Spouses ROMEO P. NAZARENO and ELISA A. NAZARENO, v JUDGE ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1195. February 26, 1997

Facts: Sometime in 1990, when respondent was about to retire from service talked to Elisa that he is nearing his retirement and he needs a lot of money. Since sps. Nazareno has a pending criminal case in the trial court of the respondent, respondent asked for an amount of money and in one occasion asked for the payment of the food of his staffs and friends Christmas party. Asked to cash his salary check but upon receipt of the money did not give the check. Judge asked them to change their lawyer which they did not heed because they believe in their lawyer. Because of that, judge always denied their motions and pleadings.Petitioner felt aggrieved filed a complaint against the respondent. In his defense, he denied all the allegations.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics?Held: After a close and careful study of the records of the proceedings before investigating Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the Court finds sufficient evidence to find respondent JudgeEnrique M. Almario liable for gross dishonesty and misconduct. His conduct undoubtedly is unbecoming a member of the bench. The time honored rule is that a public official whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice, be he a judge of a lower court or tribunal or a justice of the appellate courts, should not only be impartial, independent and honest but should be believed and perceived to be impartial, independent and honest.

Castillo v JuanFacts: Two young maidens who are the offended parties in two rape cases, assail the actuation of respondent Judge and seek his disqualification on the ground of bias and prejudice.

Briefly, on two separate occasions on August 15 and 27, 1974, in the secrecy of his chambers he informed petitioners of the weakness of their cases, the likelihood of a verdict of acquittal in favor of the accused, and impressed upon them that it would be to their advantage to settle, as the most he could do on their behalf was to have such accused indemnify them. This move, according to him, would assure their being spared from the embarrassment occasioned by suits of this character, clearly prejudicial to their future. These conversations took place even before the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence, one of the petitioners not having testified as yet.Held: Petitioners are entitled to the remedy sought. Respondent Judge must be disqualified from further hearing the cases.

Even if it be admitted that, according to his best lights, respondent Judge acted from a sense of sympathy or "charity", his conduct cannot be said to be consonant with the exacting standard of the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.Sison v Judge CaoibesFacts: Salvador Sison, a MMDA traffic enforcer, filed a verified Complaint1, charging Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. and Sheriff Teodoro Alvarez of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City, Branch 253, with grave abuse of authority.Authorized driver, while on board the official car on an official errand was flagged by the accused along the EDSA after making a right turn; that after he stopped, he was told by the accused that swerving to the right lane was prohibited when it appeared that the sign therefore was still far off and not readily visible to the naked eye; that nonetheless, he introduced himself as the authorized driver of the undersigned, his son in fact, and showed to the accused the calling card of the undersigned with a notation introducing the bearer of the card and requesting for assistance from law enforcers, and accordingly begged that he be allowed to proceed on his way considering that there was no danger to limb, life and property occasioned by his alleged traffic violation; that notwithstanding such introduction and plea, the accused confiscated the drivers license of the authorized driver, even bragging in the process that he did the same to somebody who introduced himself as a lawyer the day before.Sison was ordered to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of court. Judge issued an arrest order for Sisons failure to appear before the respondent judge. When the sheriff served the order and Sison appeared before the court, he executed an affidavit admitting that he made a mistake and it was all a misunderstanding.

- was greatly surprised when respondent TEODORO ALVAREZ came and arrested him without any warrant of arrest, only on orders of the respondent Judge- During the hearing, the complainant was made to admit by the respondent Judge that he made a mistake.

Held: The act of a judge in citing a person in contempt of court in a manner which smacks of retaliation, as in the case at bar, is appalling and violative of Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that "a judge should so behave at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."He was also previously found guilty of serious impropriety unbecoming a judge, for delivering fistic blows on a complainant judge. GUILTYof serious impropriety unbecoming a judge for violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and is herebyDISMISSED.ALFRED HILADO et al. v. JUDGE AMOR REYES 496 SCRA 282(2006)

Facts: Julita Campos Benedicto filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration for the Intestate Estate of Roberto S. Benedicto before the RTC of Manila. The case was raffled to Judge Amor Reyes, in whose court such a petition was approved. Alfred Hilado, on the other hand, filed a civil case against the estate of Roberto. For a period of time, the counsel of Hilado was allowed to examine the records of the case and secure certified true copies thereof. However, one of Hilados counsels was denied access to records of the estate by Judge Reyes ratiocinating that only parties or those with authority from the parties are allowed to inquire or verify the status of the case as the counsel was not under that instance. Hilado filed before the Supreme Court a petition for mandamus to compel Judge Reyes to allow them to access, examine and obtain copies of any and all documents forming part of the record of the Hilados case contending that these records are public, and which the public can freely access.Petitioners further contend that public respondent manifested her arbitrariness, malice and partiality through her blatant disregard of basic rules in the disposition and safekeeping of court records, and her denial of their right to access the records suffices to bar her from presiding over the case

Held: The term judicial record or court record does not only refer to the orders, judgment or verdict of the courts. It comprises the official collection of all papers, exhibits and pleadings filed by the parties, all processes issued and returns made thereon, appearances, and word-for-word testimony which took place during the trial and which are in the possession, custody, or control of the judiciary or of the courts for purposes of rendering court decisions. Decisions and opinions of a court are of course matters of public concern or interest for these are the authorized expositions and interpretations of the laws, binding upon all citizens, of which every citizen is charged with knowledge. Justice thus requires that all should have free access to the opinions of judges and justices, and it would be against sound public policy to prevent, suppress or keep the earliest knowledge of these from the public. Thus, in Lantaco Sr. et al. v. Judge Llamas, this Court found a judge to have committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to furnish Lantaco et al. a copy of his decision in a criminal case of which they were even the therein private complainants, the decision being already part of the public record which the citizen has a right to scrutinize. The petition for mandamus isGRANTED. Public respondent isORDEREDto allow petitioners to access, examine, and obtain copies of any and all documents-part of the records of Special ProceedingSantos v LacuromThe complaint stemmed from respondent judges alleged bias and partiality in favor of one Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. ("Santos"), who had three pending cases1before respondent judges sala, as shown by the following:Complainant alleged that respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct and grave abuse of judicial discretion for having allowed a non-lawyer to engage in the practice law.Complainant filed a motion to expunge a pleading signed by Santos, claiming that Santos, a non-lawyer, is not allowed to sign pleadings. Respondent judge always granted, with dispatch, all the pleadings of Santos. Respondent judge had unduly delayed the execution of the 28 April 2000 Court of Appeals decision against SantosRespondent judge denied complainants letter-request for respondent judge to inhibit himself from the cases to avoid suspicion of bias, prejudice, conflict of interest and partiality. Complainant alleged that respondent judge used his office to advance and protect the interests of Santos, respondent judges "close friend," to the prejudice of complainant and in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Code).Complainant also added that respondent judge refused to inhibit himself because he was protecting his interest in Villa Benita Subdivision ("subdivision"). Complainant explained that all three cases involved properties in the subdivisionand that respondent judge is an incorporator,a director, an officer and a legal adviserof Villa Benita Homeowners Association ("VBHA").

Respondent judge explained that he merely "recognized" Santos as lead counsel because his counsel was often absent from the proceedings.Held: In this case, complainant failed to prove that respondent judge granted with dispatch all the pleadings of Santos.

The Rules recognize the right of an individual to represent himself in any case in which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and that his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the BarThe Court agrees with the OCAs finding that respondent judges inhibition from the cases was discretionary. Voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge.Respondent judge violated rule 5.04 of the code, he should have advised Dr. Lacurom not to accept any favor from Faberns Inc. or from any of its officers or principal stockholders.Rule 5.04A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.On respondent judges close friendship with Santos, such fact did not render respondent judge guilty of violating any canon of judicial ethics as long as his friendly relations with Santos did not influence his official conduct as a judge in the cases where Santos was a party. Only guilty of simple misconduct for violating 5.04 of the code.