upon bail or Any Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due hearing,
reduction of bail in any Court of First Instance, the hearings may be by the vote of at least six (6) members of the IBP Board of
had at any place in the judicial district which the judge shall deem Governors. The decision of the Board of Governors in all cases of
convenient. disqualification or removal shall be final.
Section 9. Signing judgments out of province. — Whenever a judge Section 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. — The
appointed or assigned in any province or branch of a Court of First National Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaints
Instance in a province shall leave the province by transfer or against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP
assignment to another court of equal jurisdiction, or by expiration of Board of Governors.
his temporary assignment, without having decided a case totally Section 4. Chapter assistance to complainant. — The proper IBP
heard by him and which was argued or an opportunity given for Chapter may assist the complainant(s) in the preparation and filing of
argument to the parties or their counsel, it shall be lawful for him to his complaint(s).
prepare and sign his decision in said case anywhere within the Section 5. Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to be
Philippines. He shall send the same by registered mail to the clerk of meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served
the court where the case was heard or argued to be filed therein as of upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen
the date when the same was received by the clerk, in the same (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit
manner as if he had been present in court to direct the filing of the action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator
judgment. If a case has been heard only in part, the Supreme Court, that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by
upon petition of any of the parties to the case and the the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of the
recommendation of the respective district judge, may also authorize resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the
the judge who has partly heard the case, if no other judge had heard Supreme Court which may review the case motu propio or upon
the case in part, to continue hearing and to decide said case timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of
notwithstanding his transfer or appointment to another court of equal the dismissal of the complainant.
jurisdiction. No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the
RULE 137 desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
Disqualification of Judicial Officers charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, unless
the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP
Section 1. Disqualification of judges. — No judge or judicial Board of Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason to
officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or respondent. (Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution
in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter 356).
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, Section 6. Verification and service of answer. — The answer shall be
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he verified. The original and five (5) legible copies of the answer shall
has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, be filed with the Investigator, with proof of service of a copy thereof
or in which he has been presided in any inferior court when his on the complainant or his counsel.
ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written Section 7. Administrative counsel. — The IBP Board of Governors
consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered shall appoint a suitable member of the Integrated Bar as counsel to
upon the record. assist the complainant of the respondent during the investigation in
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify case of need for such assistance.
himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other Section 8. Investigation. — Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of
than those mentioned above. the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate
Section 2. Objection that judge disqualified, how made and speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the
effect. — If it be claimed that an official is disqualified from power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall
sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on
competency may, in writing, file with the official his objection, his behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon
stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
proceed with the trial, or withdraw therefrom, in accordance shall proceed ex parte.
with his determination of the question of his disqualification. The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3)
His decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for good
other papers in the case, but no appeal or stay shall be cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application.
allowed from, or by reason of, his decision in favor of his own Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order
competency, until after final judgment in the case. issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt
RULE 139-B of court. The corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator
Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged
Section 1. How Instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment, contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP
suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in
Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings
upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be
clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement.
by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of
therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
facts. recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of
the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the penalty.
instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against Section 9. Depositions. — Depositions may be taken in accordance
erring attorneys including those in the government service. with the Rules of Court with leave of the investigator(s).
Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any member
Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapter who shall of the Board of Governors, the President of any Chapter, or any
forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for officer authorized by law to administer oaths.
assignment to an investigator. Depositions may be taken outside the Philippines before diplomatic
A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE or consular representative of the Philippine Government or before
PHILIPPINES any person agreed upon by the parties or designated by the Board of
Section 2. National Grievance Investigators. — The Board of Governors.
Governors shall appoint from among IBP members an Investigator Any suitable member of the Integrated Bar in the place where a
or, when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of three (3) deposition shall be taken may be designated by the Investigator to
investigators to investigate the complaint. All Investigators shall take assist the complainant or the respondent in taking a deposition.
an oath of office in the form prescribed by the Board of Governors. A Section 10. Report of Investigator. — Not later than thirty (30) days
from the termination of the investigation, the Investigator shall
submit a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations Section 19. Expenses. — All reasonable and necessary
to the IBP Board of Governors, together with the stenographic notes expenses incurred in relation to disciplinary and disbarment
and the transcript thereof, and all the evidence presented during the proceedings are lawfull charges for which the parties may be
investigation. The submission of the report need not await the taxed as costs.
transcription of the stenographic notes, it being sufficient that the Section 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision. — This Rule
report reproduce substantially from the Investigator's personal notes shall take effect June 1, 1988 and shall supersede the present
any relevant and pertinent testimonies. Rule 139 entitled "DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF
Section 11. Defects. — No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or ATTORNEYS". All cases pending investigation by the Office of
in the proceeding or the Investigator's Report shall be considered as the Solicitor General shall be transferred to the Integrated Bar
substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon considering the of the Philippines Board of Governors for investigation and
whole record, finds that such defect has resulted or may result in a disposition as provided in this Rule except those cases where
miscarriage of justice, in which event the Board shall take such the investigation has been substantially completed.
remedial action as the circumstances may warrant, including RULE 140
invalidation of the entire proceedings. Charges Against Judges of First Instance
Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. Section 1. Complaint - All Charges against judges of first instance
a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by shall be in writing and shall set out distinctly, clearly, and concisely
the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence the facts complained of as constituting the alleged serious misconduct
transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The or inefficiency of the respondent, and shall be sworn to and supported
decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts
and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the therein alleged, and shall be accompanied with copies of documents
reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated within which may substantiate said facts.
a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next Section 2. Service or dismissal. - If the charges appear to merit
meeting of the Board following the submittal of the action, a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, requiring
Investigator's Report. him to answer within ten (10) days from the date service. If the
b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total charges do not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction
membership, determines that the respondent should be of the court that the charges are not meritorious, the same shall be
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall dismissed.
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and Section 3. Answer; hearing. - Upon the filing of respondents answer
recommendations which, together with the whole record of or upon the expiration of the time for its filing, the court shall assign
the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme one of its members, a Justice of the Court of Appeals or a judge of
Court for final action. first instance to conduct the hearing of the charges. The Justice or
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the judge so assigned shall set a day for the hearing, and notice thereof
disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension shall be served on both parties. At such hearing the parties may
or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it present oral or written evidence.
shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing Section 4. Report - After the hearing, the Justice or judge shall file
such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless with the Supreme Court a report of his findings of fact and
upon petition of the complainant or other interested party conclusions of law, accompanied by the evidence presented by the
filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from parties and the other papers in he case.
notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders Section 5. Action - After the filing of the report, the court will take
otherwise. such action as the facts and the law may warrant.
d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be Section 6. Confidential. - Proceedings against judges of first instance
given to all parties through their counsel. A copy of the shall be private and confidential.
same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court. CIVIL CODE
B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT Article 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by
Section 13. Supreme Court Investigation. — In proceedings initiated reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. (6)
motu propio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or
interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for
for investigation to the Solicitor-General or to any officer of the the same.
Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a
investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6 public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to
to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other
be conducted directly by the Supreme Court. relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General of other Court- administrative action that may be taken.
designated Investigator. — Based upon the evidence adduced at the Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties
containing his findings of fact and recommendations for the final of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
action of the Supreme Court. (1) Freedom of religion;
C. COMMON PROVISIONS (2) Freedom of speech;
Section 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. — After (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor, the periodical publication;
Supreme Court, motu propio, or at the instance of the IBP Board of (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigator, may (5) Freedom of suffrage;
suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any of the (6) The right against deprivation of property without due
causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of the process of law;
investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court. (7) The right to a just compensation when private property
Section 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a is taken for public use;
Regional Trial Court. 1 — The Court of Appeals or Regional (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers,
the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27 2, until further and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
action of the Supreme Court in the case. (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
Section 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
Trial Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court. — Upon (12) The right to become a member of associations or
such suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial societies for purposes not contrary to law;
Court shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to
copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the petition the Government for redress of grievances;
facts upon which the same was based. Upon receipt of such (14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in
certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a any form;
full investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten or (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and
warrant. counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
Section 18. Confidentiality. — Proceedings against attorneys accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to
shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
cases. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against
one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from
being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make of the rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgate. Said
such confession, except when the person confessing rules of court shall likewise provide for the appointment and duties of
becomes a State witness; amicable compounders. (n)
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual Article 2031. The courts may mitigate the damages to be paid by the
punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in losing party who has shown a sincere desire for a compromise. (n)
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially Article 2032. The court's approval is necessary in compromises
declared unconstitutional; and entered into by guardians, parents, absentee's representatives, and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts. administrators or executors of decedent's estates. (1810a)
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not Article 2033. Juridical persons may compromise only in the form
the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal and with the requisites which may be necessary to alienate their
offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an property. (1812a)
entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and Article 2034. There may be a compromise upon the civil liability
for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed arising from an offense; but such compromise shall not extinguish the
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be public action for the imposition of the legal penalty. (1813)
instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of Article 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be
evidence. valid:
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages (1) The civil status of persons;
may also be adjudicated. (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge (3) Any ground for legal separation;
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or (4) Future support;
other penal statute. (5) The jurisdiction of courts;
Article 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal (6) Future legitime. (1814a)
offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent Article 2046. The appointment of arbitrators and the
civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice procedure for arbitration shall be governed by the
of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has provisions of such rules of court as the Supreme Court shall
been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to promulgate. (n)
institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action ANTI-GRAFT and CORRUPT PRACTICES
for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify Section 1. Statement of policy. It is the policy of the Philippine
the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a public
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons
presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. thereto.
Article 739. The following donations shall be void: Section 2. Definition of terms. As used in this Act, that term
(1) Those made between persons who were guilty of (a) "Government" includes the national government, the
adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation; local governments, the government-owned and
(2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same government-controlled corporations, and all other
criminal offense, in consideration thereof; instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the
(3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants Philippines and their branches.
and ascendants, by reason of his office. (b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive
In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether
may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in compensation, even nominal, from the government as
the same action. (n) defined in the preceding subparagraph.
Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, (c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting
even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
mediation of another: member of the public officer's immediate family, in behalf
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who of himself or of any member of his family or relative within
may be under his guardianship; the fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity,
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may even on the occasion of a family celebration or national
have been intrusted to them, unless the consent of the festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the
principal has been given; circumstances manifestly excessive.
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate (d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless
under administration; the context indicates otherwise.
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or
or of any subdivision thereof, or of any government-owned omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
or controlled corporation, or institution, the administration following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
of which has been intrusted to them; this provision shall are hereby declared to be unlawful:
apply to judges and government experts who, in any (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
manner whatsoever, take part in the sale; officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority
superior and inferior courts, and other officers and or an offense in connection with the official duties of the
employees connected with the administration of justice, the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or
property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution influenced to commit such violation or offense.
before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any
the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to other person, in connection with any contract or transaction
lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may between the Government and any other part, wherein the
be the object of any litigation in which they may take part public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under
by virtue of their profession; the law.
(6) Any others specially disqualified by law. (1459a) (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
Article 2005. A judicial deposit or sequestration takes present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself
place when an attachment or seizure of property in or for another, from any person for whom the public
litigation is ordered. (1785) officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained,
Article 2029. The court shall endeavor to persuade the litigants in a or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license,
civil case to agree upon some fair compromise. (n) Article 2030. in consideration for the help given or to be given, without
Every civil action or proceeding shall be suspended: prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(1) If willingness to discuss a possible compromise is (d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept
expressed by one or both parties; or employment in a private enterprise which has pending
(2) If it appears that one of the parties, before the official business with him during the pendency thereof or
commencement of the action or proceeding, offered to within one year after its termination.
discuss a possible compromise but the other party refused (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
the offer. Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
The duration and terms of the suspension of the civil action or benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
proceeding and similar matters shall be governed by such provisions official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by
negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and him previously approved or adopted by the Congress during the same
employees of offices or government corporations charged term.
with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. The provision of this section shall apply to any other public officer
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, who recommended the initiation in Congress of the enactment or
without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or receives any such
time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of interest during his incumbency.
obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or other
in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or public officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval of such
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for
or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating thirty days after such approval to retain such interest.
against any other interested party. Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. Every public officer,
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly office, and within the month of January of every other year thereafter,
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his
officer profited or will profit thereby. resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a
interest in any business, contract or transaction in Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his Office of the President, or in the case of members of the Congress
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the and the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest. Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and
requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next
he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming
approval, even if he votes against the same or does not office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may
participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or file their statements in the following months of January.
group. Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three
public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have
unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name
board, panel or group to which they belong. of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of
or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate
who is not so qualified or entitled. means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding
character, acquired by his office or by him on account of any provision of law to the contrary.
his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private
such information in advance of its authorized release date. person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with
referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years,
public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or
urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and
information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and
together with the offending public officer, be punished under Section other lawful income.
nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution
in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be entitled to
with the Government. recover in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor
Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful of the Government, the amount of money or the thing he may have
for any person having family or close personal relation with any given to the accused, or the value of such thing.
public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such (b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of
family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less
or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos,
any other person having some business, transaction, application, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both
request or contract with the government, in which such public official such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.
has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative
by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a
personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against
fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to him.
intimacy which assures free access to such public officer. Section 10. Competent court. Until otherwise provided by law, all
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of
or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses the proper Court of First Instance.
defined in Section 3 hereof. Section 11. Prescription of offenses. All offenses punishable under
Section 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for this Act shall prescribe in ten years.
the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the Section 12. Termination of office. No public officer shall be allowed
third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice- to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or
President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense
Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with bribery.
the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer
person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information
officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction, bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he
contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity
assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to
approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to
officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative
provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to proceedings have been filed against him.
any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of Section 14. Exception. Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
a profession. insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of
Section 6. Prohibition on Members of Congress. It shall be unlawful gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be
hereafter for any Member of the Congress during the term for which excepted from the provisions of this Act.
he has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or prohibit the
interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and practice of any profession, lawful trade or occupation by any private
person or by any public officer who under the law may legitimately latter to call me. At about 7 o’clock, my phone rang. It was
practice his profession, trade or occupation, during his incumbency, Herbst on the line, saying that he was arrested upon the
except where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation complaint of Manansala after he broke some glass in the
involves conspiracy with any other person or public official to latter’s office on provocation; that he did so because he was
commit any of the violations penalized in this Act. fed up with Manansala’s refusal and delay in paying what
Section 15. Separability clause. If any provision of this Act or the he (Manansala) owes him, that he was detained at the
application of such provision to any person or circumstances is Kamuning Police Station at about 11:00 in the morning and
declared invalid, the remainder of the Act or the application of such that his complainant, who seems to be very popular with
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by the police officers thereat, would call every now and then,
such declaration. oftentimes, leaving threatening words, through his cohorts
Section 16. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect on its approval, but at the station, for Herbst.
for the purpose of determining unexplained wealth, all property I could sense Herbst’s agitation mainly due to the fact that
acquired by a public officer since he assumed office shall be taken he claims he has not been unable to reach his lawyer since
into consideration. he was detained, neither was his side of the incident taken
Approved: August 17, 1960 down by the police.
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1916 May 10, 2005 When Herbst asked if he could already be released, that
MELENCIO P. MANANSALA III, complainant, was the time I decided to give the needed advice and
vs. information, such as: that if there has been a formal
JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Br. complaint, for sure, he will be brought to inquest, and that
87, Quezon City, respondent. since it is Saturday, an inquest prosecutor is on duty and so,
DECISION I then asked Herbst to find out from the investigator when
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: inquest will take place. As Herbst had a sideline
The following incidents spawned the filing of the present conversation with someone, I heard someone in the
administrative case. background ask Herbst who he was in conversation with.
Before noon of February 1, 2003, Winfried Herbst, a German Before I knew it, someone other tha[n] Herbst was on
national, was detained at Police Station 10 in Kamuning, Quezon the line and he introduced himself as some police officer
City for breaking a glass wall in the office of Melencio P. Manansala whose name I cannot recall and asked what is it I wanted
III (complainant) at PM Building at 24 Matalino St., Diliman, to know and who I am. I introduced myself as Mrs.
Quezon City. By complainant’s account, in late afternoon of even Asdala, a friend of Herbst and inquired if there has been a
date, Judge Fatima G. Asdala (respondent) of the Regional Trial complaint filed against Herbst, for what crime and when
Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, called up by telephone the Station the case will be inquested. I gathered then that Herbst was
Commander of Station 10 Police Superintendent Atty. Joel Napoleon charged with malicious mischief for a damaged glass wall
Coronel, requesting for the release of Herbst to her custody. Atty. costing more or less P30,000.00, that inquest will take
Coronel, however, did not accede to respondent’s request, he place at about 9 o’clock in the evening.
informing her that complainant was adamant in filing criminal Having been so informed, I asked to speak with Herbst
charges against Herbst and they were just waiting for the arrival of again whence I advised Herbst that in an inquest
the inquest fiscal. investigation, whatever he will say will be immaterial, as
Complainant further relates that on February 3, 2003, Mark Cabigao, the inquest fiscal will focus only on what the complaint
the sheriff assigned at respondent’s sala, together with two says; he has to wait for the resolution of the fiscal whose
policemen, went to PM Building and requested that the Mercedes recommendation will be for further investigation, if he
Benz car of Herbst which he parked within the vicinity be turned over finds the complaint and evidence insufficient, in which case
to their custody. he will have the opportunity to submit his counter-affidavit
On February 4, 2003, complainant, together with retired Quezon City or the fiscal may recommend filing of the case. Either way,
Regional Trial Court Judge Marcelino Bautista appeared at the the recommendation will wait for the approval of the Chief
"Direct Connect," a television show of Atty. Batas Mauricio, wherein City Prosecutor or his assistant before he can be released
complainant aired respondent’s alleged meddling in the case against without necessity of bail if for further investigation; with
Herbst. In the same show, respondent’s side was, through telephone, bail, if filed. Often the inquest fiscal’s recommendation
likewise aired. stays for minor offenses like malicious mischief, UNLESS,
The following day or on February 5, 2003, respondent filed before some interested souls INTERVENE for a reversal. I also
the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office a complaint for libel against advised Herbst of what demeanor to take during the inquest
complainant and Judge Bautista for allegedly defaming her in the to avoid getting the ire of the inquest investigator, then
television show of Atty. Mauricio. hanged up but advising to keep me posted by text of the
Subsequently, on February 13, 2003, complainant filed a complaint- development, but suggested to offer [to] pay the damage
affidavit, with a supplemental complaint-affidavit, against respondent caused at once, to soothe his complainant.
before the Office of the Ombudsman charging her with violation of At about 10 o’clock in the evening, Herbst sent [a] message
Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices that the inquest prosecutor’s recommendation is for further
Act) for allegedly investigation. I texted back saying that it is good news as he
Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer then will have the opportunity to present his side before a
to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and final resolution is made.
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an xxx
offense in connection with the official duties of the latter or On February 3, 200[3], at about 4:30 in the afternoon, I had
allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to an incidental conversation with Atty. Bautista on the cell
commit such violation or offense. phone and asked why he would not want Herbst’s
By Memorandum1 of February 17, 2003, the Ombudsman considered Mercedes Benz removed from where it was parked along
the case against respondent closed and terminated without prejudice Malakas Street. As related to me by Herbst, he left his
and referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for Mercedes Benz unattended on the road fronting PM
appropriate action. apartments where Manansala’s office is located when he
Upon receipt by the OCA of complainant’s complaint-affidavit and was forcibly hauled by the police summoned by Manansala
supplemental complaint-affidavit on March 13, 2003, it directed in the morning of February 1, 2003. Herbst called to inform
respondent, by Indorsement2 dated April 9, 2003, to submit her that a friend reported seeing the tires of his car all flat and
comment thereon. that the security guards of Manansala’s office were
In her comment3 dated May 16, 2003, respondent claimed that the responsible for that. Fearing more vandalism, he asked for
complaint at bar was intended to harass her – for the purpose of help to move out his car.
getting back at her, she having charged complainant and his lawyer Working hours over, I asked my sheriff to check if he can
Marcelino Bautista, Jr. with libel. Respondent’s version of what do anything. My sheriff was all too willing to help that
transpired on February 1 and 3, 2003 is quoted verbatim: he immediately proceeded to where the car could be
On February 1, 2003, a Saturday, at about 6:30 in the found only to be met by an irate Manansala and his bosom
evening, as I was on my way out to treat my children to a lawyer Marcelino Bautista, who berated him in front of
weekend dinner, I received an overseas call from Ed several people and called him "pakialamero" at the same
Berzosa, a first cousin working [in] Hilton Macau asking time telling him that no one can get Herbst car but Herbst
for advi[c]e in regard [to] his benefactor, who before noon personally . . . which was precisely what Herbst was
of that day, was allegedly taken to the Kamuning Police avoiding because Manansala’s men almost roughed him up
Station for some offense. Since Ed could not accurately before the police came on February 1, 2003, when the
provide me the information I desired to know to be able to incident leading to the filing of the case, occurred. It
give the proper legal advice, I instructed Ed instead to get appears that upon seeing my sheriff in office uniform, Atty.
in touch with his benefactor Winfried Herbst and advise the Bautista asked what court he is assigned. My sheriff then
called up to inform what transpired and that was when I had allegedly smashed the window glass at the PM
asked to speak with Mr. Bautista ONLY for the purpose of Building at 24 Matalino Street, Diliman, Quezon City,
asking him as to why he would not allow the car to be where the complainant Melencio P. Manansala III was
pulled out, after all, it has nothing to do with the case filed living or holding office; as well as in asking for the
against Herbst by Manansala. As earlier said, my only compounding or amicable settlement of the malicious
purpose in talking with Atty. Bautista on the phone was to mischief (or vandalism) case against the German national.
ask for his reason in not allowing Herbst car moved out, For, it can hardly be doubted that in making both requests
knowing that the car was not even entrusted to him or to respondent judge, one way or another, wittingly or
Manansala, thus, they do not have any right to withhold it unwittingly, subtly or blatantly, brought to bear, or sought
from anyone in Herbst behalf. It was never to ask for the to bring to bear, upon the precinct commander, the
release of the car, precisely for the reasons already stated, influence of her office as a judge, in an irregular and
and which I emphasized in my conversation with Atty. improper manner. Rightly or wrongly, the public
Bautista that afternoon of February 3, 2003 when, identifies the abstract precept of justice, and the
Manansala arrogantly asked why the effort on my part. I administration of justice, with the persona and actuations of
told him Herbst is a family friend, my cousin’s benefactor the visible human judge that they see, and with whom they
and he asked for help with his car. However, when come in contact, or deal with. Respondent judge’s plea of
Bautista, construed the effort as meddling, I thought any good faith thus becomes tenous when it is remembered that
further conversation with him on the phone would not help as a former fiscal or prosecutor, respondent judge ought to
especially when he made it clear that they will not allow know that there is no legal or statutory warrant or basis, at
anyone to get the car from where it was, so I told myself that time, for her requests/ actions in seeking to obtain
just to forget about it. When Herbst texted that he has been (temporary) custody of the still-[to] be-inquested Winfried
released from detention after posting bail, I instead, advised Herbst, or for the compounding or amicable settlement of
him to get his car personally but reminding him to avoid the malicious mischief (or vandalism) case, against the
any untoward confrontation with Manansala or his men or latter. However one looks at it, either course of action
Bautista. amounted to an unjustified, if not unlawful, interference
x x x4 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) or meddling, ("or persuading, inducing or influencing
By Resolution5 dated February 16, 2004, this Court referred the another public officer" to borrow the language of the
complaint to Court of Appeals Justice Renato C. Dacudao for statute) with the work of the police precinct commander
investigation, report and recommendation. at the time.
In the investigation conducted by Justice Dacudao, complainant Thus conceding, for argument[‘s] sake, that a finding of
presented three witnesses, namely, Atty. Coronel, Sheriff Mark liability under Section 3(a) of the Republic Act No. 3019,
Cabigao, and Judge Bautista, the gists of whose testimonies follow as amended, would be improper, since a finding that
after their names. respondent had violated this Section 3(a) requires proof
Atty. Coronel testified as follows: beyond reasonable doubt, for the reason that R.A. No.
On February 1, 2003, the duty desk officer, Police Chief Inspector 3019, as amended, is a penal statute, still under the facts
Danilo Maceren, received a telephone call informing him that one recited, respondent judge can still be held liable, at the very
who introduced herself as Judge Asdala wanted to talk to him (Atty. least, for palpable abuse of authority or plain
Coronel) by phone. He thus talked to the caller who requested him to, misconduct, a finding whereon can rest upon substantial
if possible, release Herbst from detention and turn him to her evidence, as was submitted in this case. (Emphasis and
custody, and asked about the possibility of the case being settled underscoring supplied)
between complainant and Herbst.6 Justice Dacudao thus found respondent judge liable "at the very least,
Wanting to accommodate respondent’s request, he summoned for palpable abuse or plain misconduct," and recommended that
complainant to his office and echoed to him respondent’s request.7 respondent judge be fined in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
Sheriff Marcelino Cabigao testified as follows: (P10,000.00), and warned that a repetition of the same or similar
On February 3, 2003, after office hours, "napagutusan lang po ako offense will merit a harsher penalty.
na pumunta sa Station 10 and ask for police assistance and go to By Memorandum14 of February 28, 2005, the OCA made a contrary
PM Apartments to remove a vehicle because it might be damaged or finding and recommended the dismissal of the complaint against
lost."8 respondent, to wit:
Upon arrival at the site where the vehicle was parked, he found out After a careful study of the records of the case, we have to
that all its 4 tires were already deflated. And when he asked withhold our concurrence with the findings of Justice
complainant and Judge Bautista for permission to get the vehicle, Dacudao. The report of the investigating justice solely
they refused, prompting him to call respondent and inform her that relies on the testimony of Atty. Joel Napoleon Coronel, the
"they don’t want to give it and even if they did, I cannot take it police superintendent and station commander whom Judge
because it has already 4 flat tires." Respondent then asked him who Asdala allegedly called and tried to persuade to release and
prevented him from retrieving the vehicle, upon which he named place the detained Mr. Herbst under her custody. It must be
Judge Bautista and complainant. Respondent further asked him to pointed out that not only does Judge Asdala categorically
give his phone to Judge Bautista which he did, and after respondent deny having spoken to Atty. Coronel, but the latter himself
talked to Judge Bautista, she told him (Cabigao) to leave the place if acknowledges that he did not know the respondent judge
they do not want to release the vehicle.9 and admits "that the person I was talking over the phone
Judge Bautista declared that during his phone conversation with may or may not be Judge Asdala.["] There is therefore the
respondent in the afternoon of February 3, 2003, he told her to get an shadow of doubt created by the possibility that
authorization from Herbst in order to retrieve the car as well as make somebody else could have used the name of Judge
an inventory of the contents of the vehicle to avoid any Asdala.
misunderstanding later.10 The testimonial evidence presented did not remove the
Upon the other hand, Respondent, at the witness stand, repeated her probability that Judge Asdala might not be guilty of the
claim that the administrative complaint was filed on account of her offense charged, thus failing to establish a prima facie case
filing of the libel charges against complainant and Judge Bautista.11 against the respondent judge.
And she reiterated the contents of her comment to the complaint, she The complainant’s allegation that Judge Asdala continues
reasserting that there was no interference on her part with regard to to intimidate and use her authority to influence the outcome
the investigation of Herbst took place.12 of the case was never substantiated by evidence,
Investigating Justice Dacudao, by his Report and documentary or testimonial.
Recommendation,13 found respondent answerable for palpable abuse However, we find that sending Sheriff Cabigao to
of authority or plain misconduct. The pertinent portion of his report retrieve the car of Mr. Herbst was improper despite the
reads: non-involvement of the car in the criminal case. Even if it
x x x [T]his Investigator believes that respondent judge was already after office hours, the fact that Sheriff
could be held liable under Section 3(a) of Anti-Graft and Cabigao, being a personnel of Judge Asdala’s own court
Corrupt Practices Act, to wit: still in his office uniform and accompanied by two
xxx policemen, would send the wrong signal, as it did.
Respondent judge can be faulted for having called up that Judges are expected to keep a watchful eye on the conduct
early evening of February 1, 2003, Atty. Joel Napoleon of their employees, and not to ask them to perform tasks
Coronel, station commander of the Kamuning Police outside their official functions. They are constrained to
Station No. 10, to request for the release to her custody of instill in the court personnel a sense of propriety and
the German national Winfried Herbst, who was scheduled probity in the performance of judicial functions. Given
to undergo inquest investigation at the Office of the City these requirements, the respondent judge should be aware
Prosecutor of Quezon City, for malicious mischief (or that the slightest semblance of impropriety on the part of
vandalism), which the latter apparently committed, after he the employees of the court stirs ripples of public suspicion
and public distrust of the judicial administrators. The ATTY. CORONEL:
slightest breach of duty and the slightest irregularity in the I asked Mr. Manansala to my office because I
conduct of court officers and employees detract from the received a call from a person who introduced
dignity of the courts and erode the faith of the people in the herself as Judge Asdala and that is the reason
judiciary. why I asked Mr. Manansala to my office and
While we deem the respondent judge not guilty of violation asked him if he is willing to settle the case
of Sec 3(a) of R.A. 3019, palpable abuse of authority or amicably with Mr. Herbst.
plain misconduct, we are of the view that the acts properly JUDGE ASDALA:
imputable to her, while not warranting the imposition When you called Mr. Manansala in your
of any disciplinary sanction, clearly demonstrate the office, you informed him that a certain Judge
need for greater care, prudence and discretion in her Ma. Fatima Asdala called in order to ask for a
future actions. favor, is that it?
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we respectfully submit ATTY. CORONEL:
for the consideration of the Honorable Court the following I informed him that Judge Asdala called me
recommendations: and ask me to help the person under
1. That the administrative complaint against Judge Fatima investigation, Mr. Herbst, if possible to have
G. Asdala of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 87), Quezon the person released from detention and I told
City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit; Mr. Manansala the only way that I can do this
2. That such dismissal notwithstanding, Judge Asdala is to have the case settled amicably so that . . .
should be ADMONISHED to avoid acts that are inimical to no case will be filed against Mr. Herbst.
the service and which would cloud the credibility of the xxx
court; and JUDGE ASDALA:
3. That she be STERNLY WARNED that a similar act in Why did you take interest, Mr. Coronel, when the
the future shall be strictly dealt with. (Emphasis and case should have been handled by the
underscoring supplied) investigator of the case?
The pertinent provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct ATTY. CORONEL:
read: Because I believe in my mind at that time that
CANON 2 it was Judge Asdala who called me and asked
A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND for my assistance regarding Mr. Herbst who
THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL she claimed to be a family friend and asked me
ACTIVITIES. if possible to release Mr. Herbst to her
RULE 2.01. – A Judge should so behave at all times as to custody. That is why I asked Mr. Manansala
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality to come to my office and if there could be a
of the judiciary. possible amicable settlement between Mr.
xxx Manansala and Mr. Herbst so that no criminal
RULE 2.04. – A Judge shall refrain from influencing in complaint could be filed against Mr. Herbst.
any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute JUSTICE DACUDAO:
pending before another court or administrative agency. In other words, you were attempting to forge
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) some kind of an amicable settlement?
Above-quoted Rule 2.04 is reproduced as CANON 2, Sec. 3 in the ATTY. CORONEL:
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE Yes, Your Honor, I was trying to arrange an
JUDICIARY which took effect on June 1, 2004. amicable settlement between Mr. Manansala
In administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary to hold a and Mr. Herbst at that time.
respondent liable for the charge is substantial evidence or such JUSTICE DACUDAO:
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to Why did you do that? What is your purpose?
support a conclusion.15 ATTY. CORONEL:
In the case at bar, respondent denies having talked to Atty. Coronel. I believed I spoke to Judge Asdala over the
She admits though that she talked to one Maceren who, by her claim, phone and then I would like to accommodate
butted in during her phone conversation with Herbst. She proffers, her request that her friend will not be
however, that when she conversed with Maceren, she identified detained any longer if the case will be settled
herself as Mrs. Asdala and merely asked him if a complaint had been between Mr. Manansala and Mr. Herbst at
filed against Herbst, for what offense, and when the case would be that time.
inquested. xxx
Respondent’s plain denial of the charge of influencing does not JUDGE ASDALA:
suffice to discredit the straightforward claim of Atty. Coronel, Because actually, the reason why the complainant
however. would file this is because of the damage, he
MR. MANANSALA: would want that rectified, correct?
Did you inform me of, for lack of a better term at ATTY. CORONEL:
this point in time, inquiries from a certain judge Yes, ma’m.
regarding the Winfried Herbst complaint? JUDGE ASDALA:
ATTY. CORONEL: That is the main reason why you were trying to
I called you to my office because I received a forge a settlement between Mr. Manansala and
phone call from a person who introduced Mr. Herbst and not particularly because
herself as Judge Asdala of the Regional Trial somebody called you?
Court of Quezon City concerning the ATTY. CORONEL:
investigation of a criminal complaint being I took interest in the case because of the call I
conducted by our office against Mr. Herbst. received that afternoon that is why I asked
xxx Mr. Manansala to come to my office and asked
JUDGE ASDALA: him if an amicable settlement can be arranged
What particular words that the person you were between him and Mr. Herbst.
talking with on [the] phone tell you that is now JUDGE ASDALA:
being considered by Mr. Manansala as So it is not for the reason that the case is
"pakikialam"? actually the subject of a usual settlement that
ATTY. CORONEL: you took interest in but because of the call of a
The person who introduced herself as Judge certain person who represented herself as
Asdala asked me if I can possibly help a Judge Asdala. Is that what you are trying to
certain Mr. Herbst who was brought in to our say?
station for investigation and that he would not ATTY. CORONEL:
be detained and be released to the custody of Yes.
the person who introduced herself as Judge xxx
Asdala. JUSTICE DACUDAO:
xxx What was the gist of the conversation?
JUDGE ASDALA: ATTY. CORONEL:
Is it not that you entertained Mr. Manansala in Your Honor, I was informed by my desk
your office because he is an English-speaking officer at that time that a call from Judge
guy and he was decently dressed or what? Asdala was received by them and asked me if I
will be willing to talk with Judge Asdala. I As for respondent’s act of ordering her sheriff to engage the
received that call and I spoke to a woman who assistance of policemen and retrieve Herbst’s car, this Court finds
introduced herself as Judge Asdala of RTC that respondent should also be faulted therefor. For by such act, she
Quezon City. And then the person over the availed of the services of a government employee – inutusan niya –
phone asked me if I can possibly help a Mr. for private concerns. In any event, that her sheriff was even ordered
Herbst, a German national, who was brought to engage the services of policemen could not have been intended
in to Station 10 for investigation considering other than to demonstrate her perceived might as a judge in order to
that the person is a friend of hers and if hopefully secure an unimpeded release of the car. Her claim that the
possible, Mr. Herbst would not be detained at sheriff was "all too willing to help" does not, even if true, albeit the
our station. sheriff’s testimony does not reflect such claim, extenuate her or
JUSTICE DACUDAO: mitigate her liability.
You mentioned of a desk officer, what is the In fine, this Court finds well-taken the investigating Justice’s
name of that desk officer? evaluation of complainant’s allegations. Instead, however, of
ATTY. CORONEL: palpable abuse of authority or plain misconduct, respondent is found
At that time, the person who approached me was liable for gross misconduct constituting violation of the earlier quoted
Police Chief Inspector Danilo Maceren, Your provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a serious charge under
Honor. Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended.20 Section 11 of said rule
JUSTICE DACUDAO: reads:
Where is he now? SECTION 11. Sanctions
ATTY. CORONEL: A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
Major Maceren is now in Cosovo, Yugoslavia. following sanctions may be imposed:
He is part of the U.N. Peace Visiting Mission. 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)16 benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification
Moreover, respondent’s vacillating version regarding the phone from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
conversation with the police officer flaws her credibility. In her including government-owned and controlled corporations,
Comment to the complaint at bar, she stated that during her phone Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no
conversation with Herbst, "she heard someone in the background ask case include accrued leave credits;
Herbst who he was in conversation with" and "[b]efore she knew it, 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits
someone other tha[n] Herbst was on the line and he introduced for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
himself as some police officer whose name [she] cannot recall and 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding
asked what is it [she] wanted to know and who [she was] xxx."17 And P40,000.00
during her interview on air by Atty. Mauricio, she likewise admitted WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala, having been
having talked to a police officer in Station 10, to wit: found GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT, is hereby FINED in the
ATTY. BATAS MAURICIO (BMM): Welcome po kayo amount of P40,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of
dito sa ating Direct Connect at kasama po natin dito si the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Judge Marcelino Bautista at Ginoong Melencio Manansala, SO ORDERED.
at nirereklamo na nakikialam daw po kayo dito sa hinuling A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA March 27, 2001
suspect na nakaditine sa station ng Quezon City police. IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS CHARGING COURT
Ano po ang inyong panig Judge Asdala? OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO
JUDGE FATIMA ASDALA (JFA): Ah well . . . dun sa DEMETRIA WITH INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF A
salitang pikikialam, I think that’s an incorrect SUSPECTED DRUG QUEEN:
adaptation of, ah . . . kung ano man, ang naging ginawa COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO G.
ko. DEMETRIA, respondent.
BMM: Ok? PER CURIAM:
JFA: Hindi ako nakialam. I only helped a friend who is a Men and women of the courts must conduct themselves with honor,
family friend, (pause) ah more than even a family friend probity, fairness, prudence and discretion. Magistrates of justice must
because he is like a member of the family. always be fair and impartial. They should avoid not only acts of
BMM: Totoo po bang . . judge impropriety, but all appearances of impropriety. Their influence in
xxx society must be consciously and conscientiously exercised with
JFA: Now, ang sinasabi siguro niyang pakikialam … utmost prudence and discretion. For, theirs is the assigned role of
when I requested no, I requested, ah, ahhh, I think I preserving the independence, impartiality and integrity of the
was talking with one Major Mazaren(?) . . . (Emphasis Judiciary.
and underscoring supplied)18 The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates a judge to "refrain from
During the investigation conducted by Justice Dacudao, however, influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
while Atty. Coronel was on cross-examination by respondent, pending before another court or administrative agency."1 The
respondent, in reply to the question of the Justice if she denied being slightest form of interference cannot be countenanced. Once a judge
the Judge Asdala who made a telephone call to the police station, uses his influence to derail or interfere in the regular course of a legal
evasively answered the Justice and stated that she did not speak with or judicial proceeding for the benefit of one or any of the parties
anybody. therein, public confidence in the judicial system is diminished, if not
JUDGE ASDALA: totally eroded.
So there is a possibility that it was not Judge Such is this administrative charge triggered by newspaper accounts
Asdala and that her name was only being used in which appeared on the 21 July 2000 issues of The Manila Standard,
order for you to hear her over the phone? The Manila Times, Malaya, The Philippine Daily Inquirer and
ATTY. CORONEL: Today. The national dailies collectively reported that Court of
Yes. Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria tried to intercede on
JUSTICE DACUDAO: behalf of suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk
By the way, Judge Asdala, are you denying that Lai, who went in and out of prison to play in a Manila casino.2
you were the person? That same day, 21 July 2000, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
JUDGE ASDALA: issued a Memorandum to Justice Demetria directing him to comment
Precisely, that is my statement. Those are the on the derogatory allegations in the news items.3 On 24 July 2000,
essence of my Answer and Comment to the Justice Demetria submitted his Compliance. Subsequently, Chief
Complaint filed by Mr. Manansala with the office State Prosecutor (CSP) Jovencito R. Zuño, who disclosed to the
of the City Prosecutor. media the name of Justice Demetria, and State Prosecutor (SP) Pablo
JUSTICE DACUDAO: C. Formaran III, a member of the Task Force on Anti-Narcotics
You mean to say you are not that person? Cases of the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuting the case of the
JUDGE ASDALA: suspected Chinese drug queen, filed their respective Comments on the
Not, Your Honor. I did not speak. Even in the Compliance of Justice Demetria.4
interview, Your Honor, I said I did not speak On 8 August 2000, the Court En Banc ordered an investigation and
with anybody, I did not request anybody to designated Mme. Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino as Investigator
release the accused to my custody because I and Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo as Prosecutor. An
wouldn’t possibly do that, Your Honor, because I investigation then commenced on 22 August 2000 and continued
am aware of the procedure when a case is until 16 November 2000.
supposed to be heard for inquest, it is only the The Prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely, CSP Zuño, SP
Fiscal who can order the release of the accused Formaran III, Agnes P. Tuason, secretary of SP Formaran, III, and
and not any police officer.19 (Emphasis and Jose H. Afalla, an employee from the Office of Asst. CSP (ACSP)
underscoring supplied) Leonardo Guiyab, Jr. The defense on the other hand presented ten
(10) witnesses: respondent Justice Demetria, Asst. Chief State immediately returned the call of Justice Demetria but the Justice had
Prosecutor (ACSP) Severino Gaña, Jr., Senior State Prosecutor (SSP) already gone out for lunch.
Romeo Dañosos, Go Teng Kok, Yu Yuk Lai, MTC Judge Orlando Later in the afternoon, between 1:30 and 2:00 o'clock, Justice
Siapno, Peter Young, Atty. Reinerio Paas, lawyer of Go Teng Kok, Demetria, PATAFA President Go Teng Kok and Atty. Reinerio Paas,
Danilo J. Mijares, bodyguard of Go Teng Kok, and Luisito Artiaga, lawyer of Go Teng Kok and a close friend of Justice Demetria, went
official of the Philippine Amateur Track and Field Association to the office of SP Formaran III in the DOJ which SP Formaran III
(PATAFA). shares with SP Albert Fonacier. Apparently, Justice Demetria was not
The facts as borne out by the evidence presented by the prosecution familiar with SP Formaran III as he greeted SP Fonacier "Kamusta
are quite clear. In an Information dated 9 December 1998, SP ka, Prosecutor Formaran?"18
Formaran III charged Yu Yuk Lai, together with her supposed Soon the visitors were seated. Go Teng Kok immediately pleaded
nephew, a certain Kenneth Monceda y Sy alias William Sy, before with SP Formaran III to withdraw his motion to inhibit Judge Muro
the RTC of Manila, Br. 18,5 with violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, RA as this would purportedly delay the resolution of the case. Go Teng
6425, as amended, for "conspiring, confederating and mutually Kok also expressed his apprehension that if Judge Muro would
helping one another, with deliberate intent and without authority of inhibit, a new judge might convict his friend, accused Yu Yuk Lai,
law . . . (to) willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a who was then already receiving bad publicity.
poseur-buyer three (3) kilograms, more or less, of Justice Demetria then asked about the status of the case. SP Formaran
methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), which is a regulated III informed the Justice that a motion for inhibition has been
drug."6 Accused of non-bailable offense, both Yu Yuk Lai and submitted for resolution, one basis of which was the unsigned letter
Kenneth Monceda were held at the detention cell of the PNP of the concerned court employees. Justice Demetria opined that it
Narcotics Group in Camp Crame, Quezon City. On 25 June 1999, was a bit dangerous to anchor the inhibition of a judge on an
accused Yu Yuk Lai filed a Petition for Bail on the ground that the unsigned, anonymous letter. The Justice then advised Go Teng Kok
evidence of her guilt was not strong. who was becoming persistent to "keep his cool" and asked SP
On 10 November 1999, upon receiving information that the accused, Formaran III if he could do something to help Go Teng Kok.
especially Yu Yuk Lai, had been seen regularly playing in the casinos Apparently, prior to 18 July 2000, Go Teng Kok had already been
of Heritage Hotel and the Holiday Inn Pavilion, SP Formaran III filed asking SP Formaran III to go slow in prosecuting accused Yu Yuk
an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Transfer the Detention of the Accused Lai.19 SP Formaran III at first politely declined the request. But later,
to the City Jail.7 On the same day, Judge Perfecto A. S. Laguio, Jr., "just to put an end to (the) conversation," 20 he told them that he
granted the motion and ordered the immediate transfer of the two (2) would bring the matter to CSP Zuño. "Iyon pala," Justice Demetria
accused to the Manila City Jail.8 replied. The Justice then stood up, bade good bye and left. Atty. Paas
On 18 January 2000, Judge Laguio, Jr., concluded that "the evidence and Go Teng Kok followed closely behind.21
standing alone and unrebutted, is strong and sufficient to warrant Thereafter, SP Formaran III went to see CSP Zuño and informed the
conviction of the two accused for the crime charged" and denied the latter of what had transpired. CSP Zuño replied, "No way!" SP
petition for bail of accused Yu Yuk Lai for lack of merit.9 Formaran III also told ACSP Guiyab, Jr., who gave the same reply.22
Consequently, both accused filed a Joint Motion for Inhibition At around 3:00 o'clock that same afternoon, CSP Zuño received a call
arguing that the trial court's actuation "do not inspire the belief that from Justice Demetria who requested him to instruct SP Formaran III
its decision would be just and impartial."10 On 28 January 2000, to withdraw the motion for inhibition of Judge Muro so that the Judge
Judge Laguio, Jr., believing that the joint motion was utterly without could already issue an order. "Pakisabi mo nga kay State Prosecutor
merit but considering the gravity of the offense and for the peace of Formaran na i-withdraw na iyong kanyang Motion to Inhibit para
mind of the accused, inhibited himself.11 naman makagawa na ng Order si Judge Muro," Justice Demetria was
The case was re-raffled to Branch 53, presided by Judge Angel V. quoted as saying.23 Politely, CSP Zuño said that he would see what he
Colet. Accused Yu Yuk Lai then filed a Motion to Order the could do. "Tingnan ko po kung ano ang magagawa ko."24
Confinement of the Accused in a Hospital. Before Judge Colet could On 20 July 2000, The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that a
resolve the motion, the case was handled by the Branch's Pairing "Supreme Court Justice . . . and an outspoken sports person and
Judge Manuel T. Muro. leader"25 had been exerting "undue pressure" on the DOJ to go slow
On 15 May 2000 Judge Muro granted accused Yu Yuk Lai's motion in prosecuting re-arrested drug queen Yu Yuk Lai. That same
and allowed her to be confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital for a afternoon, the names of Justice Demetria and Mr. Go Teng Kok were
period not exceeding seven (7) days,12 contrary to the disclosed to the media to clear the name of the Supreme Court
recommendation of Dr. Jose Estrada Rosal, Chief of the Health justices who might have been affected by the erroneous news report.
Services of the Manila City Jail, that Yu Yuk Lai be confined at the The following day, 21 July 2000, several newspapers named Justice
Philippine General Hospital.13 Demetria and Go Teng Kok as "drug lawyers."
On 5 June 2000 Judge Muro granted Yu Yuk Lai's Urgent Motion for Also on 20 July 2000 the DOJ received a copy of an Order dated 19
Extension of Medical Confinement "for a period of one (1) month, or July 2000 of Judge Muro inhibiting himself from further hearing the
until such time that she is fit to be discharged from the said case of Yu Yuk Lai and Kenneth Monceda.26
hospital."14 On 7 July 2000 Judge Muro also granted Yu Yuk Lai's Respondent Justice Demetria, for his part, vehemently denied having
Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence with Motion interceded for Yu Yuk Lai. While he admitted that he indeed visited
to Admit Demurrer to Evidence.15 Soon, rumors circulated in the the DOJ on 18 July 2000, he went there to "visit old friends" and his
Manila City Hall that Judge Muro was partial towards accused Yu meeting Go Teng Kok whom he did not know until that time was
Yuk Lai. purely accidental. Expectedly, Atty. Paas and Go Teng Kok
The rumors did not end there. On 6 July 2000 unidentified employees corroborated the claim of respondent Justice.
of the RTC Manila calling themselves "CONCERNED COURT Justice Demetria explained that he merely requested SP Formaran III
EMPLOYEES" wrote the Secretary of Justice, copy furnished the "to do something to help Go Teng Kok about the case" without ever
Chief State Prosecutor, the Ombudsman, and Judge Muro. The letter specifying the kind of "help" that he requested. He averred that it was
alleged that Judge Muro ordered the hospitalization of Yu Yuk Lai purely on the basis of erroneous impression and conjecture on the
"even if she (was) not sick and there (was) already a rumor part of SP Formaran III that he impliedly asked him to withdraw the
circulating around the City Hall, that the notorious Judge had given motion "because that is what Mr. Go Teng Kok was appealing and
the go signal to the counsel of the accused to file the Motion to requesting."27 Respondent claimed that the "help" he was requesting
Quash, which (would) be granted for a consideration of millions of could well be "within legal bounds or line of duty."
pesos and the contact person (was) allegedly the daughter of the Justice Demetria claimed that if ever he said anything else during the
Judge, who is an employee in the said branch."16 discussion between Go Teng Kok and SP Formaran III, such was not
Accordingly on 14 July 2000, SP Formaran III filed a Motion for a form of intervention. He only admonished Go Teng Kok "to cool it"
Inhibition praying that Judge Muro inhibit himself "from further when the discussion between the prosecutor and Go Teng Kok
handling this case and/or from resolving the demurrer to evidence became heated. While he asked about the status of the case this, he
filed by the accused Yu Yuk Lai as well as any other pending said, demonstrated his lack of knowledge about the case and
incidents therein."17 bolstered his claim that he could not have possibly interceded for Yu
On 16 July 2000, at around 7:30 o'clock in the morning, while she Yuk Lai.
was supposed to be confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital, accused Respondent Justice likewise argued that the bases of his identification
Yu Yuk Lai was arrested inside the VIP room of the Casino Filipino by CSP Zuño as the Justice exerting undue pressure on the DOJ were
at the Holiday Inn Pavilion, Manila, while playing baccarat. She was all hearsay. Respondent submitted that CSP Zuño based his
unescorted at the time of her arrest. identification from a newspaper account, from the statement of his
On 18 July 2000, at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, the Motion for secretary that it was he (Justice Demetria) who was on the other end
Inhibition of Judge Muro was heard and submitted for resolution. of the telephone and from SP Formaran III when the latter consulted
Later, at around 11:30 o'clock, when SP Formaran III arrived in his the Chief State Prosecutor about the visit of the Justice and Go Teng
office from the hearing, he was informed by his secretary, Agnes Kok impliedly asking him to withdraw the motion.
Tuason, that the staff of Court of Appeals Justice Demetrio Demetria In defense of respondent Justice, Atty. Paas stated that it was actually
had called earlier and said that the Justice wanted to speak with him. he, not Justice Demetria, who later called up CSP Zuño to inquire
The caller requested for a return call. As requested, SP Formaran III about the latter's decision regarding the withdrawal of the motion to
inhibit since SP Formaran III had earlier told Go Teng Kok that the Fonacier since they were not acquainted with each other. Prior to this
matter would be taken up with his superiors. incident, Justice Demetria did not personally know either SP
In fine, respondent Justice Demetria maintains that it is inconceivable Formaran III or SP Fonacier, a fact corroborated by respondent
for him to ask SP Formaran III whom he just met for the first time to himself.36
do something for Go Teng Kok whom he claims he just likewise met All of these contradict and belie respondent Justice Demetria's earlier
for the first time. Neither did he know Yu Yuk Lai, a claim Yu Yuk Compliance to the Memorandum of the Chief Justice that "[b]ecause
Lai herself corroborated. It would be unthinkable for him to intercede Prosecutor Formaran is also a friend, we decided to drop by his office
in behalf of someone he did not know. Indeed respondent Justice . . . (and) I stayed a while."37
asserted that his meeting Go Teng Kok on 18 July 2000 at the DOJ As pointed out by the Investigating Justice, respondent Justice was
was purely coincidence, if not accidental. there "to join forces with Go Teng Kok in arguing for the withdrawal
So, did respondent Justice Demetria really intercede in behalf of of Formaran's Motion for Inhibition of Judge Muro, which was the
suspected drug queen Yu Yuk Lai? real purpose of their visit to SP Formaran and to the DOJ. The
Investigating Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino believes so. In her uncanny coincidence in the timing of Justice Demetria's visit to SP
Report dated 5 January 2001, she found respondent Justice Demetria Formaran's office, and that of Go Teng Kok, could not have been
"guilty of violating Rule 2.04, Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct" 'accidental' but pre-arranged."38 And, "visiting old friends" only came
and recommended that "appropriate disciplinary action be taken as an afterthought. The circumstances simply show that Justice
against him by this Honorable Court."28 Demetria and Atty. Paas, together with Go Teng Kok, did not go to
Only rightly so. The evidence is clear, if not overwhelming, and the DOJ to see Sec. Tuquero, but to visit, if not "pressure," CSP Zuño
damning. Thus, even the Senate Committee on Justice and Human and SP Formaran III.
Rights, after a hearing, found that "there was a conspiracy to commit Justice Demetria also claimed that it is inconceivable for him to help
the following offenses on the part of CA Associate Justice Demetrio Yu Yuk Lai and Go Teng Kok, both of whom he did not personally
Demetria and PATAFA President Go Teng Kok and Miss Yu Yuk know, and more unthinkable that he would be asking help from SP
Lai: obstruction of justice punishable under PD No. 1829 and Article Formaran III whom he had just met for the first time.
3(a) of RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."29 The argument cannot be sustained. It is admitted that respondent is a
While Justice Demetria vehemently denied interfering with the very close friend of Atty. Paas, lawyer of Go Teng Kok. And, it is not
criminal case, his denial cannot stand against the positive assertions necessary that respondent Justice Demetria be acquainted with Go
of CSP Zuño and SP Formaran III,30 which are consistent with natural Teng Kok, Yu Yuk Lai or SP Formaran III for him to intercede in
human experience. To accept the testimony of the defense witnesses behalf of the accused. It is enough that he is a close friend of the
that it was Atty. Paas who telephoned CSP Zuño, and not Justice lawyer of Go Teng Kok, who has been helping the accused, and that
Demetria, and that the "help" the respondent Justice was requesting he wields influence as a former DOJ Undersecretary and later, Acting
SP Formaran III was something "within legal bounds or line of duty" Secretary, and now, a Justice of the Court of Appeals.
other than the withdrawal of the motion is to strain too far one's In sum, we find the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
imagination. convincing and trustworthy, as compared to those of the defense
The testimony of CSP Zuño is plainly unambiguous and indubitably which do not only defy natural human experience but are also riddled
consistent with the other facts and circumstances surrounding the with major inconsistencies which create well-founded and overriding
case — doubts.
CSP Zuño: As far as I could recall Justice Demetria said, The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office
"Pakisabi mo nga kay State Prosecutor Formaran na charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the
iwithdraw na iyong kanyang Motion to Inhibit para naman heavy of responsibility. His at all times must be characterized with
makagawa ng Order si Judge Muro."31 propriety and must be above suspicion.39 His must be free of even a
In his discussion with Go Teng Kok and Justice Demetria, SP whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his
Formaran III said that he would consult his superiors regarding the judicial duties, but also his behavior outside the courtroom and as a
proposal to withdraw the motion. The timely telephone call to CSP private individual.
Zuño was thus a logical follow-up. And no one could have made the Unfortunately, respondent Justice Demetrio Demetria failed failed to
call except respondent Justice since it is not uncommon for anyone to live up to this expectation. Through his indiscretions, Justice
believe that CSP Zuño would recognize the voice of respondent Demetria did not only make a mockery of his high office, but also
Justice who was CSP Zuño's former superior in the DOJ. Thus, the caused incalculable damage to the entire Judiciary. The mere mention
confident utterance "[p]akisabi mo nga kay State Prosecutor of his name in the national newspapers, allegedly lawyering for a
Formaran na iwithdraw na iyong kanyang Motion to Inhibit para suspected drug queen and interfering with her prosecution seriously
naman makagawa ng Order si Judge Muro" could not have come undermined the integrity of the entire Judiciary.
from anyone else but from respondent Justice who had moral Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no
ascendancy over CSP Zuño, he being a Justice of the Court of position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and
Appeals and a former Undersecretary and at one time Acting uprightness tha a seat in the Judiciary.40 High ethical principles and a
Secretary of the DOJ. sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of
Even the requested "help" for Go Teng Kok, whom respondent the people in the Judiciary so indispensable in orderly society cannot
Justice claims he did not know and met only that time, could not have be preserved.41 There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those
meant any other assistance but the withdrawal of the motion to inhibit who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and
Judge Muro. True, Justice Demetria never categorically asked SP integrity.42
Formaran III to withdraw his Motion. But when respondent Justice WHEREFORE, we sustain the findings of the Investigating Justice
Demetria asked the state prosecutor at that particular time "to do and hold Justice Demetrio G. Demetria GUILTY of violating Rule
something . . . to help Mr. Go Teng Kok," the latter was pleading for 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED
the withdrawal of the motion, and nothing else. That was the only from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to
form of "help" that Go Teng Kok wanted. The subtle pressure exerted his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency
simply pointed to one particular act. Thus, subsequently respondent or instrumentality, including any government owned or controlled
Justice called CSP Zuño to ask for just that — the withdrawal of the corporation or institution.
motion to inhibit Judge Muro. SO ORDERED.
Justice Demetria also claimed that he, together with Atty. Paas, went [A.M. No. MTJ-04-1541. March 10, 2005]
to the DOJ, first, to see Secretary Artemio Tuquero and seek Spouses JESUS V. JACINTO and NENITA C. JACINTO,
assistance in the appointment of Atty. Paas to the Court of Appeals, complainants, vs. Judge PLACIDO V. VALLARTA, Municipal Trial
and second, to "visit old friends,"32 and that the meeting with Go Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, respondent.
Teng Kok was purely accidental. But respondent Justice never DECISION
mentioned in his earlier Compliance to the Memorandum of the PANGANIBAN, J.:
Chief Justice that his primary purpose in going to the DOJ was to see Quiet dignity, self-restraint, civility and temperate language are
Sec. Tuquero, and since Sec. Tuquero was not in, he instead decided expected of every judge. All members of the judiciary must strictly
to see some officials/prosecutors whom he had not visited for a long follow the ethical standards laid down by the Code of Judicial
time. Conduct.
We find this assertion difficult to accept. For, even his very own The Case and the Facts
witnesses belied his alibi. ACSP Gaña, Jr. testified and confirmed This case originated from a Complaint[1] filed by Spouses Jesus V.
that Justice Demetria only said "hi."33 SSP Dañosos, denied seeing Jacinto and Nenita C. Jacinto on March 22, 2002. Judge Placido B.
him and claimed that it was only Atty. Paas who peeped into his Vallarta was charged therein with gross negligence, gross ignorance
room.34 Suspiciously, it was really in the office of SP Formaran III, of the law, issuance of an unjust interlocutory order, and vulgar and
whom respondent Justice Demetria did not know, where Justice unbecoming conduct. The Complaint alleges as follows:
Demetria, Atty. Paas and Go Teng Kok decided to "stay a while."35 1. That on September 4, 2001, Judge Placido B. Vallarta
Thus, as found by Mme. Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, the issued an Order against us for a Writ of Replevin for our
Investigating Justice, Justice Demetria and company could not have vehicle Isuzu Cargo Truck. The Order was in favor of a
been there to exchange pleasantries with SPs Formaran III and certain rich and influential spouses from Nueva Ecija, Mr. &
Mrs. Gaudencio and Carina Magundayao, who sold the truck he would not want it to do, Judge Vallarta ordered the release
to us on September 13, 1999; of [the] motor vehicle. But before he signed the Order for the
2. That according to our knowledge and belief [a] Writ of release[,] he confronted us and uttered the following in
Replevin should not have been ordered against us considering verbatim, 'O ngayong alam ninyo na mali ang aking
our agreements with spouses Magundayao stated in the 'Deed ginawa hindi ninyo ako idemanda. Idemanda ninyo ako
of Conditional Sale legalizing the sale of the Isuzu Cargo ng makita ninyo ang inyong hinahanap. We cannot believe
Truck; that those words came from a Judge;
3. That we [did] not violate any of the agreement[s] in the 14. That on November 8, 2001, the Plaintiff filed for another
Deed of Conditional Sale. Nevertheless, it was us who [were] Replevin Bond dated November 5, 2001 for the second time,
cheated and the right to own the truck was taken from us by through the Pacific Insurance Company. But still this bonding
spouses Magundayao, hence, we sent them a demand letter; insurance company was not authorized by the Supreme Court
4. That after the Sheriff recovered the truck from our to do business with the Municipal Trial Court of Gapan;
possession on September 7, 2001, we immediately went to the 15. That on November 9, 2001, the Plaintiff filed Motion for
Office of Judge Vallarta to settle the problem amicably. We Reconsideration dated November 8, 2001 without proof of
stooped down and pleaded for help. However, we were service considering that it was only a mere scrap of paper;
dismayed by the attitude shown by Judge Vallarta and the 16. That on November 20, 2001, at the hearing for [the]
words from him [were] so surprising that we [did] not expect Motion for Reconsideration, counsel for the Defendant raised
to hear from a public servant and from a Judge for that matter. [a] question regarding the proof of service for that motion. On
Instead of giving sound advice to our case, Judge Vallarta the instant[,] Carina Magundayao presented a fake proof of
acted otherwise and was totally rude towards us. For whatever service. But Judge Vallarta accepted or tolerated the proof of
reason he dealt with us in an ill-mannered way that even service as presented by Carina Magundayao and disregard
resulted for my fainting in the Office of the MTC-Gapan, counsel for the defendants questioning. He even instructed
because he at that time was asking him, if possible I will our counsel to just receive the motion on the date of the
deposit the money to the Court, representing our payments to hearing and required [him] to answer it within 5 days. Then a
spouses Magundayao however, Judge Vallarta sarcastically hearing was set on November 27, 2001. Counsel for the
uttered the following words: 'Wala akong pakialam diyan sa Plaintiff [did] not appear in court;
pera ninyo kung gusto ninyo hanapin ninyo ang inyong 17. That on November 26, 2001, we went to Supreme Court
kalaban', I answered him 'Wala po kasi ang aming and found out for the second time the defect of the second
kalaban (Magundayao) nagpunta daw po sa abroad and Replevin Bond. Another certification was issued upon our
he replied 'Eh, wala pala edi hanapin ninyo, sino ang request. On the same date we were able to file our
gusto ninyong maghanap ako at saka hindi pumapasok sa Opposition/Comment for the Motion for Reconsideration;
isip ko yang mga sinasabi mo (pointing his forehead) 18. That on November 27, 2001 hearing for Motion for
humanap ka ng abogado mo na makatutulong sa iyo, Reconsideration and we (defendant) through our counsel
dagdag ka pa sa problema ko. presented another certification from the Supreme Court, Judge
5. That because of the injustice shown to us by Judge Vallarta Vallarta made an Order, that both the Motion for
we cannot help but to think that due to the money and Reconsideration and our Opposition/Comment be submitted
influence by spouses Magundayao the Order of Writ of for Resolution. Counsel for the Plaintiff again [was] not in
Replevin was issued wrongly. He issued the Writ of Replevin Court;
without clearance from the Supreme Court. We say this so 19. Surprisingly on December 21, 2001, Sheriff Ernesto
because upon our thorough examination of the complaint and Mendoza went to our house purposely to replevin the subject
the attachment thereof we found out that the certification from motor vehicle. Because we are law abiding citizen, after our
the Supreme Court issued in favor of the Utility Assurance consultation with our lawyer on the following day, we
Corporation, prove a defective replevin bond; voluntarily surrender[ed] the vehicle to Sheriff Mendoza and
6. That because of [the] inconsiderate attitude of Judge to the Clerk of Court Atty. Herminigildo M. Linsangan;
Vallarta, given our limited resources, we were left with no 20. As much as we would like to go to the Municipal Trial
other choice but to hire the service of a legal counsel. And on Court of Gapan (MTC-Gapan) immediately after the truck
September 12, 2001[,] our Counsel filed an 'Urgent Motion to was recovered from us to verify how the Writ of Replevin
Quash Writ of Replevin and a hearing was set on September was again issued despite the pending incident, we [could] not
18, 2001. Unfortunately, both the Plaintiff Magundayao and do so because on [the] days following December 21, 2001
their Counsel failed to appear on the said hearing. until January 1, 2002 the Court [was on] vacation. To our
7. That on September 19, we went to Supreme Court and great dismay and mortification, Judge Vallarta did not resolve
found out that Utility Assurance Corporation, bonding said Motion for Reconsideration and our
company that issued Replevin Bond was not authorized to do Opposition/Comment to Plaintiff's Motion for
business at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Gapan. A Reconsideration, an unsigned Order dated November 27,
certification dated September 19, 2001 from the Supreme 2001 can attest to that. We were able to secure a certified true
Court was issued to us; copy of the said unsigned Order from the Clerk of Court,
8. That on September 23, 2001 hearing for Motion to Quash MTC-Gapan on January 2, 2002. Despite all these he still
was set for the second time. But then again Counsel for the issued an Order dated December 21, 2001 approving the new
Plaintiff (Magundayao) did not appear in Court and so they clearance.
ask for postponement; 21. That in view of said anomalies we discovered, our
9. That on October 9, 2001 third setting for the Motion To counsel file[d an] Urgent Motion For Reconsideration With
Quash, we (Defendant) submitted additional defense exhibits. Motion to Quash Writ of Replevin dated January 3, 2001;
For the third time counsel for the Plaintiff did not appear in 22. That on January 15, 2002[,] the date of hearing for Urgent
court Judge Vallarta asked the Plaintiff why their counsel Motion for Reconsideration With Motion To Quash Writ of
[was] not present for the third time. Without too much effort Replevin, Judge Vallarta failed to appear in his sala;
from their side Plaintiff bl[u]ntly responded, 'Ewan ko po; 23. That on February 12, 2002, Judge Vallarta advi[sed] us to
10. That on October 23, 2001[, the] fourth setting of hearing enter into [an] amicable settlement, hence we ask[ed] for the
for Motion to Quash, Judge Vallarta gave another chance to postponement of the case to file the appropriate compromise
the Plaintiff (Magundayao) to answer all our defense exhibits. agreement. Judge Vallarta instructed our counsel to withdraw
And the Plaintiff asked for repeated postponement and [the] our Urgent Motion For Reconsideration With Motion to
hearing was reset to November 6, 2001; Quash Writ of Replevin;
11. That on November 6, 2001, surprisingly we were called 24. However, we failed to settle the case amicably because
inside the Chamber of Judge Vallarta by a certain retired the Plaintiff reneged the previous commitment they made
Judge Jose E. Belen (MTC-GAPAN) and was asked by him to while we were inside the chamber of Judge Vallarta;
settle the case between the Plaintiff and Defendant outside the 25. That because of said development and in fact our Isuzu
court and tried to convince us not to question the clearance of Cargo Truck has been deteriorating and its some accessories
Utility Assurance Corp. But the settlement did not materialize [were] missing one by one[,] we were constrained to file our
because of the demands of the Plaintiff which we believe too Counter Replevin Bond to release the said truck on February
much for them to ask; 27, 2002;
12. That on November 6, 2001, after failed attempt for 26. That on March 1, 2002, we filed our Motion To Release
settlement Judge Vallarta advi[sed] the Plaintiff to withdraw Motor Vehicle in lieu of the said Counter Replevin Bond and
the Writ of Replevin because the defect of the Replevin Bond it was brought out to the attention of Judge Vallarta;
was not cured. And our counsel withdraw the Motion to 27. That on March 5, 2002, we went to Cabiao, Nueva Ecija
Quash as was advi[sed] by Judge Vallarta; and show[ed] him our Counter Replevin Bond as well as the
13. That on November 7, 2001, our counsel filed an Ex-Parte Motion of our counsel. However, he responded to us
Motion to Release Motor Vehicle. On the same date, much as indifferently and uttered the following statement, 'O ano ang
kailangan ninyo?. We amiably responded, 'Pakikiusap po is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Hence, the OCA
sana namin na mai-release na ang aming sasakyan para recommended that he be penalized with a fine of P5,000.
makapaghanap-buhay na po kami, ito lamang po ang The Court's Ruling
aming ikinabubuhay. To our astonishment he showed We agree with the OCA.
impatience and said 'Ayaw pirmahan ni Judge Bernardo Administrative Liability
ang pinapipirmahan ko, sabihin ninyo (while pointing his Complainants fault respondent mainly (1) for issuing a Writ of
finger to us) na pirmahan ito at ubos na ang panggastos na Replevin, even if the bonding company that issued the replevin bond
ibinigay ko sa tauhan ko na P500.00 ayaw pa niyang was allegedly not authorized to do business with the MTC of Gapan;
pirmahan ito. We were totally perplexed at that statement. and (2) for failing to act, favorably and with dispatch, on their various
Why would be brought out something for which we have no Motions and counter-replevin bond for the release of the truck to
business at all? We are trying to plead for our case and has them.
nothing to do with whatever dealings he has with Judge The facts laid down by complainants are insufficient to support a
Bernardo. Still holding on our temper we told him, 'Wala po finding of gross ignorance of the law. To be held liable therefor, 'the
kaming kinalaman sa sinasabi ninyo at wala po kaming judge must be shown to have committed an error that was 'gross or
karapatan na sabihan si Judge Bernardo na pirmahan patent, deliberate and malicious.[6] Respondent may have erred in
kung ano man ang pinapipirmahan ninyo. Upon hearing issuing the Writ of Replevin, but such error has not been shown to be
those words from us he again respond with anger and finality, gross or patent. Because complainants did not furnish this Court a
'kung ayaw ninyong sabihin magtalikuran tayo. Hindi ko copy of the Complaint in Civil Case No. 4896, there is no basis for
alam kung kailan ko maaksiyunan yang problema ninyo. showing how they presented the case and the need for a writ of
Tingnan ko sa Martes (March 12, 2002) kung naroon ako replevin to respondent. While manifesting palpable impatience
(MTC-Gapan) kung hindi ako makarating pasensiya kayo bordering on rudeness, as well as personal disinterest in their cause
at hintayin ninyo kung kailan ko aaksiyunan yang and problems, his utterances and behavior fail to support a finding
problema ninyo. That manner he conversed to us as well as that he acted deliberately and maliciously.
the statement he uttered were least expected to come from a Neither is there any clear and sufficient basis for finding respondent
moral and Honorable Judge. Even then, we were able to liable for gross negligence and issuance of an unjust interlocutory
identify ourselves as only x x x ordinary citizens, as against order. He cannot, however, be completely absolved of administrative
Judge Vallarta who is the Acting Presiding Judge in our case, liability.
we contained our emotions and left the court; Judges are viewed as the visible representations of law and justice,
28. That on March 12, 2002, our case was called almost 11:30 from whom the people draw the will and inclination to obey the law.
in the morning because he arrived at around 10:30 in the [7] Thus, the official conduct of judges should be free from
morning and our counsel asked and presented that our Motion impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety. Their personal
be granted. However, Judge Vallarta requested our counsel to behavior, not only on the bench and in the performance of judicial
give him time to study the matters regarding the posting of duties but also in their everyday lives, should be beyond reproach.[8]
Counter Replevin Bond and just asked to follow him in the Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a 'judge
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija on should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
the following day, Wednesday, March 13, 2002; integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
29. That on March 13, 2002, as agreed upon by Judge [9]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Vallarta and our counsel, we followed him in San Antonio, In this case, respondent displayed conduct that fell short of the
Nueva Ecija. Giving us enough hope that he will release the standards expected of a magistrate of the law.[10] His unguarded
Isuzu Cargo Truck, we even requested one of his Clerk in utterances, impatience, and undisguised lack of concern bordering on
MTC-Gapan to accompany us brought with her pertinent contempt for the plight of complainants, who had humbly looked up
documents/records pertaining to our case. However, upon to him and sought his help, constituted vulgar and unbecoming
seeing us again Judge Vallarta gave various reasons for him conduct that eroded public confidence in the judiciary.
not to release the truck. And base from our little knowledge of From the standpoint of conduct and demeanor expected of members
the law most of his excuses just trying to play trick on us. One of the bench, a resort to intemperate language only detracts from the
flimsy reason he mentioned was that Plaintiff should be given respect due them and becomes self-destructive.[11] The judicial
[the] opportunity to examine our Counter Replevin Bond, an office circumscribes the personal conduct of a magistrate and
opportunity not once bestowed on us. Making us realized (sic) imposes a number of restrictions. This is a price that judges have to
more how powerful money and influence work against us pay for accepting and occupying their exalted positions in the
who have nothing. Our meeting with him ended up with administration of justice.[12] Irresponsible or improper conduct on
another instruction that our counsel file an 'Amended Motion their part erodes public confidence in the judiciary.[13] Thus, it is
to Approve the Release of Motor Vehicle for which Plaintiff their duty to avoid any impression of impropriety in order to protect
must be furnished. Hearing for the said Motion was set on the image and integrity of the judiciary.[14] Maintaining the dignity
March 19, 2002; of courts and enforcing the duty of the citizens to respect them are
30. That on March 19, 2002, we waited Judge Vallarta until necessary adjuncts to the administration of justice.
12:00 oclock in the morning in the Municipal Trial Court of [15]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Gapan but he did not show up for unknown reason.[2] Respondent must be reminded that government service is people-
(Emphasis in the original) oriented. 'Patience is an essential part of dispensing justice and
On April 15, 2002, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. courtesy is a mark of culture and good breeding.[16] Impatience and
referred the Complaint to respondent judge and asked him to file, rudeness have no place in government service, in which personnel are
within ten days from receiving it, a comment thereon.[3] However, enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times.
the latter failed to do so despite his receipt of the Complaint on April [17]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
30, 2002.[4]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Section 10 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies vulgar and
During the 2002 barangay elections, respondent filed his Certificate unbecoming conduct as a light charge, for which a fine[18] of not
of Candidacy and was considered automatically resigned effective less than P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000 may be imposed.
June 10, 2002.[5]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary WHEREFORE, Respondent Judge Placido B. Vallarta is found
Subsequently, the court administrator sent respondent the '1st Tracer guilty of vulgar and unbecoming conduct and hereby FINED five
dated September 20, 2002, reiterating the directive for the latter to thousand pesos.
comment on the Complaint within five days from receipt of the SO ORDERED.
Tracer; otherwise, the matter would be submitted to the Court for A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452 April 06, 2005
resolution without the comment. EDITHA O. CATBAGAN, complainant,
The 1st Tracer was received by respondent on October 16, 2002, but vs.
he again failed to file his comment. Hence, the Office of the Court JUDGE FELIXBERTO P. BARTE, Municipal Circuit Trial
Administrator (OCA) made its report and recommendation on the Court, Tobias Fornier, Antique, respondent.
matter even without his comment. RESOLUTION
Findings and Recommendation of the OCA CORONA, J.:
The OCA considered respondent judge to have waived his right to In a verified letter-complaint1 dated September 17, 2001 addressed to
present evidence to controvert the Complaint against him. the Honorable Chief Justice, through the Office of the Court
It opined that although he had erred in issuing the Writ of Replevin, Administrator (OCA), complainant Editha O. Catbagan charged
complainants failed to prove that the error was deliberate and respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte of the 1st Municipal Circuit
malicious or done with evident bad faith. It pointed out that an Trial Court (MCTC), Tobias Fornier, Antique with "grave and
administrative complaint was not the appropriate remedy for every serious misconduct."2
erroneous order issued by a judge. In the first week of May 1999, complainant received information that
However, it found that respondent had failed to comply with his duty the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. (Church) was
'to conduct himself with courtesy and, to avoid using language which interested in buying land in the Province of Antique. She
immediately approached respondent judge and requested him to assist
her in the prospective transaction. Together with a certain Abraham against respondent. It involved a transaction similar to the one in this
Pedriña, the three agreed that in case they succeeded in brokering the complaint.
sale of the properties to the Church, their commission would be Initially, we will discuss respondent’s assertion that this
divided in this manner: administrative case should be dismissed for being ambiguous.
x x x the three of us agreed in the house of Judge Barte According to respondent, the confusion denied him the opportunity to
that for every sale transaction if the purchase price exceed properly defend himself.
One Million Pesos, the two of us will receive a commission Despite the apparent confusion brought about by the charge of (1)
of P100,000.00 each while the remaining amount or net "grave and serious misconduct" in the complaint and (2) "conduct
gain be retained by Judge Barte as his commission based on unbecoming of a judge" in the OCA indorsement, the dismissal of the
his agreement with the vendors.3 complaint is not warranted. The records show that respondent
When requested to put their agreement in writing, respondent judge refuted both charges in his comment and manifestation.15 The OCA
allegedly answered: "A municipal trial judge occupies the forefront could not be faulted for describing the charge as "conduct
of the judicial arm that is the closest in reach to the public he serves unbecoming of a judge" (instead of "grave and serious misconduct")
and he must accordingly act at all times with great constancy and because the allegations pointed to none other but that offense.
utmost probity." Complainant did not insist on her request after Noticeably, in complainant’s reply16 and letter-request17 for early
hearing this. resolution, she consistently described her charge against respondent
The three of them subsequently conferred with Bobby J. Villalobos, as "conduct unbecoming of a judge." We therefore cannot dismiss
the district president of the Church. They offered the parcels of land outright the administrative case on this ground alone, considering that
owned by Bitoon Cezar and Aurea Clarin in Sibalom, Antique.4 respondent knew fully well what he was being charged with. In fact,
Thereafter, on January 18, 2001, the Church agreed to purchase lots he defended himself against the charges.
336-A and 336-B owned by Bitoon Cezar for P1,120,300.5 In a long line of cases, we have held that the essence of due process
Lot 334 owned by Aurea Clarin was also sold for P2,199,000 on in administrative proceedings is simply the opportunity to explain
February 19, 2001.6 one’s side.18
Meanwhile, lot 5555 located in Hamtic, Antique owned by Eleanor The question of whether complainant was or was not entitled to a
M. Checa-Santos was sold on February 12, 2001 for P2,300,000.7 commission for her efforts in the sale of the parcels of land to the
For the first two sales, complainant claimed she was entitled to a Church should be threshed out in a proper civil case.
P300,000 commission. What is therefore left for us to thresh out is respondent’s
Since the Church transacted with respondent only, it paid the price of administrative liability for his admitted financial and business
the properties to him. Respondent then delivered the amount due to dealings.
the vendors. We note the OCA’s observation that this is not the first time an
When complainant heard that the vendors had been paid, she administrative case of the same nature has been filed against
demanded her commission from respondent. However, respondent respondent. In Jose Berin and Merly Alorro v. Judge Felixberto P.
offered her only P25,000 for the two transactions, excluding the one Barte,19 respondent judge was also charged with grave and serious
in Hamtic. misconduct for refusing to give the complainants therein their
Complainant later learned that respondent received a P435,226.55 respective commissions in the sale of land to the Manila Mission of
commission from the Aurea Clarin transaction alone.8 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. The Court, in
Complainant reminded respondent of their agreement but respondent that case, found respondent guilty of violating Canon 5.02 of the
challenged complainant "to go to court." Instead of pursuing her Code of Judicial Conduct:
claim in a civil suit, however, complainant opted to file the present By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale of the
administrative case against respondent on September 17, 2001. subject property, respondent judge has increased the
In a 1st Indorsement9 dated October 18, 2001, Court Administrator possibility of his disqualification to act as an impartial
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. referred the complaint to respondent for his judge in the event that a dispute involving the said contract
comment on the charge of conduct unbecoming of a judge. of sale arises. Also, the possibility that the parties to the
In his comment,10 respondent denied the charge against him and sale might plead before his court is not remote and his
asked for the dismissal of the administrative case on the following business dealings with them might not only create
grounds: suspicion as to his fairness but also to his ability to render it
First, there was ambiguity in the charge of grave and in a manner that is free from any suspicion as to its fairness
serious misconduct in the complaint and conduct and impartiality and also as to the judge’s integrity.
unbecoming of a judge in the OCA indorsement. Because The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that "[a] judge shall refrain
of this confusion, he was deprived of his right to be from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on
informed of the real charge against him. Consequently, he the court’s impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of
was not able to properly prepare his defense. judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons
Second, complainant’s allegations were baseless and likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage
designed merely to harass and dishonor respondent. investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number
According to him, complainant and Pedriña went to his of cases giving grounds for disqualification."20
house and told him about the intention of the Church to buy Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics also cautions a judge from
land in Antique. Subsequently, he informed the chapter "x x x making personal investments in enterprises which are apt to be
president of the Church that there were several parcels of involved in litigation in his court x x x."
land in the Municipality of Sibalom that met their As observed by the OCA, respondent judge should have refrained
requirements. For two years, he spent after-office hours and from participating in the transaction. By allowing himself to act as an
weekends to consummate the transaction. He labored hard agent in the sale of the properties, respondent increased the
because the transaction could augment his meager income possibility of his disqualification in the event that a dispute involving
and enable him to send his three children to good colleges the said contracts of sale arose. Moreover, the possibility that the
in Iloilo City. He admitted that Pedriña assisted him but parties in the sale might have appeared before his court was not
maintained that complainant had no involvement in the remote and his business dealings with them would have then created
transaction other than attending the initial meeting with the a doubt about his fairness and impartiality.
chapter president. He claimed that it was he, not the Respondent submits that the jurisdiction of the 1st MCTC covers the
complainant, who looked for the land to be sold to the Municipalities of Tobias Fornier, Hamtic and Aniniy. The 2nd MCTC,
Church. He submitted the sworn affidavit11 of the vendor’s on the other hand, covers Sibalom, San Remigio and Belison. Hence,
lawyer, Atty. Francisco Javier, who never met the since the parties and subject matter involved in the controversy were
complainant nor transacted with her. Respondent also not within the jurisdiction of the 1st MCTC, his judicial authority
claimed that the agreement was for him to shoulder all the could have never been invoked had a case arisen from the transaction.
expenses relative to the transaction, including its We find, however, that his claim is not exactly correct. Respondent
documentation. Pedriña’s affidavit supported respondent’s himself emphasized to this Court in his manifestation21 dated
claim that they never agreed on a commission scheme, February 23, 2004 that, aside from his duties in the 1st MCTC, he was
contrary to complainant’s assertion. If ever respondent also designated as Acting Presiding Judge of the 5 th MCTC and in
gave money for any information or assistance in the several cases in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Jose,
transaction, the amount depended entirely on his discretion. Antique. Considering this, the likelihood that he could have also been
In a report and recommendation12 dated June 13, 2002, the OCA designated in the 2nd MCTC (with jurisdiction over Sibalom) was
found respondent not guilty of the charges against him but neither remote nor impossible. Had any of the parties in the subject
recommended a fine of P5,000 for violating Canon 5, Rule 5.0213 of transaction filed suit, his inhibition would have been called for
the Code of Judicial Conduct. It also warned respondent against because of his aforecited business dealings.
directly engaging in any private business even outside office hours, Given these circumstances, respondent judge ought perhaps to
otherwise a more severe penalty would be imposed upon him. The seriously consider leaving the judiciary and becoming a full-time real
OCA further noted that another administrative case, entitled Jose estate broker instead. The latter calling appears to have a special
Berin and Merly Alorro v. Judge Felixberto P. Barte,14 had been filed appeal to him.
Although every office in the government is a public trust, no position Leave Section as a requirement for his request for a permit to travel,
exacts greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an he could no longer wait for her return.
individual than a seat in the judiciary. A magistrate of the law must The respondent maintained that he acted in good faith and did not
comport himself at all times in such manner that his conduct, official undermine the position of the complainant Judge; on the contrary, it
or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that was the complainant Judge who undermined the position of the
looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.22 Executive Judge when she ordered the respondent’s detail at the
We acknowledge that respondent has been in judicial service since Office of the Clerk of Court. He further averred that the complainant
1990 up to the present. We find his declaration that no criminal or Judge’s display of authority was alarming and that he felt harassed.
civil case has ever been filed against him to be true. However, the In her Reply dated August 4, 2004, the complainant Judge maintained
present administrative case and an earlier decided case with similar that the reason for her actuations was to avoid a bad precedent among
facts are too glaring to ignore. In that case, we reminded him that her staff. She stressed that as the Presiding Judge of her sala, she is
judges must not only be "good judges" but must also "appear to be charged with the control and supervision of "all (subordinate)
good persons."23 In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a personnel of the court."3 She further claimed that the respondent had
cardinal virtue; it is a necessity.24 no intention to seek her approval since her name was not indicated in
In Poso v. Mijares,25 we held that "public interest in an adept and the application form as the "Authorized Official," and that in doing
honest judiciary dictates that notice of future harsher penalties should so, the respondent intended to disregard and by-pass her authority.
not be followed by another forewarning of the same kind, ad She averred that Judge Bello, Jr. approved the respondent’s
infinitum, but by discipline through appropriate penalties." application for leave of absence not as a pairing judge but as an
As already mentioned, respondent was previously sanctioned for an Executive Judge. While she admitted that she was attending a
identical infraction involving the sale of land to the Church of Jesus seminar at Tagaytay City, she argued that she was not on leave and
Christ of the Latter Day Saints, Inc. We ordered him to pay a fine of could have properly acted on the questioned application.
P2,000, admonished him to be more discreet and prudent in his The complainant Judge further claimed that the respondent lied when
private dealings and warned him that a similar infraction would be he indicated that the reason for his application for leave of absence
sanctioned more severely.26 This second administrative case therefore was to visit his ailing parents in West Covina, California, United
reveals a certain kind of avarice on the part of respondent. Hence, we States of America. She also pointed out that the respondent very well
are constrained to impose upon him a heavier penalty than the OCA- knew that he would not be allowed to travel abroad since he did not
recommended fine. have an approved visa in the first place. In fact, the respondent was
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte is hereby seen roaming around the new Judicial Complex from March 22 to
found guilty of violating Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial April 20, 2004.
Conduct. Considering that this is his second offense, he is hereby Finally, the complainant Judge reiterated that in imposing a fine
SUSPENDED for six (6) months. He is hereby warned that another against the respondent and detailing him to another branch, she had
complaint of this kind will merit a penalty beyond mere suspension no other intention than to improve public service and preserve the
from public office. public’s faith and confidence in the judiciary.
SO ORDERED. In its Report dated November 26, 2004, the Office of the Court
A.M. No. P-05-1957 February 7, 2005 Administrator (OCA) made the following recommendation:
JUDGE THELMA CANLAS TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE, Recommendation: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the
complainant, Honorable Court are our recommendations, to wit:
vs. 1. That the instant case be RE-DOCKETED as an administrative
EDUARDO T. BALTAZAR, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial matter;
Court, Branch 129, Caloocan City, respondent. 2. That the complaint against respondent Eduardo T. Baltazar, Legal
DECISION Researcher, RTC-Caloocan City, Branch 129, be DISMISSED; and
CALLEJO, SR., J.: 3. Complainant Judge Thelma Canlas Pe-Aguirre, RTC, Caloocan
The instant administrative matter refers to the Letter-Complaint dated City, Branch 129, be ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the
April 12, 2004, of Judge Trinidad-Pe Aguirre charging Eduardo T. exercise of her supervisory authority over the personnel of her court.4
Baltazar, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan According to the OCA, Section 52, Rule XVI of the Civil Service
City, Branch 129, with conduct unbecoming a court employee. Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 and Other
It appears that the complainant Judge first issued a directive requiring Pertinent Civil Service Laws provides that leave of absence for any
several of her staff to file a written explanation regarding repeated reason other than illness of an officer or employee or any member of
absences, and that the respondent was one of them. Upon the latter’s his immediate family must be contingent upon the needs of the
failure to submit his written explanation, the complainant Judge service. As such, the grant of vacation leave shall be at the discretion
issued Administrative Order No. 01-041 dated March 17, 2004, of the head of department/agency. On the other hand, Item VI of
effectively imposing a fine on the respondent for "disobedience of a OCA Circular No. 6-2003 dated January 9, 2003, which provides for
lawful order" in the amount of P500.00. Thereafter, the complainant the guidelines on applications for leave to be spent abroad by a court
Judge issued another Order on April 14, 2004, worded as follows: personnel, requires that a court personnel, applying for leave to be
TO: MR. EDUARDO T. BALTAZAR spent abroad, submit, among others, his application for leave
Court Legal Researcher covering the period of his travel abroad duly recommended by the
RTC, Br. 129, Caloocan City Executive Judge/Presiding Judge. Thus, the recommendation or
On the ground that you have failed to perform your duties and approval for the application for leave of absence to be spent abroad
responsibilities as a Court Legal Researcher, you are hereby ordered may be done by either the Executive Judge or the Presiding Judge.
detailed in the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, this However, considering that the respondent applied for leave of
City, to beef up the manpower of the Clerk of Court, until such time absence to visit his ailing parents, which under the said Rules is not
that you can perform your duties with fidelity and zeal. subject to the contingency of the service, he was no longer required
This Order takes effect immediately.2 to seek the approval of the complainant Judge. Moreover, considering
In her letter-complaint, the complainant Judge alleged that she was that the approval of a visa application was beyond the respondent’s
the former Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 62, Gumaca, Quezon. control, the fact that the latter’s application was not approved did not
She alleged that she was charging the respondent for misbehavior for necessarily mean that false statements were made in his application
filing a leave of absence from March 22, 2004 to April 20, 2004, for leave. Nevertheless, the OCA opined that "if only out of respect
without seeking her written permission. She stressed that at the time and courtesy to his Presiding Judge," it would have been better if the
he filed his application for leave, she had already assumed her post as respondent had first sought the latter’s approval.
Presiding Judge of RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 129. She claimed The findings and recommendation of the OCA are well taken.
that such act of the respondent undermined her position as Presiding The authority of judges and/or Executive Judges to discipline erring
judge and would create a bad precedent among her subordinates. She court personnel under their supervision is limited to light offenses
pointed out that certain averments in the respondent’s application for only.5 In case the court employee is charged with a grave or less
leave needed to be clarified, since it was mentioned that he was grave offense, even the Executive Judge cannot directly penalize him,
spending his vacation abroad. and can only recommend to the Supreme Court the necessary
The respondent, for his part, expressed surprise at the charge against disciplinary action.6 Circular No. 30-91 Re: Guidelines of the
him in his Comment dated June 21, 2004, considering that he had Functions of the Office of the Court Administrator dated September
already been fined and detailed to another office by the complainant 30, 1991 is instructive on this point:
Judge. According to the respondent, he sought the approval of his 2. Lower Court Personnel
application for leave of absence from Judge Silvestre H. Bello, Jr., a. Light Offenses
then Executive Judge of RTC, Caloocan City, for the period of March (1) Disciplinary matters involving light offenses as defined under the
22 to April 20, 2004. Considering that Judge Bello, Jr. was also the Civil Service Law (Administrative Code of 1987), and the Code of
pairing judge of Branch 129, he no longer had to submit his Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
application for leave to Judge Aguirre. The respondent also reasoned (Rep. Act 6713) where the penalty is reprimand, suspension for not
that Judge Aguirre was at a seminar in Tagaytay City at the time. more than thirty days, or a fine not exceeding thirty days’ salary, and
Since he had to immediately submit his application for leave to the as classified in Civil Service Resolution No. 30, Series of 1989, shall
be acted upon by the appropriate supervisory official of the lower JUDGE IRENEO L. GAKO, JR., Judge, Regional Trial Court
court concerned. (RTC), Branch 5, Cebu City, and MANUEL G. NOLLORA,
(2) The appropriate supervisory officials are the Presiding Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 5, Cebu City, respondents.
Justices/Presiding Judge of the lower collegiate courts and the DECISION
Executive Judges of the trial courts with respect to the personnel of LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
their respective courts, except those directly under the individual This administrative case against Judge Ireneo L. Gako, Jr. and Clerk
Justices and Judges, in which case, the latter shall be their appropriate of Court Manuel G. Nollora, both of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
supervisory officials. Branch 5, Cebu City, stemmed from a complaint1 filed by Atty. Raul
(3) The complaint for light offenses whether filed directly with the H. Sesbreño charging Judge Gako with (a) violation of Rule 3.05,
Court, the Office of the Court Administrator, or the lower court shall Canon 3, in relation to Rule 1.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
be heard and decided by the appropriate supervisory official Conduct for his delay in resolving a Motion for Reconsideration filed
concerned. in Special Proceedings No. 916-R entitled "Intestate Estate of Vito
b. Grave or Less Grave Offenses Borromeo," (b) violation of Canon 2 of the said Code for acting on
All administrative complaints for grave or less grave offenses as the said case after he had recused himself from the case, and (c)
defined in the Codes hereinbefore referred to shall be immediately incompetence, together with Clerk of Court Nollora.
referred to the Court En Banc for appropriate action within 15 days The complainant alleged that on June 27, 2003, he filed a motion for
from receipt by the Court Administrator if filed directly with him, reconsideration of the Order2 dated June 2, 2003 in Special
otherwise, within 15 days likewise from receipt by him from the Proceedings No. 916-R which was considered submitted for
appropriate supervisory officials concerned. resolution per the Order dated July 4, 2003. According to the
In the instant case, there is no showing that the respondent acted in complainant, respondent Judge Gako deliberately failed to resolve the
bad faith in failing to secure Judge Aguirre’s written permission motion within the ninety (90)-day period prescribed by the
before taking a leave of absence; if at all, it was a mere oversight on Constitution, and in clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
his part. As pointed out by the OCA, the respondent had already particularly Rule 3.05, Canon 3, mandating a judge to dispose of the
sought permission from Executive Judge Bello, Jr. There was, thus, court's business promptly and to decide cases within the required
no need for Judge Aguirre to penalize the respondent as the latter periods, and Rule 1.02, Canon 2, requiring judges to administer
violated no rule. justice without delay.
What is so nettlesome is that Judge Aguirre even had the audacity to The complainant further alleged that on April 26, 2004, respondent
order the respondent’s detail to another office. As commented by the judge issued an Order inhibiting himself from handling Special
OCA: Proceedings No. 916-R. However, almost five (5) months after such
We note with concern that the complainant imposed on the inhibition, respondent judge still continued to act on the said case by
respondent a fine of P500.00 for failing to submit a written issuing an Order dated September 3, 2004 granting the Motion for
explanation regarding the matter, and ordered his detail to the Office Clarification/ Reconsideration filed by the heirs of Patrocino
of the Clerk of Court. Unless the action or omission to be sanctioned Borromeo Herrera. This, according to the complainant, violated
amounts to direct contempt, the power to discipline court personnel is Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, requiring a judge to avoid
vested in the Supreme Court; and the authority to detail or re-assign impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
the personnel of one branch to another branch or to the Office of the Complainant also charged respondent judge and his Clerk of Court of
Clerk of Court is lodged in the Executive Judge (SC Administrative incompetence for failure to keep all the records of the case intact and
Circular No. 6 dated June 30, 1975). Hence, complainant overstepped for proceeding to resolve the case with incomplete records.
the bounds of her authority by imposing a disciplinary sanction on Complainant asserted that respondents' incompetency is evident from
the respondent, and detailing him to the Office of the Clerk of Court the fact that when they turned over the records of the case to the
without seeking the approval of the Executive Judge.7 RTC, Cebu City, Branch 9, only 16 out of the 72 volumes were
Under Section IV of Administrative Order No. 6, it is the executive accounted for as shown by the receipts signed by Clerk of Court
judge who has the power to temporarily re-assign court personnel, 8 Christine Doller on June 17, 20053 and August 11, 2005.4
viz.: In his 1st Indorsement dated January 19, 2006, Court Administrator
4. To re-assign temporarily the personnel of one branch (sala) to Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.5 referred the letter-complaint to respondent
another branch (sala) or to the Office of the Clerk of Court, in case of judge for his comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the same.
vacancy in the position of Presiding Judge of a branch (sala), or when Respondent judge was likewise directed to comment on why no
the interest of the service requires. In the latter case, the assignment disciplinary action should be taken against him for violation of his
shall be made in consultation with the Presiding Judge of the branch professional responsibility as a lawyer pursuant to the resolution
(sala) concerned; and, in cases of disagreement, the assignment of the dated September 17, 2002 of the Court En Banc in A.M. 02-9-02-
Executive Judge shall be effective immediately, unless revoked by SC.6 Said letter-complaint was also referred to Clerk of Court Nollora
the Supreme Court. who filed his comment on March 20, 2006.7
In fine then, Judge Aguirre had no authority to impose a P500.00 fine When respondent judge failed to comply with the 1st Indorsement,
on the respondent for failure to submit a written explanation on his then Court Administrator Velasco sent a 1st Tracer dated March 30,
successive absences, or detail him to another office. Considering 2006 to respondent judge reiterating the directive for him to file his
further that Judge Aguirre filed the instant administrative complaint comment within five (5) days from receipt thereof, otherwise, the
against the respondent, the Court cannot help but conclude that she matter will be submitted to the Court without his comment.8 Again,
felt slighted for having been "by-passed" by one who is, according to respondent judge failed to comply.
her, a mere court employee. For refusing to submit his comment despite the two (2) directives of
While judges are exhorted to organize and supervise the court the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Court issued a
personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and Resolution9 directing respondent judge to show cause why he should
require at all times the observance of high standards of public service not be administratively dealt with and to submit the required
and fidelity,9 and are authorized to take or initiate appropriate comment both within five (5) days from receipt thereof, with warning
disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for that in case of failure to comply, the Court shall take the necessary
unprofessional conduct,10 they must do so with caution and action against him and decide the administrative complaint on the
circumspection. Judges must bear in mind that their behavior must basis of the record on hand.
reaffirm the people’s faith and integrity of the judiciary, and that On March 15, 2007, respondent judge finally filed his Compliance10
justice must not merely be done but must also seen to be done.11 with an opening statement that he compulsorily retired from the
Hence, the exercise of a judge’s disciplinary authority over court service on September 20, 2006 and while working on his retirement
personnel must be characterized not by overzealousness but by papers, he suffered a mild stroke which necessitated his rehabilitation
temperance and propriety. in his home.
Noting that she was unnecessarily harsh in treating the respondent in Respondent judge explained that the instant administrative matter
this case, the Court resolves to admonish Judge Aguirre, reminding stemmed from his issuance of the Order dated June 2, 2003 denying
her to be more circumspect in the exercise of her supervisory Virginia Lim Sesbreño's claim for attorney's fees from the estate of
authority over the personnel of her court. Vito Borromeo. From the denial of his claim, complainant, Atty. Raul
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, Judge Thelma Canlas Sesbreño, filed a motion for reconsideration. According to respondent
Trinidad-Pe Aguirre is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in judge, he did not act on the said motion because he believed that
the exercise of her supervisory authority over the personnel of her Virginia Lim Sesbreño should be the person who should have filed
court. She is WARNED that a similar conduct in the future shall be the motion for reconsideration and not herein complainant.
dealt with more severely. Subsequently, respondent judge issued an order voluntarily inhibiting
The complaint against respondent Eduardo T. Baltazar is himself from the case because complainant had already filed the
DISMISSED for lack of merit. instant administrative complaint against him.
SO ORDERED. With regard to his action on the motion filed by the heirs of Patrocino
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2144 November 3, 2008 Borromeo Herrera despite his Order inhibiting himself from
ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO, complainant, proceeding with the said case, respondent judge reasoned out that
vs.
since the inhibition was voluntary on his part as the presiding judge, imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court is to
he felt then that it was also his discretion to disregard his Order. maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice. Hence,
Explaining on how he was able to resolve the motion/s filed in any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the
Special Proceedings No. 916-R, despite the incomplete records of the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public
said case, respondent judge maintained that his resolutions were accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of
based on the pertinent records of the case that were forwarded to him. the people in the judiciary, shall be condemned and cannot be
On his part, respondent Clerk of Court Nollora admitted in his countenanced.13
Comment11 dated February 6, 2006 that only 16 volumes of the Finally, respondent judge should also be held liable for failure to
records of the case were turned over by their sala (Branch 5) to obey directives from the OCA. As borne by the records, the two
Branch 9. However, he hastened to add that only 16 volumes were directives of the OCA, namely the 1st Indorsement dated January 19,
received by them from the Office of the Clerk of Court. According to 2006 and the 1st Tracer dated March 30, 2006, were received by
Nollora, he did not ask for the other volumes because there was no respondent judge on February 9, 2006 and April 17, 2006,
order from the court and that the motions and incidents submitted for respectively. Still, he contumaciously refused to submit his comment.
resolution can be resolved even without reference to the other records It was only upon the issuance by this Court of a Resolution dated
of the case. He added that the remaining volumes would only congest January 24, 2007 directing him to show cause why he should not be
their already filled mini-bodega and steel cabinets. administratively dealt with for refusing to submit his comment that
Upon evaluation of the case, the OCA, in its Memorandum Report 12 respondent judge finally complied.
dated June 12, 2008, made the following recommendations: We find the explanation of respondent judge that he suffered a mild
(a) The instant administrative complaint be RE- stroke to be insufficient to exonerate him, although it may mitigate
DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; his liability. While he may have been suffering from some ailment,
(b) Clerk of Court Manuel G. Nollora, Regional Trial he failed to show that it totally incapacitated him from complying
Court, Branch 5, Cebu City be (a) found guilty of simple with the lawful orders of the OCA. The failure of respondent judge to
neglect of duty, (b) FINED in the amount equivalent to one comply with the OCA's directives to file comment to the letter-
(1) month salary, and (C) STERNLY WARNED that a complaint against him manifested his indifference to the lawful
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with directives of the Court. In Martinez v. Judge Zoleta,14 we held:
more severely, and Again, we find the need and occasion to rule that a
(c) Former Presiding Judge Ireneo G. Gako, Regional Trial resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an
Court, Branch 5, Cebu City be (a) found guilty of undue administrative complaint against officials and employees of
delay in rendering a decision or order and of violating a the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request
Supreme Court Circular, (b) FINED in the amount of Forty from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially,
Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00). Considering that respondent inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative
judge has already returned from the judicial service, let the complaints should comment on all accusations or
same amount be DEDUCTED from his retirement benefits. allegations against them in the administrative complaints
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA. because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the
The Constitution mandates all lower courts to decide or resolve cases judiciary. Moreover, the Court should not and will not
or matters within three (3) months from their date of submission. tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative
Accordingly, Rules 1.02 of Canon 1 and 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such
of Judicial Conduct direct judges to administer justice impartially and administrative complaints.
without delay and to dispose of the court's business promptly and A judge's (1) delay in rendering a decision or order and (2) failure to
decide cases within the required periods. comply with this Court's rules, directives and circulars constitute less
In line with the foregoing, the Court has laid down administrative serious offenses under Rule 140, Section 9 of the Rules of Court:
guidelines to ensure the prompt disposition of judicial business. Thus, SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. - Less serious charges
SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87 provides: include:
3. Judges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed 1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in
by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the transmitting the records of a case;
adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters xxx xxx xxx
submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be 4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and
decided or resolved within twelve months from date of circulars;
submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other Section 11(B) of said Rule 140 provides the following sanctions for
lower courts are given a period of three months to do so. x less serious offenses:
x x. SEC. 11. Sanctions.
Furthermore, SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88 states: B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of
6.1 All Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on the following sanctions shall be imposed:
all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their 1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits
courts. x x x. for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3)
Indisputably, respondent judge failed to act on the Motion for months; or
Reconsideration within three (3) months from the time said motion 2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding
was submitted for resolution on July 4, 2003. His claim that the P20,000.00.
motion was not filed by the proper party is not a valid excuse to For his part, respondent Clerk of Court Nollora, as an officer of the
simply ignore said motion. Instead, he should have accordingly court, is duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in
formally disposed of such motion. While it is true that respondent completing the record of the case even without any order from his
judge issued an Order voluntarily inhibiting himself from handling presiding judge, as he is aware whether the record is complete or
Special Proceedings No. 916-R, however, it does not appear on incomplete when he receives them. Under the 2002 Revised Manual
record that the Executive Judge was furnished with a copy of the said for Clerks of Court, the branch clerk of court as the administrative
order for appropriate action. Respondent judge cannot also justify his officer of the court, among others, controls and supervises the
inaction by his inhibition since if it was really his intention to refrain safekeeping of court records. Moreover, Section 7, Rule 136 of the
from handling the case, he should not have acted on the subsequent Rules of Court specifically mandates the clerk of court to safely keep
Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration filed by the heirs of all records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to
Patrocino Borromeo Herrera. his charge. As custodian of judicial records, it is incumbent upon him
All told, the unreasonable delay of the respondent judge in resolving to ensure an orderly and efficient record management system in the
the motion submitted for his resolution clearly constituted a violation court and to supervise the personnel under his office to function
of complainant's constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his effectively. A clerk of court plays a key role in the complement of the
case. Having failed to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration within court and cannot be permitted to slacken on his job under one pretext
the prescribed period of time, respondent judge is liable for undue or another. He must be assiduous in performing his official duties and
delay in resolving a decision or order which is considered a less in supervising and managing court dockets and records. 15 In this case,
serious offense. he fell short of his duty. Thus, we find him administratively liable for
Regarding the charge of incompetency, it should be stressed that the simple neglect of duty.
duties and responsibilities of a judge are not strictly confined to Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper
judicial functions. He is also an administrator who must organize his attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either
court with a view to prompt and convenient dispatch of its business. carelessness or indifference. Under Section 52(B), Rule IV of the
As administrative officer of the Court, respondent judge should have Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service in
required his clerk of court or any other court personnel to secure all correlation with Rule XIV, Section 23 of the Omnibus Civil Service
the records of the case and keep the same intact although some of the Rules and Regulations implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
volumes thereof would not be used in deciding the case. A judge is 292, the penalty for simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense, is
duty-bound to motivate his subordinates for the effective suspension for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
performance of the functions and duties of his office. In fact, the months for the first offense and dismissal for the 2nd offense.
As it appears it was respondent clerk of court's first infraction, we complainant of the absence of any bias against her, the respondent
find the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day judge issued an Order inhibiting himself from handling the two cases.
without pay to be sufficient. Furthermore, to prevent any undue The OCA informed the Court that the case was already ripe for
adverse effect on the public service which would ensue should work resolution in a Report dated April 24, 2008 signed by then Court
be left unattended by reason of respondent's suspension, we deem it Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño (now retired) and Deputy Court
wise to convert his penalty to the payment of a fine. Thus, in line Administrator Reuben P. De la Cruz. The Report likewise presented a
with jurisprudence,16 we impose a fine instead of suspension, so that brief factual background of the case.
he can continue to discharge his assigned tasks. The OCA recommended that the respondent judge be fined in the
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: amount of P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law with a stern
(1) Finding Judge IRENEO L. GAKO, JR. GUILTY for two less warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more
serious offenses: (1) undue delay in rendering a decision/resolution severely. The recommendation was based on an evaluation which
and (2) violation of Court directives for which he is hereby FINED in reads:
the total amount of P30,000.00 to be deducted from the amount EVALUATION: A close examination of the records of
withheld from his retirement benefits. this administrative case shows that there is no solid
2) Finding Clerk of Court MANUEL G. NOLLORA GUILTY for evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegation of bias
simple neglect of duty and is FINED in the amount equivalent to one and partiality against the respondent Judge. Bias and
(1) month salary and sternly WARNED that a repetition of the same partiality can never be presumed. Bare allegations of
or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. partiality will not suffice in the absence of clear and
SO ORDERED. convincing proof that will overcome the presumption that
SECOND DIVISION the judge dispensed justice according to law and evidence,
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2146 November 14, 2008 without fear and favor (Chin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
(Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-2742-RTJ) 144618, August 15, 2003).
MELY HANSOR MAGPALI, complainant, Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings, the
vs. burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts
JUDGE MOISES M. PARDO, Regional Trial Court of complained of rests on the complainant. The complainant
Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31, respondent. must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such
DECISION relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
BRION, J.: adequate to support a conclusion, otherwise, the complaint
We pass upon the verified Complaint dated September 25, 2007 filed must be dismissed (Adajar v. Develos, A.M. No. P-05-
by Mely Hansor Magpali (complainant) charging Judge Moises 2056, [18 November 2005]). The basic rule is that mere
Pardo (respondent judge, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, allegation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof
Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino) with violation of the Code of (Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Judicial Conduct in the handling of Civil Case No. 659-2007 entitled 116181 [6 January 1997]).
"Mely Hansor Magpali v. Moises Magpali." In this case, complainant failed to substantiate the
The complaint originated from the civil case filed on June 12, 2007 allegation that the respondent Judge exhibited extreme bias
by the complainant against her husband Moises Magpali for support and has already pre-judged her case. Other than her bare
and alimony pendente lite. She alleged that she was initially allegations, there is nothing in the records that would prove
discouraged when she learned that the case was raffled to the sala of that the respondent Judge was hostile and made the remarks
the respondent judge because her husband and the respondent judge that she has no right to claim for support. Complainant
were friends. She decided, however, to give the respondent judge the could have gathered evidence to support the alleged bias or
benefit of the doubt, hoping that he would be sympathetic to her partiality of the respondent Judge. On the other hand,
situation as an abandoned wife with no means of livelihood. The respondent Judge was able to submit an affidavit executed
complainant further alleged that since the filing of the case and after by Mr. Enriquez that no such remark was made or the cited
the filing of her husband's answer dated July 23, 2007, the case had incident actually occurred. On the whole, the evidence on
not been set for pre-trial or for a hearing on her prayer for support record deals only with evidently self-serving statements of
pendente lite notwithstanding her obvious need for support. complainant vis-à-vis that of the denial of the respondent
The complainant also alleged that in one of her visits to the court to Judge.
follow-up the status of her case, she spoke with a member of the However, respondent Judge should be sanctioned when he
court's staff (a certain Mr. Jose Enriquez) and with the respondent disregarded a fundamental rule. The New Code of Judicial
judge who inquired about the purpose of her visit. On learning that Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to be
she is the wife of Moises Magpali, the respondent judge allegedly embodiments of judicial competence and diligence. Those
became hostile and commented that she has no right to claim any who accept this exalted position owe to the public and this
property from her husband because these properties were acquired Court the ability to be proficient in the law and the duty to
prior to their marriage. She explained that the properties were maintain professional competence at all times (Lim v.
acquired during their marriage, while Mr. Enriquez told the Dumlao, 454 SCRA 196, March 31, 2005). Indeed,
respondent judge that the complaint was for support from her competence is a mark of a good judge. This exalted
husband. This information elicited the remark from the respondent position entails a lot of responsibilities, foremost of which
judge that the complainant has no right to claim support. The is proficiency in the law. Once cannot seek refuge in a mere
complainant interpreted this incident to be a manifestation of the cursory knowledge of statues and procedural rules (Ualat v.
respondent judge's extreme bias, partiality in her husband's favor, and Judge Ramos, 333 Phil. 175, December 6, 1996).
pre-judgment of the case. The complaint lastly alleged that Respondent Judge fell short of these standards when he
respondent judge had delayed the hearing of the case notwithstanding failed in his duties to follow elementary law and to keep
its urgency; in fact, the case had not been set for hearing since it was abreast with prevailing jurisprudence. His claim that the
filed. party did not in any manner request that the case be
The respondent judge filed on November 29, 2007 his comment to scheduled for hearing as provided under Rule 18, par 1 of
the complaint in compliance with the directive of the Office of the the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and that it should be the
Court Administrator (OCA). He disclosed in his Comment that there party who will ask an ex-parte setting/scheduling of the
are two (2) related cases involving the complainant: (a) a Support case for its pre-trial is not exactly correct. A.M. No. 03-1-
with Alimony Pendente Lite case filed by complainant against her 09-SC, 16 August 2004 (Rule on Guidelines to be
husband; and (b) an Annulment of Marriage case instituted by Moises Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the
Magpali against the complainant. Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery
The respondent judge denied the charge that he violated the Code of Measures) provides that within 5 days from date of filing of
Judicial Conduct. To prove his point, he contended that: he had not reply, the plaintiff must promptly move ex-parte that the
issued any order or document in connection with either of the two case be set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to
cases showing his partiality or bias towards Moises Magpali; the file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC
annulment case was scheduled ahead because the party asked for its shall issue a notice of pre-trial. The respondent Judge
scheduling, whereas the complainant did not in any manner request should be conversant therewith. The case has not been set
that her petition for support be scheduled for hearing; under Rule 18, for pre-trial or at least for a hearing after the filing of the
par. 1, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaining party Answer dated 23 July 2007. He must know the laws and
should request for the setting of the case for pre-trial. apply them properly. Service in the judiciary involves
The respondent judge likewise denied the remarks attributed to him continuous study and research from beginning to end
by the complainant and submitted the affidavit of the Clerk of Court (Grieve v. Jaca, 421 SCRA 117, January 27, 2004).
Officer-in-Charge who was present when he talked with the We concur with the finding of the OCA that the respondent judge is
complainant. The affidavit clarified that the respondent judge did not answerable for gross ignorance of the law. Indeed, we find that the
utter the statements attributed to him. Finally, to convince the respondent judge mishandled the complainant's case, mainly because
of his lack of a full understanding of the procedural rules applicable
to the case. Without doubt, respondent judge had been remiss in the extensive documentary evidence which clearly established that it did
performance of his duties by failing to keep himself updated on the not blacklist Aznar's Mastercard.
current law, jurisprudence, and the rules of procedure. As we held in Finally, complainant pointed out that the damages respondent
fairly recent administrative cases,1 a magistrate owes to the public awarded to plaintiff Aznar were scandalously exorbitant. He prayed
and to this Court the duty to be proficient in the law and to be abreast for respondent's dismissal from the service.
of legal developments. The respondent judge failed to come up to this On September 3, 1999, respondent filed his comment.11 He
exacting standard and this, we cannot countenance. principally contended that, having appealed from his decision to the
We approve as well the OCA's recommendation that a fine of Court of Appeals, the complainant should not have filed this
P10,000.00 be imposed on the respondent judge. This level of fine administrative case. Respondent decried complainant's case as forum-
stresses upon all the need to be legally proficient and competent, shopping. In his defense, respondent asserted that he had in fact read
while taking into account the level of harm the judge's gross the transcripts, having received copies thereof attached to an ex parte
ignorance wrought on the complainant. manifestation filed by plaintiff Aznar.12 He also defended the amount
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Moises M. Pardo, RTC, of damages he awarded by comparing them to those awarded in a
Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino is hereby FINED in the amount of 1973 case, with inflation taken into account.
P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law, with a STERN Complainant then filed his reply to the comment,13 assailing the ex
WARNING that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with parte manifestation which respondent had supposedly relied upon in
more severely. deciding the case. He pointed out that respondent should not have
SO ORDERED. even considered the said manifestation because Citibank had not been
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1896 April 29, 2005 served a copy and it was filed after office hours. He likewise refuted
ATTY. JULIUS NERI, complainant, respondent's allegations of forum-shopping and impropriety in filing
vs. an administrative case while an appeal was pending.
JUDGE JESUS S. DE LA PEÑA, respondent. In his rejoinder, respondent defended his appreciation of the ex parte
RESOLUTION manifestation. He likewise reiterated his claim that the administrative
CORONA, J.: complaint should not have been filed with the appeal.14
This is a case for grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and/or On February 28, 2001, the Second Division of this Court resolved to
incompetence filed by Atty. Julius Z. Neri against Judge Jesus S. de hold the administrative case in abeyance until the final resolution of
la Peña. It originated from a civil case for damages filed by the Court of Appeals of CA-GR CV No. 62554, Aznar v. Citibank.
Emmanuel Aznar against Citibank (which was represented by By this time, the case had been re-docketed as AM No. 01-1131-
complainant as counsel), docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-16474 and RTJ.15
raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch XX, presided On January 8, 2004, the Court of Appeals decided in favor of
over by Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos.1 Citibank, vacating respondent's decision and reinstating the dismissal
Plaintiff Aznar had filed suit due to the alleged blacklisting of his of the case by Judge Marcos.16 On June 8, 2004, complainant filed a
Citibank Preferred Mastercard which, according to him, was manifestation, with the Court of Appeals' decision attached, pointing
dishonored in several establishments in Singapore and Malaysia out that this administrative complaint was now ready for resolution.
while he was on holiday, causing him great inconvenience and In a manifestation dated June 14, 2004, respondent prayed for the
embarrassment. He presented, as evidence, several receipts, plane resolution of the case and once more asked for its dismissal. He cited
tickets, a computer print-out allegedly showing that his card had been the fact that the Court of Appeals decision made no mention of his
declined for being "over limit", a statement of account and his lone administrative lapses and that his decision was an exercise of purely
testimony.2 Defendant Citibank presented several documentary judicial discretion. He also listed the various posts he had held as a
exhibits to the effect that Aznar's card had not been placed on any Regional Trial Court judge as well as the commendations he had
"hot list" and could not possibly have been blacklisted.3 After trial, received from the Honorable Chief Justice. He also pointed out that
Judge Marcos dismissed the case for lack of merit.4 this administrative complaint was the only one ever filed against him
Dissatisfied with the decision, Aznar filed through counsel a motion in all his years of service.17
for reconsideration, with motion to re-raffle the case. In an order In a memorandum dated August 27, 2004, the Office of the Court
dated September 11, 1998, Acting Presiding Judge Ramon Codilla Administrator reported its findings.
(who succeeded Marcos), citing the fact that he was "occupied with Because respondent based his assailed order mostly on the ex parte
two (2) salas" and the fact that "the Presiding Judge who originally manifestation submitted by the counsel for plaintiff Aznar, the OCA
penned the decision is a credit card holder of CITIBANK…whose found him liable for violating Section 4, Rule 13, in relation to
membership could naturally influence the outcome of this case in Section 5, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure:
favor of the defendant bank," directed the re-raffling of the case to (Rule 13)
RTC Cebu Branch X, presided over by respondent Judge Jesus de la SEC. 4. Papers required to be filed and served. — Every
Peña.5 Respondent then ordered Citibank to file its comment on judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent to the
Aznar's motion for reconsideration.6 Citibank filed its opposition complaint, written motion, notice, appearance, demand,
instead. In an order dated November 25, 1998, respondent granted offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the
Aznar's motion for reconsideration: court, and served upon the parties affected.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby (Rule 15)
GRANTED. The DECISION dated May 29, 1998 is hereby SEC. 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which
reconsidered, and consequently, the defendant is hereby the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the
condemned liable to pay the following sums of money: adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing
a) P10,000,000.00 as moral damages; by the applicant.
b) P 5,000,000.00 as exemplary damages; According to the OCA, the fact that plaintiff Aznar had failed to
c) P 1,000,000.00 as attorney's fees; and serve a copy of his ex parte manifestation upon Citibank should have
d) P200,000.00 as litigation expenses. been reason enough for respondent to disregard the same.
SO ORDERED.7 Likewise noting the fact that the ex parte manifestation was filed
As a result of the Order, complainant filed this administrative case on beyond office hours, the OCA found that this "created an idea that
July 16, 1999, which was docketed as Control No. 41-99-P. Charging there was a covert attempt to favor Aznar." However, citing the
respondent with dishonesty, he alleged that respondent, contrary to absence of substantial evidence, it pointed out that "it should not be
his pronouncement in his order, had rendered his decision without presumed that the procedural lapse committed by respondent (was)
ever having read the transcripts of the case.8 To support this attended by corrupt motive of flagrant disregard of the rules." The
contention, complainant presented certifications from the Clerk of OCA also considered in respondent's favor his defense that he was
Court of Branch XX9 and the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Cebu merely trying to help decongest the dockets. Finally, the OCA found
City10 that the transcripts of the case had remained in their custody the charges of gross ignorance of law and incompetence to be without
and that the respondent never borrowed them all throughout. basis, and found him liable instead for simple misconduct. The OCA
Complainant also charged respondent with gross ignorance of the law recommended a fine of P10,000.
and/or incompetence. He alleged that respondent had improperly We adopt part of the findings of the Court Administrator.
considered as a business record Aznar's computer print-out which in But we disagree with its finding that the respondent violated both
reality did not meet the requisites to be rightly considered as such. Rules 13 and 15 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
Aznar never testified as to the date and time the subject print-out was Section 4, Rule 13 requires that adverse parties be served copies of
encoded, or who encoded and printed the same, nor did he establish all pleadings and similar papers. Section 4, Rule 15 requires a movant
personal knowledge of who prepared the print-out, or whether it was to set his motion for hearing, unless it is one of those which a court
prepared by one responsible for it in his professional capacity or in can act upon without prejudicing the rights of the other party. The
the performance of his official duty or in the regular course of his prevailing doctrine in our jurisdiction is that a motion without a
business. Finally, the person who prepared it did not testify in court notice of hearing addressed to the parties is a mere scrap of paper. 18
or on deposition. In Cui v. Judge Madayag,19 we held that "any motion that does not
Complainant went on to say that respondent's incompetence and contain proof of service of notice to the other party is not entitled to
dishonesty showed in his failure to appreciate and evaluate Citibank's judicial cognizance. (Such) motion is nothing but a (mere) scrap of
paper." It is important, however, to note that these doctrines refer of Estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2722-BG pending before
exclusively to motions. RTC-Branch 33, Bauang, La Union. Ronquillo is also an accused in a
The logic for such a requirement is simple: a motion invariably case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 filed by Perla F.
contains a prayer which the movant makes to the court, which is Costales, docketed as Criminal Case No. 4338. The following are the
usually in the interest of the adverse party to oppose. The notice of acts complained of against respondent Judge:
hearing to the adverse party is therefore a form of due process; it 1) On June 24, 2002, respondent Judge was with his wife
gives the other party the opportunity to properly vent his opposition during the hearing of Criminal Case No. 4338 (B.P. Blg. 22
to the prayer of the movant. In keeping with the principles of due case);
process, therefore, a motion which does not afford the adverse party 2) On October 15, 2002, respondent Judge testified in
the chance to oppose it should simply be disregarded. The same behalf of the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2722-BG
principle applies to objections to interrogatories which also require a (Estafa case);
notice of hearing like motions under Section 3, Rule 25 of the 3) Respondent Judge pressured and made follow-ups on the
Rules.20 case with the public prosecutor;
However, the same cannot be said for manifestations which, unless 4) Respondent Judge wrote a letter dated October 10, 2003,
otherwise indicated, are usually made merely for the information of addressed to the President of the Don Mariano Marcos
the court. There is generally nothing to contest or argue; the Memorial State University, quoted as follows:1
manifesting party is just making a statement for the knowledge of the I wish to call your attention regarding your four (4) professors,
court, such as in this case. There is nothing in either the Rules or in namely: ENGRACIA G. RONQUILLO, MERCEDES V. TAVAS,
jurisprudence that requires judges to disregard a manifestation that CLARITA S. VALDEZ and NORA C. PEREZ, all of DMMMSU,
does not have proof of service. South La Union Campus, Agoo, La Union, who were convicted with
This is not to say, however, that respondent is off the hook. While it the crime of ESTAFA/SWINDLING on July 22, 2003, a xerox copy
is true that he was under no obligation to disregard Aznar's ex parte of the Decision is hereto attached and marked as Annex "A".
manifestation, he should have at least called attention to its A motion for reconsideration of the decision was filed by the accused
irregularity, both by admonishing Aznar and by informing the thru their counsel but was denied, Annex "B". Thru counsel, the 4
adverse party of its filing. That he acted on it — indeed, based his accused appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, Annex "C".
decision on it — while Citibank was totally unaware of its existence Prof. Ronquillo is also charged with Violation of Batas Pambansa
ran seriously afoul of the precepts of fair play, specially since Bilang 22 (or the Bouncing Checks Law) which case is pending trial
respondent only mentioned the document after this administrative before the Municipal Trial Court of Naguilian, Annex "D" and Annex
case was filed against him. Indeed, there seems to be something "E".1ªvvphi1.nét
gravely amiss in respondent's sense of fairness and righteousness, the Incidentally, the complainant in these cases is my wife PERLA F.
primary requisites of a good judge. COSTALES.
Furthermore, we cannot help but find extreme bias and bad intent in ….
respondent's award to Aznar of a whopping P16.2 million in damages It is unfortunate that you have 4 professors who are supposed to be
considering that, not having tried the case himself, the only records the molders of the mind of the youth and paragon of virtue, yet they
he actually read came from no one else but Aznar himself. By itself, have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, which is
the unconscionable amount of the award evinces indubitable malice worst than other crimes. What if the Court of Appeals affirms their
on respondent's part and the shady circumstances in which he granted conviction which is imprisonment from 4 to 20 years at the Women’s
it show that he knowingly rendered a manifestly unjust decision. Correccional, Manila.
As a member of the judiciary, respondent's every action is supposed We heard that the 4 professors are intending to apply for early
to be beyond reproach and above suspicion. The 2004 Code of retirement because of this. We have no objection provided they have
Judicial Conduct clearly states that "Judges shall avoid impropriety to pay first their money obligations to my wife.
and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities."21 By We pity the professors that is why we held in abeyance the filing of
acting on a document which was sorely defective (for two reasons: administrative cases against them.
failure to serve a copy on the adverse party and failure to file it We are not to be blamed for this but the 4 professors themselves. We
during office hours), and by making an egregiously large award of are only exercising our rights under our laws.
damages in favor of plaintiff Aznar, he inevitably opened himself up May I know what course of action you would undertake considering
to suspicion of having entered into a dirty, secret deal with Aznar and that these 4 professors of your well-known and prestigious university
thereby severely tarnished the impartiality with which he was at all where innumerable graduates have shown excellence in their chose
times supposed to conduct himself. endeavors, have been convicted with a crime involving moral
Given respondent's actions, we disagree with the OCA's findings of turpitude?
simple misconduct. Because of the highly anomalous manner in Thank you.
which respondent rendered his decision, as well as the questionable Very truly yours,
content of the decision itself, which was eventually overturned by the (Signed)
Court of Appeals, we find him guilty of knowingly rendering an JUDGE JOVEN F. COSTALES
unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an Husband of the Complainant
appropriate proceeding.22 Perla F. Costales
The penalty for this offense ranges from a fine of P20,000, to Required by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to
suspension from three to six months, to dismissal from the service. 23 comment on the complaint,2 respondent Judge denied the allegations.
In this case, the penalty of suspension for six months is appropriate, According to respondent Judge, there was no hearing held on June
with a warning that another such infraction of this nature will warrant 24, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 4338 (B.P. Blg. 22 case), and granting
a more severe penalty. that there was any hearing in which he attended, he was there in his
WHEREFORE, Judge JESUS S. DE LA PEÑA is hereby found private capacity as he was a witness for his wife, although he was not
GUILTY of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as presented anymore. Respondent Judge stated that he filed a leave of
determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding and is absence and did not use his official time to attend the hearings of the
hereby SUSPENDED from office for six months. Considering the case. Respondent Judge also believed that there was no impropriety
gravity of this offense, he is hereby warned that another infraction of in his act of writing a letter to the university officials. It was done
this kind will merit a penalty beyond mere suspension from public with the consent of his wife, and he did not use his position to
office. influence the officials. He merely asked what course of action has
SO ORDERED. been taken against the four professors involved. Respondent Judge
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1876 February 23, 2005 also denied that he pressured the public prosecutor and if ever he
NORA C. PEREZ and ENGRACIA G. RONQUILLO, went to the prosecutor’s office, it was on leave of absence.3
complainants, Per recommendation of the OCA, the case was re-docketed as a
vs. regular administrative matter,4 with the parties manifesting their
JUDGE JOVEN COSTALES, RTC, Branch 45, Urdaneta City, willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings
Pangasinan, Respondent. filed.5
RESOLUTION In its Evaluation, the OCA found that respondent Judge should be
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: reprimanded for having written the university officials, thus:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Nora C. Perez and 3. Finally regarding the third alleged act of impropriety, that is,
Engracia G. Ronquillo, professors of the Don Mariano Marcos writing the university’s administrative officials inquiring as to what
Memorial State University, South La Union Campus (DMMMSU- actions have been taken or would be taken against the complainant,
SLUC), against Judge Joven Costales of the Regional Trial Court we find enough basis for the charges of violation of the Code of
(RTC) of Urdaneta City (Branch 45), charging him of violating Judicial Conduct. Respondent ought to have known that such a letter
Canons 2 and 3, and Rules 2.04 and 3.12 of the Code of Judicial from one occupying the position of judge will not be treated as a
Conduct, and for Harassment. mere ordinary inquiry.l^vvphi1.net Respondent should have realized
Complainants Perez and Ronquillo are two of the four professors that his letter can be regarded as tending to influence the outcome of
accused by respondent Judge’s wife, Perla F. Costales, of the crime the investigation being conducted by the university about the matter.
Said act of respondent is a clear violation of Rule 2.04, Canon 2 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that "A judge shall
refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or administrative agency".
Respondent in making the said letter had abandoned his duty that "A
judge should be embodiment of competence, integrity, and
independence". That respondent opted to write the letter himself
instead of his wife indicates improper use of his judgeship.6
With regard to the other alleged acts of impropriety, it was the
OCA’s finding that respondent Judge cannot be held administratively
liable therefor for the following reasons:
… In the present case, respondent’s participation in the criminal
cases filed by his wife was limited to being a witness. As can be
deduced from the above-cited case, a member of the judiciary is not
prohibited from being a witness to a case. Note should be taken that
respondent did not give an opinion nor participated (sic) in any
proceeding that could slant the evaluation and resolution of the case
in favor of the party he identifies himself with.1awphi1.nét
There is no clear act of impropriety or appearance of impropriety that
can be imputed to the respondent. Respondent’s act of assisting his
wife in his private capacity, being privy to the transactions, does not
necessarily signify that he is using his authority in influencing the
outcome of any proceeding or investigation.
2. As to the second alleged act of impropriety, the act of the judge in
going to the prosecutor’s office, which respondent did not deny in his
comment contending that the criminal case was regularly filed and
prosecuted, we find his presence in the said office insufficient basis
for an administrative sanction. There was no showing that the
prosecutor’s office was pressured into having the said criminal cases
prosecuted in court. Nor was it shown that the respondent’s presence
was intended to influence the action of the prosecutor’s office on the
matter.7
The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
Specifically, Rule 2.01 mandates that a judge should so behave at all
times as to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary. This includes a judge’s behavior in the performance of his
judicial duties, outside of it, and in his private capacity.8
The Court cannot find fault in respondent Judge’s appearance as a
witness in Criminal Case No. 2722-BG (Estafa case). He had
personal knowledge of the events that led to the filing of the case, and
he cannot be blamed for protecting his wife’s interests. He did not
utilize official time and resources in doing so. There is nothing on
record, aside from complainants’ bare allegations, that respondent
used his judicial position to influence the proceedings before the trial
court or the outcome of the case. Likewise, respondent Judge’s
presence in the office of the prosecutor, by itself, is not sufficient
evidence to conclude that he exercised any influence or pressure on
the public prosecutor.
However, in writing to the administrative officials of the DMMMSU-
SLUC, respondent judge obviously sought to influence or put
pressure on them with regard to the actions to be taken against the
four professors. His wife could have written the letter herself, as she
is the complainant in the criminal cases against the four professors.
Instead, it was respondent judge who did, and he even used and stated
his judicial position in his letter, thereby insinuating that it should not
be ignored or trifled with. It cannot be gainsaid that respondent Judge
is aware that his judicial position alone could exert influence or
authority over the university officials, and he took advantage of such
authority.
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge
must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his
performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his
sala and as a private individual. x x x. The Code dictates that a judge,
in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary must behave with propriety at all times. (Castillo v.
Calanog, Jr., 199 SCRA 75, 83 [1991]) "[O]ne who occupies a
position of such grave responsibility in the administration of justice
must conduct himself in a manner befitting the dignity of such
exalted office. A judge's private as well as official conduct must at all
times be free from all appearances of impropriety, and be beyond
reproach." (Dysico v. Dacumos, 262 SCRA 275, 283 [1996]). In the
case at hand, the respondent judge has failed to conduct himself in
the manner prescribed by the provisions of Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct which Canon 2 directs the avoidance of impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. (Arcenio v.
Pagorogon, 224 SCRA 247, 255 [1993])9
WHEREFORE, for violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, respondent Judge Joven F. Costales of the Regional Trial
Court of Urdaneta City (Branch 45) is REPRIMANDED with
warning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.

Вам также может понравиться