Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
L-15824 May 30, 1961 could be disqualified under the provisions of Rule 125 of the
Rules of Court.
RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ, petitioner,
vs. Issue: Whether or not respondent should inhibit himself from
HON. ARSENIO SANTOS, ETC. ET AL., respondents. the case?
DIZON, J.: Ruling: YES. that due process of law requires a hearing
before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that every
Doctrine: due process of law requires a hearing before an
litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an
impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that every litigant is
impartial judge (30 Am. Jur. p. 767). Moreover, second only to
entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial
the duty of rendering a just decision, is the duty of doing it in a
judge
manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and
Facts: Benigno Musni and others filed a complaint with the the integrity of the Judge. Consequently, we take it to be the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications against true intention of the law — stated in general terms — that no
Ricardo M. Gutierrez alleging therein, enter alia, that the latter judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly free,
had illegally constructed dams, dikes and other obstructions disinterested, impartial and independent.
across navigable waters, waterways, rivers and communal
In view of these circumstances, we are constrained to agree
fishing grounds located in Barrio San Esteban, Macabebe,
with His Honor that the opinion thus expressed by him years
Pampanga. They prayed that, pursuant to the provisions of
ago "might, some way or another, influence his decision" in the
Republic Act No. 2056, the said obstructions be ordered
case before him.
removed or destroyed. The original complaint was
subsequently amended by adding six more to the streams or
waterways mentioned therein.
March 12, 1923
On February 25, 1959 respondent de la Rosa filed a motion to
disqualify the Hon. Arsenio Santos from trying and deciding In re impeachment of Honorable TOMAS FLORDELIZA,
the case, upon the ground that sometime in 1948 he had acted Judge of First Instance of the Sixteenth Judicial District.
as counsel for fishpond owners, like the petitioner Gutierrez, in
an administrative investigation in involving the same or at least MALCOLM, J.:
similar issues and properties, and had expressed views in the
course of said investigation prejudicial or adverse to the DOCTRINE: The judge must cultivate a capacity for quick
contention of the respondents in the pending case. Petitioner decision.
Gutierrez objected to the motion aforesaid upon the ground
that there was no legal ground upon which Judge Santos
FACTS: Six members of the bar of Sorsogon who, together, not deny by slothfulness of mind or body the judgment to
make claim to at least 50 per cent of the law practice of that which a party is entitled.
province, have filed a verified petition in this court praying for
the removal from office of the Honorable Tomas Flordeliza,
Judge of First Instance of the Sixteenth Judicial District. The
charges laid against the respondent Judge are, in general: (1) A.M. NO. RTJ-05-1960. October 25, 2005]
That on different occasions the respondent certified falsely as
to the status of the cases pending decision before him, in (Formerly OCA-IPI No. 02-1547-RTJ)
violation of section 129 of the Administrative Code; (2) that the
respondent is guilty of delay and lack of diligence in the JUVELYN D. KILAT, Complainant, v. JUDGE MARIANO S.
disposition of the cases pending before him, in violation of MACIAS, RTC, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del
section 165 of the Administrative Code, and generally Norte, Respondent.
accepted principles which determine judicial standards; and
(3) that the respondents is guilty of partiality in the RESOLUTION
performance of his official duties.
TINGA, J.:
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge is administratively liable?
DOCTRINE: A judge should, in fine, administer his office with
RULING: The law requires that before leave shall be granted
due regard to the integrity of the judicial system.
or salary shall be paid to any judge or auxiliary judge of first
instance, he shall make a certificate that all cases and FACTS:
proceedings which have been under submission for
determination or decision for a period of ninety days or more Complainant, a 16 year-old working high school student,
have been determined and decided on or before the date of charged respondent Judge Mariano S. Macias of rape,
making the certificate. immorality and violation of Anti-
Child Abuse Law. Respondent, on other hand, denied the clai
we state that the vacation months should not be excluded in ms ofcomplainant. According to him, complaint was merely
the computation of the ninety-day period prescribed by law, used by his ex-wife and several other personalities who he
that the time should begin to run from the submission of the believed had “selfish and personal axes to grind” against him.
case, without awaiting notification from the clerk of court, and Respondent said that complainant was kidnapped and merely
that an oral decision is not sufficient. forced to sign the documents used in the instant administrative
complaint.
One of the proposed canons for a decalogue for the judiciary
Meanwhile, complainant filed criminal charges against those a
is this: "The judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decision.
ccusedof kidnapping her. The Provincial Prosecutor filed the
Habits of indecision must be sedulously overcome. He must
corresponding information and the case was docketed as
Criminal Case No. L-00727 and was raffled to the RTC branch unfortunately did not do. He cannot exercise his discretion
presided by respondent judge. Respondent then issued a whether to inhibit himself or not. It was a clear case of violation
warrant of arrest. The next day, accused moved for of the Rules of Court.
theinhibition of respondent from the criminal case on the
ground thatrespondent is directly involved in the said case. A judge should, in fine, administer his office with due regard to
Respondent thus issued anorder inhibiting himself from said the integrity of the judicial system. He must not be perceived
case. as being a repository of arbitrary power but as one dispensing
justice under the sanction of the rule of law. he should have
ISSUE: Whether or not judge is administratively liable. inhibited himself from the case if only to avoid any doubt or
suspicion of bias and partiality against the accused.
RULING:
We find that the respondent judge’s error does not rise to the Judiciary should be beyond reproach and suspicion in their
level of gross ignorance of the law that is defined by conduct, and should
jurisprudence. We take judicial notice of the fact that at the
be free from any appearance of impropriety in the discharge of
time he issued the Writ of Amparo on January 23, 2008, the their ocial
Rule on the Writ of Amparo has been effective for barely three
months (The Rule on the Writ of Amparo became effective on duties as well as in their personal behavior and everyday life.
October 24, 2007). At that time, the respondent judge cannot
be said to have been fully educated and informed on the novel Facts: Complainant Michael B. Belen led a Veried
aspects of the Writ of Amparo. Simply stated, the Rule on the Complaint dated 7 March 2001
with the Oce of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Thereafter, respondent judge allegedly started harassing and
Supreme Court, charging Judge threatening
Medel Arnaldo B. Belen with grave abuse of authority and complainant with the ling of several cases against the latter.
conduct unbecoming a judge. Respondent judge also wrote several letters addressed to
certain local
According to complainant, 1 sometime in March 2004,
respondent judge led a case government authorities and employees, requesting information
on complainant's
for Estafa against complainant's father, Nezer D. Belen, but
the same was dismissed for piggery and poultry business
Respondent judge led an Omnibus Motion (For Issue: Whether or not respondent used his position improperly.
Reconsideration and Disqualif[ication]) before the Oce of the Ruling: YES. Respondent judge wrote letters to government
City Prosecutor of San authorities and employees to
Pablo City, alleging, inter alia, that Sunega-Lagman was secure public information regarding complainant's piggery and
always absent during the poultry business; to
hearings in the preliminary investigation in the estafa case. inform addressees of the laws allegedly being violated by
Respondent judge likewise complainant; and to remind
led a complaint for disciplinary action against Sunega- the addressees of their duties as government ocials or
Lagman before the Integrated employees and warn them of
Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, the possible legal effects of neglect of public duties.
the Presiding Judge of RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36, and seat in the Judiciary.
stating that the letter was
the use of a letterhead should not be considered
"from [his] chambers," clearly manifests that respondent judge independently of the
was trying to use the
surrounding circumstances of the use — the underlying reason
prestige of his oce to inuence said government ocials and that marks the use
employees, and to
with the element of "impropriety" or "appearance of
achieve with prompt and ease the purpose for which those impropriety".
letters were written. In other
be free from any appearance of impropriety in the discharge of Where the law is straightforward and its application to the facts
their ocial plainly evident, not to know the law or to act as if one does not
know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law
duties as well as in their personal behavior and everyday life.
No position exacts a FACTS:
DOCTRINE: Basic is the rule that in administrative Second, members of the judiciary are not a class of their own,
proceedings, complainant bears the onus of establishing the sui generis, in the eld of public service as to require a higher
averments of her complaint. degree of proof for the administrative cases led against them
other than, perhaps, the fact that because of the nature of the
FACTS: This involves an administrative complaint 1 led by responsibility judges have, they are required to live up to a
complainant Margie C. Macias charging her husband, Mariano higher standard of integrity, probity and morality. SaCDTA
Joaquin S. Macias (Judge Macias), with immorality and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The When we dismiss a public ocer or employee from his position
complaint or oce for the commission of a grave offense in connection
with his oce, we merely require that the complainant prove
was led on March 7, 2001, when respondent was still sitting substantial evidence. When we disbar a disgraceful lawyer, we
as the presiding judge of Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court require that complainant merely prove a clear preponderance
(RTC) of Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte. of evidence to establish liability. 39 There appears no
compelling reason to require a higher degree of proof when we
Complainant alleged that sometime in 1998, respondent deal with cases filed against judges.
engaged in an illicit liaison and immoral relationship with a
Basic is the rule that in administrative proceedings, The undisputed facts follow.
complainant bears the onus of establishing the averments of
her complaint. On 4 and 25 August 2005, respondent borrowed money from
complainant in the amounts of ₱5,000.00 and ₱2,500.00,
respectively. The loans were evidenced by promissory notes.1
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1689 March 13, 2009 On 4 and 24 January 2007, respondent again borrowed from
[Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-1897-MTJ] complainant the amounts of ₱15,000.00 and ₱3,000.00, as
evidenced by two (2) handwritten notes.6
PERLA BURIAS, Complainant,
vs. On 23 March 2007, complainant filed an urgent motion for
JUDGE MIRAFE B. VALENCIA, MTC-Irosin, respondent’s inhibition on the ground of delay in the resolution
Sorsogon, Respondent. of the civil case and apparent bias against complainant based
on the Order of 6 December 2006. Respondent denied the
RESOLUTION motion on 18 April 2007, citing the demise of her son as cause
for the delay.7 Complainant moved for reconsideration but the
TINGA, J.: motion was denied by respondent on 8 January 2008.8
DOCTRINE: judge shall refrain from financial and business In her administrative complaint, complainant alleged that on 12
dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s October 2005, respondent endorsed a check and thereafter
impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial exchanged the same for cash in the sum of ₱5,000.00 that
activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons complainant provided. Said check however was dishonored
likely to come before the court. when presented for payment by complainant. She also averred
that sometime in March 2007, respondent verbally demanded
FACTS: In a verified complaint dated 19 August 2005, Perla from her the sum of ₱50,000.00 and that her ₱30,500.000
Burias (complainant) charged Judge Mirafe B. Valencia indebtedness be written off in exchange for a favorable
(respondent), then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial decision in Civil Case No. 590. According to complainant, she
Court (MTC) of Irosin, Sorsogon, of gross misconduct.
refused to accede to the demands of respondent. In April not only impropriety, but also the appearance of
2007, respondent reportedly called her up and threatened that impropriety, because their conduct affects the people’s faith
she would release any of the two (2) draft decisions she and confidence in the entire judicial system
allegedly prepared favoring respondent in the civil case.
Complainant claimed that by reason of these threats, she was
constrained to file the instant administrative case.9
Ruling: