groups 5&6

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groups-56 1/44

CANON/LAWS

STATUTORY BASIS: DISCPLINARY ACTION ON MEMBERS OF THE SUPREMECOURT

1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE XI SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of theSupreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and theOmbudsman may be removed from oce, on impeachment for, and conviction of,culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, otherhigh crimes, or betrayal of public trust !ll other public ocers and employees maybe removed from oce as provided by la", but not by impeachment

WHAT IS IMPEACHEMENT?

#t is a constitutional process of removing public servants from oce as anassurance against abusive ocials in the country

#t serves as protection for the state and not to accomplish criminalpunishment

The ob$ective of impeachment is solely to determine "hether or not theocial is still "orthy of the trust conferred upon him%her

#t is not the determination of criminal guilt or innocence as in a criminal case

IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES

The Constitution limits the o&enses to the follo"ing' culpable violation of theConstitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust#n the ()*+ and ()+ constitution, betrayal of public trust "as not an impeachableo&ense

Cu!"#$ %&'"(&') '* (+$ ,')-(&(u(&')or purposes of impeachment, .culpable violation of the constitution/ is de0ned as.the deliberate and "rongful breach of the Constitution/ urthermore, .Violation of the Constitution made unintentionally, in good faith, and mere mista1es in the properconstruction of the Constitution do not constitute and impeachable o&ense/

T$"-')!ccording to the 2evised Penal Code, treason is de0ned as .!ny ilipino citi3en "holevies "ar against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies, giving them aid orcomfort "ithin the Philippines or else"here/

B&#$ The 2evised Penal Code de0nes bribery in t"o forms'4irect bribery is .committed by any public ocer "ho shall agree to perform an actconstituting a crime, in connection "ith the performance of this ocial duties, inconsideration of any o&er, promise, gift or present received by such ocer,personally or through the mediation of another/#ndirect bribery is .committed by a public ocer "hen he accept gifts o&ered to himby reason of his oce/

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


0"*( ") ,'u!(&')!ny violation of the 2epublic !ct 5o *6(), or the !nti-7raft and Corrupt Practices !ctis an impeachable o&ense

O(+$ +&+ ,&3$- ' #$("" '* !u#&, (u-(

#n rancisco 8r vs 5agmamalasa1itnamgaManananggolngmgaManggaga"angPilipino, #nc, the Supreme Court purposely refused to de0ne the meaning of .otherhigh crimes or betrayal of public trust,/ saying that it is .a non-$usticiable political9uestion "hich is beyond the scope of its $udicial po"er/ :o"ever, the Court refusesto name "hich agency can de0ne it; the Court impliedly gives the po"er to the :ouseof 2epresentatives, "hich initiates all cases of impeachment

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FILED A0AINST 4USTICE CORONA

!2T#C<= #

2espondent betrayed the public trust through his trac1 record mar1ed by partiality

and subservience in cases involving the !rroyo administration from the time of hisappointment as Supreme Court 8ustice "hich continued to his dubious appointmentas a midnight Chief 8ustice and up to the present

!2T#C<= >

2espondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and%or betrayed thepublic trust "hen he failed to disclose to the public his Statement of !ssets,<iabilities, and 5et "orth as re9uired under Sec (, !rt ?# of the ()@ Constitution

!2T#C<= *

2espondent committed culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayed thepublic trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under !rt V###,section A*B of the Constitution that provides that aD member of the $udiciary mustbe a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence in allo"ingthe Supreme Court to act on mere letters 0led by a counsel "hich caused theissuance of Eip-Eopping decisions in 0nal and eFecutory cases; in creating aneFcessive entanglement "ith Mrs !rroyo through her appointment of his "ife tooce; and in discussing "ith litigants regarding cases pending before the SupremeCourt

!2T#C<= G

2espondent betrayed the public trust and%or committed culpable violation of the

Constitution "hen it blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of po"ers byissuing a status 9uo ante order against the :ouse of 2epresentatives in the caseconcerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas 5avarro-7utierre3

!2T#C<= +

2espondent committed culpable violations of the constitution through "antonarbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


$udicata and in deciding in favor of gerrymandering in the cases involving the (Hne"ly-created cities, and the promotion of 4inagat #sland into a province

!2T#C<= H

2espondent betrayed the public trust by arrogating unto himself, and to a committee

he created, the authority and $urisdiction to improperly investigate an alleged erringmember of the Supreme Court for the purpose of eFculpating him Such authority and

$urisdiction is properly reposed by the constitution in the :ouse of 2epresentativesvia impeachment

!2T#C<=

2espondent betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporaryrestraining order AT2OB in favor of former President 7loria Macapagal-!rroyo and herhusband 8ose Miguel !rroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escapeprosecution and to frustrate the ends of $ustice, and in distorting the Supreme Courtdecision on the e&ectivity of the T2O in vie" of a clear failure to comply "ith theconditions of the Supreme CourtIs o"n T2O

!2T#C<= @

2espondent betrayed the public trust and%or committed graft and corruption "hen hefailed and refused to account for the $udiciary development fund A84B and specialallo"ance for the $udiciary AS!8B collections

STATUTORY BASIS: DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON LOWER COURT 4UD0ES AND 4USTICES

ARTICLE 5III SECTION 11 The Members of the Supreme Court and $udges of lo"ercourts shall hold oce during good behavior until they reached the age of seventyyears or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their oce The SupremeCourt en banc shall have the po"er to discipline $udges of lo"er courts, or order theirdismissal by a vote of a ma$ority of the Members "ho actually too1 part in thedeliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


SC ISSUANCES

A.M. N'. 1626SCTHE INTERNAL RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT

RULE 2

THE OPERATIN0 STRUCTURES

S$,(&') . Court en banc matters and cases. J The Court en banc shall act on the

follo"ing matters and cases'

AhB cases involving the discipline of a Member of the Court, or a Presiding

8ustice, or any !ssociate 8ustice of the collegial appellate court;

RULE

THE EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATI5E FUNCTION

S$,(&') . Administrative functions of the Court. J The administrative functions of

the Court en banc consist of , but are not limited to, the follo"ing'

AaB the discipline of $ustices, $udges and court personnel, "hether by en

banc or by 4ivision, sub$ect to matters assignable to the 4ivisions,

disciplinary matters involving $ustices, $udges and court personnel;

AM N'. 661SC CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL

K:=2=!S, the Constitution of the Philippines vests in the Supreme Court

administrative supervision over " ,'u(- ") (+$& !$-'))$; thus, it has

disciplinary authority over them and the po"er to promulgate a code of conduct for

them

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


<A.M. N'. 62962SC.S$!($3#$ 17= 2662>

RE:AUTOMATIC CON5ERSION OF SOME ADMINISTRATI5E CASES A0AINST 4USTICES OF THE CA THE SANDI0ANBAYAN= et al.

EN BANC

Luoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 SEPT2662.

!M 5o 6>-)-6>-SCARe: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular andSpecial Courts; and Court Ocials ho are !a"yers as #isciplinary $roceedings

Against %hem &oth as Such Ocials and as 'embers of the $hilippine &ar.B

Some administrative cases against 8ustices of the Court of !ppeals and theSandiganbayan; $udges of regular and special courts; and court ocials "ho arela"yers are based on grounds "hich are li1e"ise grounds for the disciplinary actionof members of the ar for violation of the <a"yerIs Oath, the Code of Professional2esponsibility, and the Canons of Professional =thics, or for such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recogni3ed as grounds for thediscipline of la"yers

#n any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered adisciplinary action against the respondent 8ustice, $udge or court ocial concerned asa member of the ar The respondent may forth"ith be re9uired to comment on thecomplaint and sho" cause "hy he should not also be suspended, disbarred orother"ise disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the ar 8udgment in both respectsmay be incorporated in one decision or resolution

A.M. N'. 61816SC

RE : Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Re Discipline of Justices and Judges

The Court resolved to !PP2OV= the amendment of 2ule (G6 of the 2ules of Court regarding the discipline of 8ustices and 8udges, so as to read as follo"s'

RULE 16

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


#iscipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan

S=CT#O5 ( (o" instituted N Proceedings for the discipline of 8udges of regular and special courts and 8ustices of the Court of !ppeals and theSandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upona veri0ed complaint, supported by adavits of persons "ho have personal

1no"ledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents "hich maysubstantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported bypublic records of indubitable integrity The complaint shall be in "riting andshall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violationsof standards of conduct prescribed for 8udges by la", the 2ules of Courts orthe Code of 8udicial Conduct

S=CT#O5 > Action on the complaint N #f the complaint is sucient in formand substance, a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, and heshall be re9uired to comment "ithin ten A(6B days from the date of serviceOther"ise, the same shall be dismissed

S=CT#O5 * &y "hom complaint investigated N pon the 0ling of therespondentIs comment, or upon the eFpiration of the time for 0ling the same

and unless other pleadings or documents are re9uired, the Court shall referthe matter to the Oce of the Court !dministrator for evaluation, report, andrecommendation or assign the case for investigation, report, andrecommendation to a retired member of the Supreme Court, if the respondentis a 8ustice of the Court of !ppeals and the Sandiganbayan, or to a 8ustice of the Court of !ppeals, if the respondent is a 8udge of a 2egional Trial Court or of a special court of e9uivalent ran1, or to a 8udge of the 2egional Trial Court if the respondent is a 8udge of an inferior court

S=CT#O5 G (earing N The investigating 8ustice or 8udge shall set a day forthe hearing and send notice thereof to both parties !t such bearing, theparties may present oral and documentary evidence #f, after due notice, therespondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed e) parte

The #nvestigating 8ustice or 8udge shall terminate the investigation "ithinninety A)6B days from the date of its commencement or "ithin such eFtensionas the Supreme Court may grant

S=CT#O5 + Report N Kithin thirty A*6B days from the termination of theinvestigation the investigating 8ustice or 8udge shall submit to the SupremeCourt a report containing 0ndings of fact and recommendation The reportshall be accompanied by the record containing the evidence and the pleadings0led by the parties The report shall be con0dential and shall be for theeFclusive use of the Court

S=CT#O5 H Action N The Court shall ta1e such action on the report as thefacts and the la" may "arrant

S=CT#O5 Classi*cation of charges N !dministrative charges are classi0ed

as serious, less serious or lightS=CT#O5 @ Serious charges N Serious charges include'

( ribery, direct or indirect;

> 4ishonesty and violations of the !nti-7raft and Corrupt Practices <a" A2!5o *6()B;

* 7ross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of 8udicial Conduct;

G no"ingly rendering an un$ust $udgment or order as determined by acompetent court in an appropriate proceeding;

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


+ Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;

H Killful failure to pay a $ust debt'

orro"ing money or property from la"yers and litigants in a case pendingbefore the court;

@ #mmorality;

) 7ross ignorance of the la" or procedure;

(6 Partisan political activities; and

(( !lcoholism and%or vicious habits

S=CT#O5 ) !ess Serious Charges N <ess serious charges include'

( ndue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the recordsof a case;

> re9uent and un$usti0ed absences "ithout leave or habitual tardiness;

* nauthori3ed practice of la";

G Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;

+ 2eceiving additional or double compensation unless speci0cally authori3edby la";

H ntruthful statements in the certi0cate of service; and

Simple Misconduct

S=CT#O5 (6 !ight Charges N <ight charges include'

( Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;

> 7ambling in public;

* raterni3ing "ith la"yers and litigants "ith pending case%cases in his court;and

G ndue delay in the submission of monthly reports

S=CT#O5 (( Sanctions N ! #f the respondent is guilty of a serious charge,any of the follo"ing sanctions may be imposed'

( 4ismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the bene0ts as theCourt may determine, and dis9uali0cation from reinstatement or appointmentto any public oce, including government-o"ned or controlledcorporations $rovided, ho"ever, that the forfeiture of bene0ts shall in no caseinclude accrued leave credits;

> Suspension from oce "ithout salary and other bene0ts for more thanthree A*B but not eFceeding siF AHB months' or

* ! 0ne of more than P>6,666 66 but not eFceeding PG6,66666

#f the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the follo"ing

sanctions shall be imposed'( Suspension from oce "ithout salary and other bene0ts for not less thanone A(B nor more than three A*B months; or

> ! 0ne of more than P(6,66666 but not eFceeding P>6,66666

C #f the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the follo"ing sanctionsshall be imposed'

( ! 0ne of not less than P(,66666 but not eFceeding P(6,66666 and%or

> Censure;

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


* 2eprimand;

G !dmonition "ith "arning

S=CT#O5 (> Con*dentiality of proceedings N Proceedings against 8udges of regular and special courts and $ustices of the Court of !ppeals and theSandiganbayan shall be private and con0dential, but a copy of the decision orresolution of the Court shall be attached to the record of the respondent in theOce of the Court !dministrator

OCA CIRCULAR NO. @86

TO ' All Justices of the Court of Appeals+ Sandiganbayan+ Court of %a) Appealsand Judges of the ,irst and Second !evel Courts

S8=CT ' Amendment to Section - of A.'. o. /01/01201SC+ Re: Rule on Administrative $rocedure in Se)ual (arassment Cases and 3uidelines on$roper or4 #ecorum in the Judiciary

or your information and guidance, 9uoted hereunder is a portion of the2esolution of this Court =n anc dated 6 March >66H, in !M 5o 6+-(>-+-2TC, 2e' SeFual :arassment Committed by 8udge 2eFel M Pacuribot, 2egional

Trial Court, ranch >, 7ingoog City, "hich !M=54S Section @ of !M 5o 6*-6*-(*-SC, 2e' The 2ule on !dministrative Procedure in SeFual :arassment Casesand 7uidelines on Proper Kor1 4ecorum in the 8udiciary, to "it'

Q5OK T:=2=O2=, = #T 2=SO<V=4, as it is hereby 2esolved, that in

accordance "ith Section H, !rticle V### of the Constitution vesting thisCourt "ith the po"er of administrative supervision over all courts andpersonnel thereof, inclusive of "hich is the authority to discipline 8udgesand 8ustices, complaints of seFual harassment against 8udges of regularand special courts and 8ustices of the Court of !ppeals, theSandiganbayan and the Court of TaF !ppeals should be eFcluded fromthe $urisdiction of the CO4#s !ccordingly, Section @ of !M 5o 6*-6*-(*-SC, the 2ule on !dministrative Procedure in SeFual :arassment Casesand 7uidelines on Proper Kor1 4ecorum in the 8udiciary is herebyamended to read as follo"s'

Sec @ Jurisdiction+ po"ers and responsibilities of the CO#5s. N The CO4#s shall have $urisdiction over all complaints for seFual

harassment committed by the ocials and employees of the 8udiciary, e)cept those against Judges of regular and specialcourts and Justices of the Court of Appeals+ the Sandiganbayanand the Court of %a) Appeals+ "hich shall fundamentally adhereto the proceeding laid do"n in Section 0 of Rule 26/ of the Rulesof Court+ as amended. %#CA5S

CO4# shall'

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


AaB 2eceive the complaint, investigate its allegations, and submita report and recommendation to the proper court or authority, asprovided for in Section (@ of this 2ule;

SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 89

TO ' Court of Appeals+ Sandiganbayan+ Court of %a) Appeals+ Regional %rialCourts+ 'etropolitan %rial Courts+ 'unicipal %rial Courts+ 'unicipal Circuit %rialCourts+ Shari7a #istrict Court and Shari7a Circuit Courts+ All 'embers of the3overnment $rosecution Service+ and All 'embers of the 5ntegrated &ar of the$hilippines

S8=CT ' Complaints ,iled "ith the 5&$ Against Justices and Judges of the

!o"er Courtsor the information and guidance of all concerned, 9uoted hereunder is the2esolution of the Court en banc+ dated 8anuary *(, ()@) clarifying 2esolutiondated 5ovember >), ()@@ in Q2e' <etter of A!ctingB Presiding 8ustice 2odolfo !5ocon and !ssociate 8ustices 2eynato S Puno and !lfredo Marigomen of the Courtof !ppeals'

QThe Court 5OT=4 the letter dated 4ecember (), ()@@ by 4r <eon M7arcia, 8r, President, #ntegrated ar of the Philippines A#PB to the SupremeCourt see1ing a resolution Qreconsidering%clarifyingQ the 2esolution of thisCourt dated 5ovember >), ()@@ relating to complaints 0led "ith the #Pagainst $ustices and $udges of the lo"er courts

!fter careful consideration of :on 7arciaIs letter, the Court 2esolved to2=#T=2!T= its 2esolution dated 5ovember >), ()@@ directing that Qallcomplaints against $ustices and $udges of the lo"er courts 0led "ith theCommission on ar 4iscipline should promptly be 2==22=4 to theSupreme Court for appropriate actionQ This 2esolution is properlyregarded as an interpretation of Section (, second paragraph of 2ule (*)-of the 2evised 2ules of Court, such that Qattorneys N in the governmentserviceQ should be understood as not including members of the Court of !ppeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of TaF !ppeals and $udges of othercourts #n general, the Court is here referring to those "ho perform $udicialfunctions and before "hose courts the members of the #P appear in theeFercise of their profession

The Court still has under consideration the case of 0scals and other

government prosecuting attorneys, as "ell as government la"yers "hoseocial duties do not consist of the ad$udication of cases or disputes TheCourt "ill inform the #P "hen it shall have reached a conclusion in respectof 0scals and prosecuting attorneys

The Court addresses belo" the Qmatters "hich need clari0cationQ set outin :on 7arciaIs letter'

A(B The #P Aoard of 7overnors and Commission on ar 4isciplineB shallfor"ard to the Supreme Court for appropriate action all cases involving

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


$ustices and $udges of lo"er courts, "hether or not such complaints deal"ith acts apparently unrelated to the discharge of their ocial functions,such as acts of immorality, estafa, crimes against persons and property,etc

A>B !s noted above, this 2esolution as "ell as our 2esolution dated5ovember >), ()@@ constitute an interpretation of Section (, 2ule (*)-

A*B #n principle, the Supreme Court "ould not assign complaints 0led "ithit against $ustices and $udges of the lo"er courts to the #P forinvestigation after the Supreme Court shall have found a probable cause insuch charges !s a matter of long standing practice, the Court hasassigned complaints against Municipal or Metropolitan Trial 8udges to an=Fecutive 8udge of a 2egional Trial Court, and complaints against $udges of the 2egional Trial Courts to a $ustice of the Court of !ppeals forinvestigation, report and recommendation, "hile a complaint against amember of the Court of !ppeals "ould probably be assigned to a memberof the Supreme Court for investigation, report and recommendation

AGB The #P shall refer to the Supreme Court all cases 0led against $udges,including complaints charging $udges $ointly "ith practicing la"yers,"hether 0led directly "ith the #P or transmitted to the #P by the Oce of the Solicitor 7eneral The Supreme Court "ill eFamine these complaintsindividually and on a case by case basis The Court may refer such a casefor $oint investigation to an =Fecutive8udge of a 2egional Trial Court or to a

$ustice of the Court of !ppeals There may, ho"ever, be instances "henthe case against the practicing la"yer may be separable and convenientlyreferred to the #P for investigation

A+B The Court "ill scrutini3e very carefully any claim by other la"yers inthe government service that complaints against them be referred to thisCourt rather than to the #P The Court loo1s for"ard to comments thereonby the #P should such claims be made

AHB #t appears to the Court that the #P has been 9uite busy "ith thenumber of cases already referred to it involving private practitioners TheCourt continues to follo" the "or1 of the #P in this area "ith greatinterest and high eFpectationsQ

SUPREME COURT MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 6967

EN4OININ0 ALL OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE 4UDICIARY TOSTRICTLY OBSER5E THE PROHIBITION A0AINST 0AMBLIN0 OR EN0A0IN0

IN OTHER FORMS OF 0AMBLIN0 WITHIN COURT PREMISES

K:=2=!S, the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides that any act of impropriety committed by court personnel Qimmeasurably a&ects the honor anddignity of the 8udiciary and the peopleIs con0dence in it;Q

K:=2=!S, the Code of Conduct and =thical Standards for Public Ocials and=mployees directs public ocials and employees to refrain from doing actscontrary to good morals and good customs;

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


K:=2=!S, the Supreme Court has al"ays en$oined court employees to adhere tothe eFacting standards of morality and decency in their professional as "ell asprivate conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of

$ustice;

K:=2=!S, the Court has received reports that court employees have beenobserved gambling or engaging in other forms of gambling "ithin court premises

Anot only in covert places but also in areas "hich could be easily sighted by otherpersonnel and the transacting publicB;

K:=2=!S, studies sho" that gambling is a manipulative and ruinous means of eFploiting the individualIs "ea1nesses, his misplaced belief in and reliance onluc1 or 8suerte;8 and his misapprehension of the role of s1ill in playing the game;

K:=2=!S, the Court has ruled that Qgambling is absolutely forbidden at courtpremises during oce hours;Q and that it Qgenerates un"holesome conse9uenceson the gambler as it diverts his attention from the more important responsibilitiesof his $ob;Q and

K:=2=!S, in an instance "here court employees "ere apprehended engaged in acard game "ithin the $udgeIs chambers "hich game allegedly did not involve

monetary bets, the Court still imposed disciplinary sanctions on the erringpersonnel on the ground that such act violated norms of public accountability;

5o", therefore, all ocials and employees of all courts under the 8udiciary Afromthe Supreme Court to the 0rst and second level courtsB are en$oined to strictlyheed the prohibition against gambling or engaging in other forms of gambling"ithin court premises #n order to maintain the highest level of ethical conductand morals in the 8udiciary, gambling and any forms thereof, regardless of "hether or not they involve monetary bets, shall not be allo"ed, tolerated orcondoned

The appropriate administrative disciplinary action shall be ta1en against any courtocial or employee caught gambling or engaging in any form of gambling "ithincourt premises A"hether such gambling activities occur during "or1ing days or"ee1ends%holidays; or during oce hours or beyond oce hoursB

#n the Supreme Court, the Chief of Sta& of the Oce of the Chief 8ustice and therespective 8udicial Sta& :eads of the Oces of the !ssociate 8ustices, the Court!dministrator, the Cler1 of Court and 4ivision Cler1s of Court, the Chiefs of Ocesof the di&erent oces, the Chancellor of the Philippine 8udicial !cademy, and the

8udicial and ar Council =Fecutive Committee Chairman shall ensure thatpersonnel in their oces shall comply fully and faithfully "ith the policyproscribing gambling and any forms thereof "ithin court premises They shalladopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the commission of all formsof gambling "ithin their areas of supervision

The respective Presiding 8ustices of the Court of !ppeals, Sandiganbayan andCourt of TaF !ppeals, insofar as their courts are concerned, and the Court!dministrator, "ith regard to the lo"er courts, shall see to the implementation of this Memorandum Circular

#ssued this (@th day of 8une >66

RRR9noining All Ocials and mployees of the Judiciary to Strictly Observe the$rohibition Against 3ambling or ngaging in Other ,orms of 3ambling "ithin Court $remises+ S<$R' CO<R% ''ORA#<' C5RC<!AR O. /=1/>+ ?@//>B

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATI5E CIRCULAR NO. 99

STRICT OBSER5ANCE OF SESSION HOURS OF TRIAL COURTS ANDEFFECTI5E MANA0EMENT OF CASES TO ENSURE THEIR SPEEDY DISPOSITION

TO ' All %rial Court Judges and their $ersonnel andthe 5ntegrated &ar of the $hilippines'

To insure speedy disposition of cases, the follo"ing guidelines must be faithfullyobserved'

# The session hours of all 2egional Trial Courts, Metropolitan TrialCourts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, andMunicipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be from @'*6 !M to noon and from>'66 PM to G'*6 PM, from Monday to riday The hours in themorning shall be devoted to the conduct of trial, "hile the hours in theafternoon shall be utili3ed for A(B the conduct of pre-trial conferences;A>B "riting of decisions, resolutions, or orders; or A*B the continuationof trial on the merits, "henever rendered necessary, as may bere9uired by the 2ules of Court, statutes, or circulars in speci0ed cases

:o"ever, in multi-sala courts in places "here there are fe" practicingla"yers, the schedule may be modi0ed upon re9uest of the #ntegrated arof the Philippines such that one-half of the branches may hold their trial inthe morning and the other half in the afternoon

=Fcept those re9uiring immediate action, all motions should be scheduledof hearing on riday afternoons, or if riday is a non-"or1ing day, in theafternoon of the neFt business day The unauthori3ed practice of some

$udges of entertaining motions or setting them for hearing on any otherday or time must be immediately stopped

## 8udges must be punctual at all times

### The Cler1 of Court, under the direct supervision of the 8udge, mustcomply "ith 2ule >6 of the ()) 2ules of Civil Procedure regarding thecalendar of cases

#V There should be strict adherence to the policy on avoidingpostponements and needless delay

Sections >, * and G of 2ule *6, ()) 2ules on Civil Procedure onad$ournments and postponements and on the re9uisites of a motion topostpone trial for absence of evidence or for illness of a party or counsel

should be faithfully observed<a"yers, as ocers of the court, are en$oined to cooperate "ith $udges toensure s"ift disposition of cases

V The mandatory continuous trial system in civil cases contemplatedin !dministrative Circular 5o G, dated >> September ()@@, and theguidelines provided for in Circular 5o (-@), dated () 8anuary ()@),must be e&ectively implemented or eFpediency, these guidelines incivil cases are hereunder restated "ith modi0cations, ta1ing intoaccount the relevant provisions of the ()) 2ules of Civil Procedure'

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


! $re1%rial

( Kithin 0ve A+B days after the last pleading $oining the issues has been 0led and served, theplainti& must move e) parte that the case be setfor pre-trial conference

> The parties shall submit, at least three A*B daysbefore the conference, pre-trial briefs containingthe follo"ing'

a ! statement of their "illingness to enterinto an amicable settlement indicating thedesired terms thereof, or to submit thecase to any of the alternative modes of dispute resolution;

b ! summary of admitted facts andproposed stipulation of facts;

c The issues to be tried or resolved;

d The number and names of the "itnessesto be presented, an abstract of theirtestimonies, and the approFimate numberof hours that "ill be re9uired by the partiesfor the presentation of their respectiveevidence;

e Copies of all documents intended to bepresented "ith a statement of the purposesof their o&er;

f ! manifestation of their having availed ortheir intention to avail themselves of anydiscovery procedure, or of the need of referral of any issues to commissioners;

g !pplicable la"s and $urisprudence;

h The available trial dates of counsel forcomplete presentation of evidence, "hichmust be "ithin a period of three monthsfrom the 0rst day of trial

* efore the pre-trial conference, the $udge muststudy the pleadings of every case, and determinethe issues thereof and the respective positions of the parties thereon to enable him to intelligentlysteer the parties to"ard a possible amicablesettlement of the case or, at the very least, to helpreduce and limit the issues The $udge shouldavoid the undesirable practice of terminating thepre-trial as soon as the parties have indicated thatthey cannot settle the controversy :e must bemindful that there are other important aspects of the pre-trial that ought to be ta1en up to eFpeditethe disposition of the case

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


G !t the pre-trial conference, the follo"ing shallbe done'

a The $udge "ith all tact, patience andimpartiality shall endeavor to persuade theparties to arrive at a settlement of thedispute; if no amicable settlement is

reached, then he must e&ectively direct theparties to"ard the achievement of theother ob$ectives or goals of pre-trial setforth in Section >, 2ule (@, ()) 2ules of Civil Procedure

b #f "arranted by the disclosures at thepre-trial, the $udge may either forth"ithdismiss the action, or determine thepropriety of rendering a $udgment on thepleadings or a summary $udgment

c The $udge shall de0ne the factual issuesarising from the pleadings and endeavor tocull the material issues

d #f only legal issues are presented,the $udge shall re9uire the parties tosubmit their respective memorandum andthereafter render $udgment

e #f trial is necessary, the $udge shall 0Fthe trial dates re9uired to completepresentation of evidence by both parties"ithin ninety A)6B days from the date of initial hearing

+ !fter the pre-trial conference, the $udge should

not fail to prepare and issue the re9uisite pre-trialorder, "hich shall embody the matters mentionedin Sec , 2ule (@ of the ()) 2ules of CivilProcedure

H ailure of the plainti& to appear at the pre-trialshall be a cause for dismissal of the action !similar failure of the defendant shall be a cause toallo" the plainti& to present his evidence e)1

parte and the court to render $udgment on thebasis thereof

ailure to 0le pre-trial briefs shall have the samee&ect as failure to appear at the pre-trial

@ The $udge should encourage the e&ective use of pre-trial discovery procedures A!dministrativeCircular 5o ( dated >@ 8anuary ())@, >(B

%rial

( nless the doc1et of the court re9uiresother"ise, not more than four AGB cases shall bescheduled for trial daily

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


> The Presiding 8udge shall ma1e arrangements"ith the prosecutor and the Public !ttorneyIsOce AP!OB so that a relief prosecutor and a P!Oattorney are al"ays available in case the regularprosecutor or AP!OB attorneys are absent

* Contingency measures must li1e"ise be ta1en

for any uneFpected absence of the stenographerand other support sta& assisting in the trial

G The issuance and service of subpoena shall bedone in accordance "ith !dministrative Circular5o G dated >> September ()@@

+ The $udge shall conduct trial "ith utmostdispatch, "ith $udicious eFercise of the courtIspo"er to control trial proceedings to avoid delay

H The $udge must ta1e notes of the material andrelevant testimonies of "itnesses to facilitate hisdecision-ma1ing

The trial shall be terminated "ithin ninety A)6Bdays from initial hearingA!!'!&"($ &-,&!&)" -"),(&')- 3" #$&3!'-$ ') (+$ u$ ") (+$ "$- *'*"&u$ (' ,'3! &(+ (+&- $u&$3$)( u$(' ,"u-$- "((&#u("#$ (' (+$3.

@ =ach party is bound to complete thepresentation of his evidence "ithin the trial datesassigned to him !fter the lapse of said dates, theparty is deemed to have completed thepresentation of evidence :o"ever, upon veri0edmotion based on compelling reasons,

the $udge may allo" a party additional trial datesin the afternoon; provided that said eFtension "illnot go beyond the three-month limit computedfrom the 0rst trial date eFcept "hen authori3ed in"riting by the Court !dministrator, SupremeCourt

V# !ll trial $udges must strictly comply "ith Circular 5o *@-)@,entitled Q#mplementing the Provisions of 2epublic !ct 5o @G)*Q AQ!n!ct to =nsure a Speedy Trial of !ll Cases efore the Sandiganbayan,2egional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court inCities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court,!ppropriating unds Therefor, and for Other PurposesQB issues by the

:onorable Chief 8ustice !ndres 2 5arvasa on (( !ugust ())@ and"hich too1 e&ect on (+ September ())@

V##

( !s a constant reminder of "hat cases must be decidedor resolved, the $udge must 1eep a calendar of casessubmitted for decision, noting therein the eFact day,month and year "hen the )6-day period is to eFpire !ssoon as a case is submitted for decision, it must be notedin the calendar of the $udge; moreover, the records shall

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


be duly collated "ith the eFhibits and the transcripts of stenographic notes, as "ell as the trial notes of the $udge,and placed in the $udgeIs chamber

> #n criminal cases, the $udge "ill do "ell to announce inopen court at the termination of the trial the date of thepromulgation of the decision, "hich should be set "ithin

)6 days from the submission of the case for decision

* !ll 8udges must scrupulously observe the periodprescribed in Section (+, !rticle V### of the Constitution

This Circular shall ta1e e&ect on ( ebruary, ())), and the Oce of the Court!dministrator shall ensure faithful compliance there"ith

City of Manila, (+ 8anuary ()))

RRR9Strict Observance of Session (ours of %rial Courts+ S<$R' CO<R% A#'55S%RA%5 C5RC<!AR O. 01==+ ?2===B

SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATI5E ORDER NO. 12@67

0UIDELINES ON THE SOLEMNIATION OF MARRIA0E BY THE MEMBERS OFTHE 4UDICIARY

RRR93uidelines on the SolemniDation of 'arriage by the 'embers of the Judiciary+S<$R' CO<R% A#'55S%RA%5 OR#R O. 2@E1/>+ ?@//>B

S=CT#O5 >6 <nauthoriDed #emand for and Receipt of 'arriage SolemniDation,ees. N The demand for or solicitation, collection or receipt of fees for thesolemni3ation of any marriage in eFcess of the amounts stated herein shall beconsidered a violation of these 7uidelines and shall sub$ect the solemni3ing authorityto a3&)&-("(&%$ &-,&!&)" 3$"-u$-.

S=CT#O5 >( ,acilitation of 'arriage Ceremony. N !ny $udge or employee of the court "ho, alone or "ith the connivance of other court personnel or thirdpersons not employed by the court, intervenes so that the marriage of

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


contracting parties is facilitated or performed despite lac1 of or "ithout thenecessary supporting documents, or performs other acts that tend to causethe solemni3ation of the marriage "ith undue haste, shall be sub$ected toappropriate administrative disciplinary proceedings

S=CT#O5 >> Reporting of 'arriages SolemniDed. N !ll marriages solemni3edshall be duly entered and indicated in the monthly report of cases to be

accomplished by the solemni3ing ocer

S=CT#O5 >* $osting of the 3uidelines. N !ll =Fecutive 8udges%Presiding 8udges shall post copies of these 7uidelines AaB in conspicuous places in theirrespective :alls of 8ustice or courthouses; and AbB on the bulletin board of each court at the entrance to the courtroom

S=CT#O5 >G iolations of the 3uidelines. N 5&'"(&')- '* ") '* (+$!'%&-&')- '* (+$ 0u&$&)$- -+" #$ 'u) *' (+$ "!!'!&"($"3&)&-("(&%$ &-,&!&)" !',$$&)-.

RRR93uidelines on the SolemniDation of 'arriage by the 'embers of the Judiciary+

S<$R' CO<R% A#'55S%RA%5 OR#R O. 2@E1/>+ ?@//>B

4URISPRUDENCE

Section 8

T") %-. 4u$ U-3")= AM N'. RT4112ebruary (, >6((

F",(-:

8osephine 8a3mines Tan AcomplainantB charges 8udge Sibanah = sman ArespondentB,Presiding 8udge of ranch >@, 2egional Trial Court, Catbalogan, Samar, "ith abuse of po"er and authority, conduct unbecoming a $udicial ocer, mental dishonesty, grave

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


misconduct, gross ignorance of the la" and 1no"ingly rendering an un$ust order, andbribery and corruption, in connection "ith Civil Case 5o H@( and Criminal Case 5oH+*H

#t appears that complainant, together "ith his co-plainti&s in the civil case%co-accused in the criminal case, 0led a Motion for #nhibition against respondent The

movants attached to their motion the !davit of complainant

Complainant claims that during the hearing of the Motion for #nhibition, respondentbecame very emotional, coerced her to testify "ithout the assistance of counsel anddemanded a public apology from her; and that "hile she re9uested to refer themotion to the =Fecutive 8udge, respondent interrogated her relentlessly follo"ing"hich he issued an Order of !ugust >@, >66) 0nding her guilty of 4irect Contemptand ordered her detention

#n his !ns"er to the complaint, respondent eFplained that during the hearing of theMotion for #nhibition, the employees of the court appeared before complainant butshe failed to name any of them as having allegedly told her that 8aime Cui, 8r ."asbragging that they have disbursed a substantial amount of money/ to himArespondentB; that !tty <ee M osa, the private prosecutor in the criminal case, and!tty enly rederic1 ergonio, counsel for the P5 in the civil case, moved thatcomplainant be cited for 4irect Contempt of Court and that she be detained until shedivulges the name of her informant; and that !tty 8ose M Mendiola, complainantsla"yer, failed to give any comment because, according to him, complainant did notconsult him about the 0ling of the Motion for #nhibition

2espondent "ent on to eFplain that since he issued his !ugust >@, >66) Order in anocial capacity, the remedy of complainant "as to 0le a motion for reconsiderationor an appeal, not an administrative case; that he gave complainant a maFimum of *6days detention to give her .a "ider opportunity to either apologi3e or divulge thename of her informant, so that even before the eFpiration of the period, the court canlift the Order of Contempt/

I--u$:

KO5 the acts of the $udge "as gross ignorance of the la" or procedure as classi0edas a serious charge under Section @ 2ule (G6

Ru&):

Ues F"&u$ (' *'' #"-&, $" ,'33")- "- !$-,&#$ # " ") (+$u$- &- (")("3'u)( (' '-- &)'"),$ '* (+$ ". B ",,$!(&) (+$ $"($!'-&(&') '* " u$= $-!')$)( 'u+( (' +"%$ #$$) *"3&&" &(+ (+$ $")'3- ") !$,$!(- "- $ "- (+$ !',$u" u$-.

Contrary to respondentIs claim, complainant has no remedy of appeal, as the above-

9uoted Section > of 2ule ( sho"s !nd the penalty for direct contempt if imprisonment is imposed should not, as Section ( of 2ule ( provides, eFceed (6days !s stated earlier, complainant "as detained for () days or ) days more thanthe limit imposed by the 2ules

More 2espondent did not 0F the bond, in violation of the same Section > of 2ule (,"hich complainant could have posted had she desired to challenge the order !nd onthe same day the Order "as issued, respondent ordered the con0nement of complainant to the provincial $ail

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


U)$ S$,(&') 8 '* Ru$ 16= '-- &)'"),$ '* (+$ " ' !',$u$ A)B isclassi0ed as a serious charge "hich is, under Section (( A!B, punishable by'

( 4ismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the bene0ts as the Courtmay determine, and dis9uali0cation from reinstatement or appointment to

any public oce, including government-o"ned or -controlled corporationsProvided, ho"ever, That the forfeiture of bene0ts shall in no case includeaccrued leave credits;

> Suspension from oce "ithout salary and other bene0ts for more than threeA*B but not eFceeding siF AHB months; or

* ! 0ne of more than P>6,66666 but not eFceeding PG6,66666

2espondent having been repeatedly penali3ed by this Court, "ith suspension and0ne, as sho"n by the above-listed administrative charges, the recommended penaltyof P>(,666 should be increased to P*6,666

K:=2=O2=, for gross ignorance of the la" and procedure, 8udge Sibanah sman is#5=4 in the amount of Thirty Thousand AP*6,666B Pesos, "ith a K!25#57 that arepetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt "ith more severely

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


S$%&" %-. 4u$ F"),&-,' S. L&)'= A.M. N'. MT468171ebruary ), >6((

F",(-:

4aniel 7 Sevilla charged :on rancisco S <indo "ith delay in the disposition of a

criminal case Sevilla asserted that 8udge <indo thereby violated 2ule (6(, Canon (of the Code of 8udicial Conduct, "hich re9uires that a $udge should administer $usticeimpartially and "ithout delay; that 8udge <indo also violated Section (, 2ule (*+ of the 2ules of Court, "hich mandates that $ustice be impartially administered "ithoutunnecessary delay; that 8udge <indos unreasonable resetting of the hearings (>times rendered inconse9uential his right to the speedy disposition of his case; andthat such resettings "ere made upon the instance of 8udge <indo, not upon motion of the parties

#n his comment dated 8uly >H, >66, 8udge <indo refuted the charge, claiming that thepostponements "ere upon valid grounds

I--u$:

KO5 retired 8udge <indocan be held administratively liable for the numerouspostponements in violation of the 2ule (6(, Canon ( of the Code of 8udicial Conduct

Ru&):

Ues !lthough the postponement of a hearing in a civil or criminal case may at timesbe unavoidable, the Court disallo"s undue or unnecessary postponements of courthearings, simply because they cause unreasonable delays in the administration of

$ustice and, thus, undermine the peopleIs faith in the 8udiciary, aside fromaggravating the 0nancial and emotional burdens of the litigants or this reason, theCourt has en$oined that postponements and resetting should be allo"ed only uponmeritorious grounds, and has consistently reminded all trial $udges to adopt a 0rmpolicy against improvident postponements

Uet, 8udge <indo postponed 0ve hearings for lac1 of material time "ithout botheringto state the speci0c causes "hy his court lac1ed material time :e also reset fourhearings supposedly upon the agreement of the parties, "hich the complainantcredibly denied because that "as pre$udicial to his interest :e even cancelled thehearing of May >+, >66 on the ground that he had to 0le on May >@, >66 hisapplication for compulsory retirement and leave of absence until 8uly >G, >66, andset the neFt hearing on !ugust (, >66, "hen he could have set the hearing soonereither on May >H or May > in vie" of his impending long period of absenceConsidering that "e cannot discern any rationality for his actions in the handling of Criminal Case 5o 8-<66-G>H6, a simple P >> case involving only P>,66666, "e canonly ad$udge such actuations as smac1ing either of indolence and utter ineciency,or of bias, if not hostility, to"ards Sevilla, or both

!s can be seen, 8udge <indo made or allo"ed too many unreasonable postponementsthat inevitably delayed the proceedings and prevented the prompt disposition of Criminal Case 5o 8-<66-G>H6 out of manifest bias in favor of the accused, to thepre$udice of Sevilla as the complainant in Criminal Case 5o 8-<66-G>H6 T+u-= +$"")( %&'"($ (+$ $(($ ") -!&&( #'(+ '* Ru$ 1.62 '* (+$ C'$ '*

4u&,&" C')u,(= +&,+ $)'&)$ " u$- (' "3&)&-($ u-(&,$ &3!"(&"") &(+'u( $"; ") '* C")') '* (+$ C")')- '* 4u&,&" E(+&,-= +&,+$u&$ +&3 "- " (&" u$ G(' #$ !'3!( &) &-!'-&) '* " 3"(($-

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


-u#3&(($ (' +&3= $3$3#$&) (+"( u-(&,$ $"$ &- '*($) u-(&,$$)&$.G

That his conduct proceeded from his bias to"ards the accused rendered his acts andomissions as gross misconduct I( &- -$(($ (+"( (+$ 3&-,')u,( &- "%$ &* &(&)%'%$- ") '* (+$ "&(&')" $$3$)(- '* ,'u!(&')= &*u &)($)( ('

%&'"($ (+$ "= ' &-$" '* ')-(")&) u$-= +&,+ 3u-( #$$-("#&-+$ # -u#-(")(&" $%&$),$; '(+$&-$= (+$ 3&-,')u,( &- ')-&3!$.

7ross misconduct consisting in violations of the Code of 8udicial Conduct is a seriouscharge under Section @ of 2ule (G6, 2ules of Court, to "it'

Section @Serious charges N Serious charges include'

A*B 7ross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of 8udicial Conduct;

FFFFFFFFFand is punished under Section (( of 2ule (G6, 2ules of Court, thus"ise'

Section ((Sanctions N ! #f the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of thefollo"ing sanctions may be imposed'

( 4ismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the bene0ts as the Courtmay determine, and dis9uali0cation from reinstatement or appointment toany public oce, including government-o"ned or controlled corporationsProvided, ho"ever, that the forfeiture of bene0ts shall in no case includeaccrued leave credits;

> Suspension from oce "ithout salary and other bene0ts for more than threeA*B but not eFceeding siF AHB months; or

* ! 0ne of more than P>6,66666 but not eFceeding PG6,66666

Kith 8udge <indo having earlier retired, only the third sanction of 0ne can be apractical sanction K:=2=O2=, "e 0nd and declare respondent retired 8udgerancisco S <indo guilty of grave misconduct, and, accordingly, punish him "ith a0ne of P>(,66666, to be deducted from his retirement bene0ts

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


5$'-' %. C"3&)"$= A.M. N'. RT4611@@ 8uly @, >66G

F",(-:

This is an administrative complaint for seFual harassment separately 0led by !tty

7race Veloso and Ma 8oeylynnLuiones against 8udge !nacleto M Caminade of the2egional Trial Court of Cebu City !tty Veloso, a la"yer of the Public !ttorneyIs OceAP!OB assigned to the 2TC branch presided by 8udge Caminade, alleged in heradavit that, in the $udges chamber, "hile discussing the case, she "as stunned"hen 8udge Caminade suddenly placed his hand on her right thigh and s9uee3ed it:e then too1 her hand and 1issed it She immediately stood up and headed to"ardsthe door leading to the sta& room :e, ho"ever, caught up "ith her and placed hishand on her shoulder efore she could open the door, 8udge Caminade told her Qiss1o biQ A<et me 1iss youB !tty Veloso, "ho "as so shoc1ed, retorted Qalo-odnimo

8udge uyQ AUou are so disgusting, 8udgeB She then opened the door and "ent out of his chambers

On the other hand, 8oeylynnLuiones, Cler1 ### in the oce of 8udge Caminade,claimed that respondent $udge s9uee3ed her hand on three di&erent occasions inebruary >66( !lthough o&ended by his actions, 8oeylynn opted to remain silent outof deference to or fear of respondent $udge There "as also a time he suddenlygrabbed her right hand and 1issed her on the chee1 She "as so shoc1ed that shecould not react

I--u$:

KO5 $udge is guilty of gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of 8udicialConduct

Ru&): Ues Canons * and G of the ne" Code of 8udicial Conduct mandate, respectively, thatQ$udges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it isperceived to be so in the vie" of the reasonable observerQ and that Q$udges shallavoid improprieties and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activitiesQ Thesevery stringent standards of decorum are demanded of all magistrates and employeesof the courts 8udge CaminadeIs behavior must be sanctioned Ke are neitheramused by his claims of innocent playfulness nor impressed by his eFcessive displayof congeniality H$ ",($ #$') (+$ #'u)- '* $,$),= 3'"&( ")!'!&$(. H$ *"&$ (' 3$$( (+$ -(")" '* ,')u,( $3#'&$ &) (+$ C'$'* 4u&,&" C')u,(. :is abusive and distasteful acts unmista1ably constitutedseFual harassment because they $-u($ &) ") &)(&3&"(&)= +'-(&$= ''$)-&%$ $)%&')3$)( *' +&- *$3"$ -u#'&)"($-.

S$,(&') 8 '* Ru$ 16 '* (+$ Ru$- '* C'u(= "- "3$)$= ,')-&$- "%&'"(&') '* (+$ C'$ '* 4u&,&" C')u,( "- " -$&'u- '$)-$. ! respondent

found guilty of a serious charge may be meted the penalty of' A(B dismissal from theservice, forfeiture of all or part of the bene0ts as the Court may determine, anddis9uali0cation from reinstatement or appointment to any public oce, includinggovernment-o"ned or controlled corporations, provided, that the forfeiture of bene0ts shall in no case include accrued leave credits; A>B suspension from oce"ithout salary and other bene0ts for more than three but not eFceeding siF months;or A*B a 0ne of more than P>6,666 but not eFceeding PG6,666

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


Ke 0nd it proper to adopt 8ustice MoralesI recommendation to suspend respondent $udge for siF months "ithout pay K:=2=O2=, respondent $udge is found guilty of violating Canons * and G of the ne" Code of 8udicial Conduct by committing seFualharassment and is hereby SSP=54=4 from oce for a period of siF months "ithoutpay e&ective immediately, "ith the "arning that a repetition of the same o&enseshall be punished "ith dismissal from the service

Section 9

ATTY. RANDY P. BAREN0= A.M. N'. RT41622Complainant, Aformerly !M OC! #P# 5o 6)-*>()-2T8B- versus - 4UD0E ENAIDA R. DA0UNA,2egional Trial Court, ranch (),Manila,2espondent

Promulgated'

8une (, >6((

F----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------F

FACTS:

!tty areng is the counsel of 2omulo !"ingan, one of the accused for doublemurder, entitled $eople of the $hilippines v. !icerio Antiporda+ Jr.+ !loyd Antiporda+Romulo A"ingan and Richard 'ecate These t"o murder cases "ere consolidatedbefore the 2TC, Manila, ranch >) but 7rulla voluntarily inhibited herself from thecase, and did not resolve the motion for reconsideration and the motion to transferthe cases The consolidated cases "ere subse9uently re-raWed to the 2TC, Manila,ranch (), presided by 8udge 4aguna

#n her 4ecember ), >66+ 2esolution, 8udge 4aguna granted the private

complainants motion for reconsideration and set aside 8udge 7rullas October >H,>66+ Order !ccused !"ingan, through !tty areng, 0led a motion forreconsideration 8udge 4aguna denied the motion in her Order of ebruary *,>66H !"ingan, thereafter, 0led a petition for certiorari and prohibition before theCourt of !ppeals ACAB, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac1 or eFcessof $urisdiction on the part of 8udge 4aguna

4uring the pendency of the C! petition, 8udge 4aguna issued "arrants of

arrest against all the accused

The C! granted !"ingans petition for certiorari and prohibition inits 5ovember (6, >66H 4ecisionD The C! found that 8udge 4aguna acted "ith graveabuse of discretion because she arbitrarily and "himsically disregarded theguidelines for acting on the Peoples motion to "ithdra" informations and practicedunreasonable and ineFplicable selectivity by not considering all the records available

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/RTJ-10-2246.htm#_ftn7


7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


to her in order to ma1e her independent assessment and evaluation of the merits of the cases before her

Since the "arrants of arrest against all the accused "ere still in force, !ttyareng 0led before the 2TC a Manifestation and Motion, on 5ovember (+, >66H, )D toinform the 2TC of the C! 4ecision and to as1 for its immediate implementation :eattached a certi0ed copy of the C! 4ecision

8udge 4aguna denied the motion for lac1 of merit in her 4ecember G,>66H Order

#n the Order(@D issued, 8udge 4aguna stated that she resolved !tty arengsmotion for reconsideration on 8uly *(, >66, but her Order might not have beenreleased; hence, she directed that the Order be reprinted and the parties befurnished "ith copies Since 8udge 4aguna denied his motion for reconsideration forlac1 of merit,()D !tty areng 0led his notice of appeal>6D on May >6, >66@, afterreceiving his copy of the order on May H, >66@>(D

On 8uly @, >66), !tty areng 0led "ith the Oce of the Court !dministrator

AOC!B his complaint-adavit,>>D charging 8udge 4aguna "ith gross misconduct andmanifest abuse of functions of her oce, based on the follo"ing allegations'

( That 8udge 4aguna, in her 4ecember G, >66H Order, insinuated that there

"as pecuniary estimation attached to the manifestation and motion 0led by !ttyareng; this, according to !tty areng, "as unfair and tainted "ith malice;

> That despite !tty arengs eFplanation, 8udge 4aguna found him guilty of contempt of court;

* That he 0led a motion for reconsideration and supplement to the motion forreconsideration;

G That after the lapse of almost one year, he 0led his 0rst motion to resolve;+ That after more than one month, he 0led a manifestation and second

motion to resolve;H That 8udge 4aguna claimed that she had resolved the motion for

reconsideration as early as 8uly *(, >66 but apparently the order had not beenreleased; and

That he 0led a notice of appeal on May >6, >66@ but 8udge 4aguna had notacted on the appeal despite his motion to resolve and%or elevate appeal dated 8une(), >66)

#n her 8uly *(, >66) Comment, 8udge 4aguna denied that the delays

attributed to her "ere her fault She blamed her sta& for the delay

Khile the administrative case "as pending, 8udge 4aguna applied fordisability retirement in late >66) She "as allo"ed to retire, but because of the t"oA>B pending administrative cases against her, the amount of P+6,66666 "as "ithheldfrom her retirement bene0ts to ans"er for "hatever adverse decision the Court maylater impose on her

#n its submission dated ebruary >G, >6(6the OC! found no evidence tosustain the charges of gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions of her oceagainst 8udge 4aguna The OC!, ho"ever, found 8udge 4aguna guilty of grossineciency

ISSUE: KO5 8udge 4aguna is liable for gross de0ciency for failing to adopt a systemof record management in her court

HELD:















7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


Ke agree "ith the OC!s 0nding that 8udge 4aguna is liable for gross

ineciency for failing to adopt a system of record management in her court 8udge4aguna violated 2ule * of the Code of 8udicial Conduct that provides'

2ule *6@ ! $udge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities,

maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate theperformance of the administrative functions or other $udges and court personnel 2ule *6) ! $udge should organi3e and supervise the court personnel to

ensure the prompt and ecient dispatch of business, and re9uire at all times theobservance of high standards of public service and 0delity

On 8uly *(, >668udge 4aguna also resolved !tty arengs motion for

reconsideration "hich "as 0led on 8anuary *(, >66, or "ay beyond the re9uiredperiod There "as also a delay in sending the records of the appealed case to the C!2ule *6+, Canon * of the Code of 8udicial Conduct provides that ! $udge shall disposeof the courts business promptly and decide cases "ithin the re9uired periods

2ule (G6 of the 2ules of Court provides' S=CT#O5 ) <ess Serious Charges <ess serious charges include' ( ndue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records

of a case;FFF S=CT#O5 (( Sanctions FFF #f the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the follo"ing

sanctions shall be imposed' ( Suspension from oce "ithout salary and other bene0ts for not less than

one A(B nor more than three A*B months; or > ! 0ne of more than P(6,66666 but not eFceeding P>6,66666 #n addition to gross ineciency, "e 0nd 8udge 4aguna guilty of delay in

rendering an order, as "ell as delay in transmitting the records of a case ased on2ule (G6 of the 2ules of Court, the penalty for a less serious charge is eithersuspension or a 0ne Considering 8udge 4agunas retirement, "e consider a total 0neof P(+,66666 to be the appropriate penalty This 0ne shall be deducted fromthe P+6,66666 "ithheld from her retirement bene0ts

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


MARIETTA DUUE=Complainant, - versus -

4UD0E CRISOSTOMO L.0ARRIDO= R$&')" T&" C'u(=B"),+ 7= T",'#") C&(<!$-$)("--&)$ "- P$-&&) 4u$= B"),+1= C"&""=L$($>=

2espondent

A.M. NO. RT462627

Promulgated'

ebruary >, >66)

FACTS:

Complainant Marietta 4u9ue charged respondent, 8udge Crisostomo < 7arrido

of the 2egional Trial Court A2TCB, ranch , Tacloban City, <eyte, "ith gross violationof Section (+, !rticle V### of the ()@ Constitution for rendering a decision beyondninety A)6B days in Criminal Case 5o >666-(6-+@6 entitled $eople v ReynaldoCaones y Royo Sr.+ et al

Complainant is the alleged common-la" "ife of the murdered victim in the

aforementioned case She alleged that the prosecution 0led its Memorandumsubmitting the case for resolution on !ugust (6, >66+, but the respondent issued a4ecision on 4ecember (>, >66+ "hich "as promulgated on 8anuary >,>66H Complainant further alleged that neither the o&ended party nor the handlingprosecutor "as noti0ed of the promulgation

2espondent $udge denied the accusation that the decision in Criminal Case

5o >666-(6-+@6 "as rendered beyond the )6-day period as prescribed by the ()@Constitution

:e eFplained that "hile the last pleading - the Memorandum for the

Prosecution - "as 0led on !ugust (6, >66+, the Order declaring the case submittedfor resolution "as issued on September (*, >66+ 2espondent further eFplained thatthe 4ecision dated 4ecember (>, >66+ "as promulgated only on 8anuary >, >66Hbecause he "as on ocial leave from 4ecember (+, >66+ to 8anuary (+, >66H as he

left for the nited States 2espondent maintained that there "as no impropriety or procedural in0rmity

in the promulgation of the decision even though the complainant and the handlingprosecutor, 2obert M Visbal, "ere not present at that time :e reasoned that thecomplainant is not entitled to be noti0ed of the promulgation as she is neither theprivate complainant nor a "itness, "hile the prosecution "as duly represented duringthe promulgation by Prosecutor =dgar ! Sabarre "ho "as also assigned in the2TC 2espondent pointed out that the court had already set the schedule of the

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


promulgation :ence, "hen Prosecutor Visbal opted not to attend, it "as for a reasononly 1no"n to him

OC! found respondent $udge administratively liable for rendering a decision

beyond the )6-day period in violation of Section (+, !rticle V### of the ()@Constitution and Canon *, 2ule *6+ of the Code of 8udicial Conduct !dditionally,

respondent "as found to have violated the fran1ing privilege under Presidential4ecree AP4B 5o >H

ISSUE:KO5 respondent is administratively liable for gross ineciency

HELD:

The Court agrees "ith the 0ndings and recommendation of the OC!

Time and again, the Court has emphasi3ed that the oce of a $udge eFactsnothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the la" in the dischargeof ocial duties

Section (+ A(B, !rticle V### of the Constitution mandates lo"er court $udges to

decide a case "ithin the reglementary period of )6 days <i1e"ise, the Code of 8udicial Conduct under 2ule *6+ of Canon * dictates as

follo"s' 2ule *6+ ! $udge shall dispose of the courtIs business promptly and decide

cases "ithin the re9uired periods #ndeed, rules prescribing the time "ithin "hich certain acts must be done are

indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases Thus, the )6-day period "ithin "hich to decide cases is mandatory The Courthas consistently emphasi3ed strict observance of this rule in order to minimi3e thet"in problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts !ny delayin the administration of $ustice, no matter ho" brief, deprives the litigant of his rightto a speedy disposition of his case, for, not only does it magnify the cost of see1ing

$ustice, it undermines the peoples faith and con0dence in the $udiciary, lo"ers itsstandards and brings it to disrepute

!s readily gleaned from the records, the last pleading submitted ie, theMemorandum for the Prosecution, "as 0led on !ugust (6, >66+ D Thus, the case "asdeemed submitted for decision on that date !ccordingly, the decision should havebeen rendered not later than 5ovember @, >66+ :o"ever, respondent issued it onlyon 4ecember (>, >66+ "hich "as more than four months after the case had beensubmitted for decision

2espondent 8udge 7arrido clearly violated both the Constitution and the Code

of 8udicial Conduct "hen he failed to decide Criminal Case 5o >666-(6-+@6 "ithinthe )6-day period to decide cases prescribed for the lo"er courts

ailure of a $udge, such as respondent herein, to decide a case "ithin theprescribed period is ineFcusable and constitutes gross ineciency "arranting adisciplinary sanction

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


nder Section )A(, 2ule (G6, as amended by !M 5o 6(-@-(6-SC, of the2evised 2ules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is categori3ed asa less serious charge nder Section ((AB of the same 2ule, the penalty for suchcharge is suspension from oce "ithout salary and other bene0ts for not less thanone A(B nor more than three A*B months, or a 0ne of more than P(6,666 but noteFceeding P>6,666

or failure of respondent $udge in this case to decide Criminal Case 5o >666-(6-+@6 "ithin the prescribed period and ta1ing into consideration the mitigatingcircumstance that it "as his 0rst o&ense, "e impose on him a 0ne of Ten

Thousand Pesos AP(6,66666B 2espondent must also be penali3ed for violation of P4 5o >H>GD because he

0led his 2e$oinder to this administrative case ta1ing advantage of the fran1ingprivilege !lthough such privilege is eFtended to $udges, the same refers only toocial communications and papers directly connected "ith the conduct of $udicialproceedings "hich shall be transmitted in the mail free of charge The respondent, inmailing his 2e$oinder, made it appear that the same is an ocial court process as theenvelope used bears his station and the "ords 2== 2OM POST!7= Ke concur "iththe OC! that respondent be admonished for such violation

K:=2=O2=, respondent 8udge Crisostomo < 7arrido is hereby found 7#<TU

of 72OSS #5=#C#=5CU for delay in the disposition of a case and for "hich he is#5=4 Ten Thousand Pesos AP(6,66666B :e is li1e"ise found 7#<TU of violation of Presidential 4ecree 5o >H for "hich he is !4MO5#S:=4 :e is ST=25<U K!25=4 thata repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt "ith more severely<et a copy of the decision be attached to his personal record

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/RTJ-06-2027.htm#_ftn25



7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


CIRILA S. RAYMUNDO=Complainant=

- versus -

4UD0E TERESITO A. ANDOY=Mu)&,&!" T&" C'u( JMTCK= C"&)("=R&"=

2espondent

A.M. N'. MT469178JF'3$ OCA I.P.I. N'. 6826

MT4K

Promulgated'

October H, >6(6

FACTS:Complainant alleged that sometime in >666, she 0led siF counts of violation

of &atas $ambansa &ilang >> A&.$. &lg. @@B against :ermelinda Chang AaccusedBbefore the Municipal Trial Court A'%CB of Cainta, 2i3al The respondent $udge presidedover the court

2espondent $udge declared that the accused had "aived her rights to present

further evidence for repeated failure to appear in court despite due noticeOn September >, >66G, the complainant received a notice from the MTC, setting thecases for trial ane" on 5ovember (, >66G The date "as later moved to 4ecember>6, >66G

On 4ecember >6, >66G, the accused and her counsel again failed to appear in

court, prompting the private prosecutor to move for the reinstatement of theMTCs !ugust G, >66G order The respondent $udge granted the motion and declaredthe cases submitted for decisionThe accused moved to reconsider this order; the MTC

granted the motion in its order of ebruary ), >66+ !ccordingly, the cases "ereagain set for hearing on October (>, >66+

On October (>, >66+, the accused and her counsel again failed to appear in

court despite due notice The MTC, thus, ordered the direct testimony of the accusedto be stric1en o& the record, and again declared the cases submitted for decision

On 8une >*, >66H, the complainant 0led "ith the MTC an urgent e) partemotion to render decision !lmost t"o years later, or on March (>, >66@, the

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


complainant 0led a second e) parte motion to render decision The respondent $udgedid not act on these motions

2espondent $udge, in his defense, stated that he had prepared his decision in

the sub$ect cases, dated 8uly (), >66@, and had set the same for promulgationon !ugust (@, >66@, at @'*6 in the morning and that although the undersigned is

a"are that heavy caseload is not considered by the Supreme Court as an eFcuse fordelay in rendering decisions, the undersigned humbly begs this :onorable Ocesutmost consideration, understanding and compassion in evaluating the sub$ect #P#

The undersigned is due to retire on October *, >66@

The OC! found respondent $udge guilty of undue delay in rendering adecision, eFplaining that "hile the Court is not una"are of the heavy caseload of

$udges, nothing in the records sho"s that the respondent $udge as1ed for aneFtension of time to decide the sub$ect criminal cases #n addition, the respondent

$udge failed to consider that the sub$ect cases re9uired a 9uic1er resolution as they"ere covered by the 2ule on Summary Procedure

ISSUE: KO5 respondent $udge guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision

HELD:

Y$-. Ke stress at the outset that the sub$ect criminal cases violation of Plg >> are indeed covered by the 2ule on Summary Procedure pursuant to !M 5o66-((-6(-SC ARe: Amendment to the Rule on Summary $rocedure of Criminal CasesB

The 2ule on Summary Procedure "as promulgated by the Supreme Court to

achieve an eFpeditious and ineFpensive disposition of cases Section ( of this 2ulere9uires the court to promulgate a $udgment not later than thirty 90/B days after termination of trial Trial in the present case originally ended on !ugust G, >66G

rom this se9uence of events, "e 0nd it clear that the respondent $udge failedto observe the mandated period of time to decide cases under the 2ule on SummaryProcedure ollo"ing Section ( of this 2ule, he should have rendered a decision"ithin *6 days from the termination of trial on !ugust G, >66G :is failure to meet thisdeadline is a patent indication that he did not ta1e into account and had disregardedthe 2ule on Summary Procedure

!t any rate, even if "e adopt a liberal approach and consider the sub$ect

cases to be outside the coverage of the 2ule on Summary Procedure, the respondent $udge still cannot escape liability

The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters 0led before all lo"er

courts shall be decided or resolved "ithin )6 days from the time the case issubmitted for decision

#n the present case, the sub$ect cases had been submitted for decisionsince October (>, >66+ !s correctly pointed out by the OC!, "hile the respondent

$udge attributed his failure to render a decision to the heavy caseload in his sala, hedid not as1 for an eFtension of time to decide the cases This failure to decide "ithinthe re9uired period, given that he could have as1ed for an eFtension, is ineFcusable;it constitutes neglect of duty as "ell as gross ineciency that collectively "arrantadministrative sanction

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


nder 2ule (G6, Section )A(B, as amended by !dministrative Matter 5o 6(-@-(6-SC, the respondent $udges undue delay in rendering a decision is classi0ed as aless serious o&ense #t carries the penalty of suspension from oce "ithout salaryand other bene0ts for not less than one nor more than three months, or a 0ne of more than P(6,66666 but not eFceeding P>6,66666

Since the respondent $udge had been previously found guilty in &lanco v. Andoy of gross ignorance of procedure and undue delay in the resolution of a motionAfor "hich he "as imposed a P>+,66666 0ne "ith a stern "arning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt "ith more severelyB, "e impose on him themaFimum allo"able 0ne of P>6,66666 This amount shall be deducted fromrespondent $udges retirement bene0ts as the record sho"s that he had alreadyretired from the service on October *, >66@

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, 8udge Teresito ! !ndoy is hereby

found 0UILTY of A(B undue delay in rendering a decision and A>B violation of Canon *,2ule *6+ of the Code of 8udicial Conduct :e is ordered to pay a FINEof t"entythousand pesos AP>6,66666B, to be deducted from his retirement bene0ts

SC!"#$ 10

MAR0IE MACIAS CORPUS= complainant% &s. 4UD0E WILFREDO 0.OCHOTORENA= RTC BR. 11= SINDAN0AN= AMBOAN0A DEL NORTE=respondent. <A.M. N'. RT4 6181. 4u 6= 266>

FACTS:On ebruary H, >66(, a veri0ed Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage

"as 0led against Mrs Macias by Mariano 8oa9uin S Macias AMr MaciasB, her husbandand incumbent presiding $udge of 2TC, ranch ((, <iloy, amboanga 4el 5orte Thecase "as raWed to the respondents court(>D On the same day the Complaint "as0led, the respondent immediately issued Summons to Mrs Macias>*D :o"ever, theSummons "as not served on Mrs Macias for the reason that her "hereabouts "ereallegedly un1no"n*GD Conse9uently, Mr Macias 0led a motion to serve summons bypublication The respondent granted the motion in his Order 6+D dated March , >66(,"ith the directive that Mrs Macias should 0le her ans"er "ithin *6 days after notice

Thereafter, Mr Macias caused the publication of the Summons in the local "ee1lyne"spaper, %ingog $eninsula+ based in 4ipolog City in its March ((-(, >66( issue +

HD

(

>

*

G

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


Mrs Macias claims she learned of the aforesaid publication of Summonsduring the 0rst "ee1 of !pril >66( Kithout delay, on !pril (6, >66( or "ithin the *6-day period to 0le an ans"er, she 0led a 'otion to #ismiss+ "hich she set for hearingon !pril >6, >66(HD :o"ever, instead of 0rst acting upon the motion, therespondent $udge set the hearing on the merits of the sub$ect case on !pril (), >66(,or one day before

On !pril (), >66(, respondent $udge denied the Motion to 4ismiss and re-setthe hearing on the merits to !pril *6, May > and *, >66( @D !fter the scheduledhearings, the respondent $udge terminated the proceedings and declared the casesubmitted for decision@)D

#t is in the light of the foregoing that Mrs Macias believes that the respondent $udge deprived her of the fundamental right to due process "ith utmost bias andpartiality for Mr Macias; hence, she 0led the instant Complaint containing the above-cited facts before the Oce of the Court !dministrator AOC!B

The respondent $udge claims that the instant Complaint is fatally defectivebecause it is not supported by the adavits of persons "ho have 1no"ledge of thefacts and documents needed to substantiate the allegations therein !lso, he assertsthat malice, bad faith, and the intention to harass, embarrass and humiliate him hadmotivated Mrs Macias to 0le the said Complaint

inally, respondent $udge insists that his #ecision=(+D is valid and prays forthe dismissal of the instant Complaint for lac1 of merit

#n summary, Mrs Macias no" asserts before the Court that the respondent $udges actuations constitute bias, partiality and conduct unbecoming a $udgeMoreover, according to her, "hat is more glaring and conclusive from the records isthat the respondent is grossly ignorant of the la" and procedure or theseadministrative lapses, Mrs Macias concludes that the Court should sanction him

ISSUE: KO5 respondent $usge is guilty of gross ignorance of the la" andincompetence

HELD: The conclusion is amply supported by the Court of !ppeals 4ecision "hich

states that the respondent $udge totally disregarded Mrs Macias right to due process"hen he proceeded "ith the trial on the merits of the case completely ignoring thefact that her Motion to 4ismiss, "hich "as 0led "ithin the *6-day reglementaryperiod, "as still pending resolution

Khat happened in the case is a classic eFample of railroading or proceduralshort1cut. #nstead of resolving the 'otion to #ismiss, the respondent $udgecompletely ignored it and proceeded "ith the trial on the merits of the case byreceiving Mr Macias evidence e)1parte

+

H

@

)

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


#t is also "orth mentioning that, as correctly found by the appellate court,even if Mrs Macias failed to 0le her ans"er to the complaint after the period thereforhad elapsed, the respondent $udge "as not authori3ed to conduct a hearing of thecase on its merits The 2ules of Court prohibits default proceedings in cases involvingdeclaration of nullity of marriage(6>*D

#n that regard, Mrs Macias had already 0led her 'otion to #ismiss "here she

indicated her address and, hence, can be noti0ed by the Public Prosecutor of hisinvestigation((>GDSection *, 2ule ) of the ()) 2ules of Civil Procedure states' #f the defending

party in an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legalseparation fails to ans"er, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney toinvestigate "hether or not a collusion bet"een the parties eFists, and if there is nocollusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submittedis not fabricated Thus, the report of the Public Prosecutor is a condition sine Fua nonfor further proceedings to go on in the case 2espondent $udge ignored thisprocedural rule

Considering the foregoing, the Court rules that the respondent $udge violatedMrs Macias right to due process "hen he completely ignored the pertinent rules !

$udge is called upon to eFhibit more than $ust a modicum of ac9uaintance "ithstatutes and procedural rules, it is his duty to 1eep al"ays abreast "ith la" and

$urisprudence(>>HD Khen the la" or procedure is so elementary, for him not to 1no"it or to act as if he does not 1no" it constitutes gross ignorance

nder Section * in relation to Section (6 of 2ule (G6 of the 2ules of Court,gross ignorance of the la" is considered a serious o&ense, for "hich a penalty of either dismissal from the service "ith forfeiture of bene0ts, suspension from oce formore than three A*B months but not eFceeding siF AHB months or a 0ne of more than

T"enty Thousand Pesos AP>6,66666B but not eFceeding orty Thousand PesosAPG6,66666B may be imposed

WHEREFORE, 8udge Kilfredo 7 Ochotorena is found 7#<TU of grossignorance of the la" and incompetence and is hereby #5=4 the amount of T"enty

Thousand Pesos AP>6,66666B to be ta1en from the amount earlier "ithheld from hisretirement bene0ts

(6

((

(>

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


D"u" %. P"$")"= A.M. N'. RT462617 8une (), >66@

F",(-:

This is a complaint for gross ignorance of the la" and conduct unbecoming a $udge0led by retired <t 7en !lfonso P 4agudag A7en 4agudagB, :ead of Tas1 orceSagipali1asan, against 8udge Paderanga On or about *6 8anuary >66+, the 2egionV## Philippine 5ational Police 2egional Maritime 7roup AP5P2M7B received informationthat MV 7eneral 2icarte of 5MC Container <ines, #nc "as shipping container vanscontaining illegal forest products from Cagayan de Oro to Cebu The shipments "erefalsely declared as cassava meal and corn grains to avoid inspection by the4epartment of =nvironment and 5atural 2esources A4=52B True enough, ilegal forest

products "ere possessed by 5MC Container <ines, #nc "as sei3ed by the 4=52 Theitems "ere found to be lac1ing the re9uired legal documents and "ere conse9uentlyabandoned by the un1no"n o"ner <ater a certain 2oger C =dma 0led a "rit of replevin for the release of said con0scated products 2espondent 8udge issued the"rit despite the fact that an administrative case "as already pending before the4=52 #n one session, the $udge made use of the "ords QShut upXQ and QaloneyXQ as"ell as statements as .The problem "ith you people is you do not use your heads,/and .:o" dare you say that the Court is "rong/

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


I--u$:

KO58udge Paderanga is liable for conduct unbecoming a $udge by the use of thesephrases

Ru&):

Canon H of the 5e" Code of 8udicial Conduct for the Philippine 8udiciary states thatcompetence is a prere9uisite to the due performance of $udicial oce Section * of Canon H states that $udges shall ta1e reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their1no"ledge necessary for the proper performance of $udicial duties 8udges should1eep themselves abreast "ith legal developments and sho" ac9uaintance "ith la"s

The rule that courts cannot prematurely ta1e cogni3ance of cases pending beforeadministrative agencies is basic There "as no reason for 8udge Paderanga to ma1ean eFception to this rule The forest products "ere in the custody of the 4=52 and=dma had not availed of any administrative remedy 8udge Paderanga should havedismissed the replevin suit outright

The OC! found 8udge Paderanga liable for using inappropriate language in court'QKe 0nd respondentIs intemperate use of QShut upXQ and QaloneyXQ "ell-nighinappropriate in court proceedings The utterances are uncalled for/ transcripts of stenographic notes sho" that 8udge Paderanga "as impatient, discourteous, andundigni0ed in court

Section H, Canon H of the 5e" Code of 8udicial Conduct for the Philippine 8udiciarystates that $udges shall be patient, digni0ed, and courteous in relation to la"yers2ule *6G, Canon * of the Code of 8udicial Conduct states that u$- -+'u #$!"(&$)( ") ,'u($'u- (' "$-= $-!$,&" (+$ &)$!$&$),$. They shouldavoid the attitude that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts forthe litigants

8udicial decorum re9uires $udges to be temperate in their language at all times Theymust refrain from inEammatory, eFcessively rhetoric, or vile language T+$ -+'uJ1K #$ &)&$ &) $3$")' ") $)$ &) -!$$,+; J2K $+&#&( (+"(($3!$"3$)( '* u(3'-( -'#&$( ") -$*$-("&)(; ") JK #$ ,')-&$"($=,'u($'u-= ") ,&%& (' " !$-')- +' ,'3$ (' (+$& ,'u(.

S$,(&') 16 '* Ru$ 16 ,"--&$- ,')u,( u)#$,'3&) " u$ "- " &+('$)-$. #t is punishable by A(B a 0ne of not less than P(,666 but not eFceedingP(6,666; A>B censure; A*B reprimand; or AGB admonition "ith "arning :o"ever, 8udgePaderanga has t"o other administrative cases pending against him N one, for grossignorance of the la", 1no"ingly rendering an un$ust $udgment, and grave abuse of authority, and the other for gross misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and grossignorance of the la"

The Court "ill not hesitate to impose the ultimate penalty on those "ho have fallen

short of their accountabilities #t "ill not tolerate any conduct that violates the normsof public accountability and diminishes the faith of the people in the $udicial system

K:=2=O2=, the Court 0nds 8udge MaFimo 7K Paderanga, 2egional Trial Court,ranch *@, Cagayan de Oro City, 7#<TU of 72OSS #75O2!5C= O T:= <!K and5=COM#57 CO54CT !ccordingly, the Court 4#SM#SS=S him from the service, "ithforfeiture of all retirement bene0ts, eFcept accrued leave credits, and "ith pre$udiceto reinstatement or appointment to any public oce, including government-o"ned orcontrolled corporations

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


S!'u-$- 4",&)(' %. 5""("= A.M. N'. MT461@1March (6, >66+

F",(-:

This case originated from a Complaint 0led by Spouses 8esus V 8acinto and 5enita C

8acinto on March >>, >66> 8udge Placido Vallarta "as charged therein "ith grossnegligence, gross ignorance of the la", issuance of an un$ust interlocutory order, andvulgar and unbecoming conduct Their main thrust of their complaint "as for issuinga Krit of 2eplevin, even if the bonding company that issued the replevin bond "asallegedly not authori3ed to do business "ith the MTC of 7apan; and A>B for failing toact, favorably and "ith dispatch, on their various Motions and counter-replevin bondfor the release of the truc1 to them

These ho"ever "ere not given "eight as the facts laid do"n by complainants areinsucient to support a 0nding of gross ignorance of the la" To be held liabletherefor, Qthe $udge must be sho"n to have committed an error that "as Igross orpatent, deliberate and maliciousI2espondent may have erred in issuing the Krit of 2eplevin, but such error has not been sho"n to be gross or patent ecausecomplainants did not furnish this Court a copy of the Complaint in Civil Case 5oG@)H, there is no basis for sho"ing ho" they presented the case and the need for a"rit of replevin to respondent Khile manifesting palpable impatience bordering onrudeness, as "ell as personal disinterest in their cause and problems, his utterancesand behavior fail to support a 0nding that he acted deliberately and maliciously

I--u$:

KO5 $udge is absolved of administrative liability in light of no 0ndings of grossnegligence

Ru&):

5o, he cannot be completely absolved of administrative liability

4u$- "$ %&$$ "- (+$ %&-&#$ $!$-$)("(&')- '* " ") u-(&,$= *'3+'3 (+$ !$'!$ " (+$ & ") &),&)"(&') (' '#$ (+$ ". T+u-= (+$',&" ,')u,( '* u$- -+'u #$ *$$ *'3 &3!'!&$( ") $%$) (+$"!!$""),$ '* &3!'!&$(. Their personal behavior, not only on the bench and inthe performance of $udicial duties but also in their everyday lives, should be beyondreproach 2ule >6( of the Code of 8udicial Conduct provides that a Q$udge should sobehave at all times as to promote public con0dence in the integrity and impartialityof the $udiciary/

??? :o"ever, "e "ere &-3"$ # (+$ "((&(u$ -+') # 4u$5""(" ") (+$ '- *'3 +&3 <$$> -' -u!&-&) (+"( $ <&>)'( $!$,( (' +$" *'3 " !u#&, -$%")( ") *'3 " 4u$ *' (+"(

3"(($. I)-($" '* &%&) -'u) "%&,$ (' 'u ,"-$= 4u$ 5""("",($ '(+$&-$ ") "- ('(" u$ ('"- u-.

2espondent must be reminded that government service is people-orientedGP"(&$),$ &- ") $--$)(&" !"( '* &-!$)-&) u-(&,$ ") ,'u($- &- " 3" '* ,u(u$ ") '' #$$&).G #mpatience and rudeness have no place ingovernment service, in "hich personnel are en$oined to act "ith self-restraint andcivility at all times

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


Section (6 of 2ule (G6 of the 2ules of Court classi0es vulgar and unbecomingconduct as a light charge, for "hich a 0ne of not less than P(,666 but not eFceedingP(6,666 may be imposed

K:=2=O2=, 2espondent 8udge Placido Vallarta is found guilty of vulgar andunbecoming conduct and hereby #5=4 0ve thousand pesos

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


BAR UESTIONS

ESSAY

1.

A) "u&( ($"3 *'3 (+$ O,$ '* (+$ C'u( A3&)&-("(' *'u) (+"( 4u$

C')("3&)"" ,'33&(($ -$&'u- &)*",(&')- (+'u+ (+$ &)&-,&3&)"($

")( '* !$(&(&')- *' "))u3$)( '* 3"&"$ ") $" -$!""(&'). I) ')$

$"= (+$ u$ ")($ 66 '* -u,+ !$(&(&')- +$) (+$ "%$"$ )u3#$ '*

!$(&(&')- '* -&3&" )"(u$ ")($ # ") &)&%&u" u$ &) +&- $&') "-

') 2 !$(&(&')- !$ "))u3. T+$ "u&( $%$"$ 3") &$$)( $*$,(- &)

(+$ ")($ !$(&(&')-: 3") !$(&(&')- +" )'( #$$) %$&$; (+$ $u&$

,'!&$- '* -'3$ !$(&(&')- $$ )'( *u)&-+$ (' (+$ O,$ '* (+$ S'&,&('

0$)$" ") (+$ O,$ '* (+$ P'%&),&" P'-$,u('; ',$( *$$- +" )'(

#$$) *u !"&; (+$ !"(&$- $$ )'( ",(u" $-&$)(- &(+&) (+$ ($&('&"

u&-&,(&') '* (+$ ,'u(; ")= &) -'3$ ,"-$-= (+$$ "- )' $,' '* (+$

,'--$"3&)"(&')- ,')u,($ # (+$ !u#&, !'-$,u(' ' ") ',u3$)("

$%&$),$ 3"$ ") *'3" '$$. A (+$-$= %&$$ &) (+$& ('("&(=

-u!!'($ (+$ &3!'%&$)( ") &)&-,&3&)"($ ")( (+"( (+$ OCA *'u). I*

'u $$ (+$ ,'u)-$ *' A) M""-u$($ ") '(+$ &(&")(- +'-$

3"&"$- +" #$$) &3!'!$ ") )" "))u$= &-,u-- 'u '!(&')- &)

"3&)&-("(&%$ !',$$&) ""&)-( 4u$ C')("3&)""= ") -("($ +$$

") +' 'u 'u $$,&-$ (+$-$ '!(&')-. J261K

A(B 8udge Contaminada may be charged "ith gross ignorance of the la" and

procedure under Section @ of 2ule (G6 of the 2ules of Court The serious infractions

committed by 8udge Contaminada "ere in cases involving petitions for nullity and

annulment of marriage and legal separation, the most disturbing and scandalous of

"hich "as the haste "ith "hich she disposed of such cases or the one year alone,

8udge Contaminida granted a total of *66 petitions of this nature The audits li1e"ise

sho"ed that she acted on these petitions despite the fact that it "as not veri0ed;

that the OS7 or the OPP "ere not furnished a copy of the petition; that the petition

did not recite the true residence of the parties, "hich should be "ithin the territorial

$urisdiction of the court; or that the doc1et fees have not been fully paid and $urisdiction over the person of the respondents have not been ac9uired 8udge

Contaminada had blatantly disregarded of the provisions of !M 5os 6>-((-(6-SC

AProposed 2ule on 4eclaration of !bsolute 5ullity of Void Marriages and !nnulment of

Voidable Marriages B and 6>-((-((-SC AProposed 2ule on <egal SeparationB She is

thus found guilty of gross ignorance of the la" and procedure 5o less than the Code

of 8udicial conduct mandates that a $udge shall be faithful to the la"s and maintain

professional competence #ndeed, competence is a mar1 of a good $udge ! $udge

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


must be ac9uainted "ith legal norms and precepts as "ell as "ith procedural rules

Khen a $udge displays an utter lac1 of familiarity "ith the rules, he erodes the

publics con0dence in the competence of our courts Such is gross ignorance of the

la" One "ho accepts the eFalted position of a $udge o"es the public and the court

the duty to be pro0cient in the la" nfamiliarity "ith the 2ules of Court is a sign of

incompetence asic rules of procedure must be at the palm of a $udges hands

Moreover, the reprehensible haste "ith "hich she granted petitions for nullity and

annulment of marriage and legal separation, despite noncompliance "ith the

appropriate rules and evident irregularities in the proceedings, displayed her utter

lac1 of competence and probity, and can only be considered as grave abuse of

authority The administrative proceeding is instituted by 0ling of a veri0ed complaint

before the Supreme Court supported by adavits of persons "ho have personal

1no"ledge of the facts alleged therein and documents "hich may substantiate said

allegations

A>B !nother option "ould be to 0le for disciplinary action "ith the Supreme Court for

violation of the Code of 8udicial Conduct The actions of 8udge Contaminada clearly

run against the standards set by the Canon on Competence under the Code of 8udicial Conduct Khile not all infractions by a $udge constitute gross ignorance of the

la", 8udge Contaminadas blatant disregard for the rules and the indiscriminate

granting of annulment and legal separation $udgements "ithout sucient legal basis

spea1 of his glaring lac1 of competence as a member of the $udiciary

2.

4u$ H'",&' 'u u-u" ' (' (+$ ,',!&(- ') S"(u"- *' $""(&')=

"- (+$ ')$ '* (+$ ,',!&( &- " *&$) '* +&-. H$ "-' '$- (' (+$ ,"-&)'

'),$ " $$ (' ",,'3!") +&- &*$ +' '%$- (' !" (+$ -'( 3",+&)$-.

B$,"u-$ '* (+&-= 4u$ H'",&' "- "3&)&-("(&%$ ,+"$. W+$) "-$

(' $!"&)= +$ -"& (+"( "(+'u+ +$ '$- (' (+$-$ !",$-= +$ ') "(,+$-

") '$- )'( !",$ ") #$(-. I- +&- $!")"(&') ($)"#$? E!"&). J266@K

5o 8udge :oracio can be held administratively liable for going to coc1pits because he

openly and deliberately disregarded and violated Paragraph * of the Canons of

8udicial =thics Verily, it is plainly despicable to see a $udge inside a coc1pit and more

so, to see him bet therein MiFing "ith the cro"d of coc10ghting enthusiasts and

bettors is unbecoming a $udge and undoubtedly impairs the respect due him

ltimately, the 8udiciary itself su&ers therefrom because a $udge is a visible

representation of the 8udiciary Most often, the public mind does not separate the

$udge from the 8udiciary #n short, any demeaning act of a $udge or court personnel

demeans the institution he represents or going to casino, the 8udge may be

administratively liable also for violating Paragraph >> of the Canons of 8udicial =thics,

"hich provides' QThe $udge should be studiously careful himself to avoid the slightest

infraction of the la", lest it be a demorali3ing eFample to othersQ =ven granting

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


arguendo that respondent did not gamble or personally play the slot machine, his

mere presence in a casino constituted a violation of Circular 5o G and, more

speci0cally, Paragraph * of the Canons of 8udicial =thics Thus, under the amended

2ule (G6 of the 2ules of Court, a violation of a circular issued by this Court, such as

Circular 5o G, is a less serious charge ASec GGB, "hile gambling in public is a light

charge ASec +B #f found guilty of a less serious charge the respondent may be

punished "ith a penalty of 0ne of not less than P(6,666 but not eFceeding P(),)))

ASec (6->B; and for a light charge, he may be punished "ith a 0ne of not less than

P(,666 but not eFceeding P),))) ASec (6-C(B !ll told, the Court may impose on

respondent 8udge a 0ne of P(>,666 AC#TU 7OV=25M=5T O T!7#<!2!5 vs 847=

!7!P#TO :O5T!5OS!S, 82, !M 5o MT8-)@-((H), 8anuary >), >66>

.

M" " u$ #$ &-,&!&)$ # (+$ Su!$3$ C'u( #"-$ -'$ ') ",'3!"&)( $ # (+$ ,'3!"&)")( ") (+$ ")-$ '* $-!')$)( u$? I*

-'= u)$ +"( ,&,u3-("),$-? W+"( &- (+$ "(&')"$ #$+&) (+&- !'$ '*

(+$ Su!$3$ C'u(? J199K

! $udge may be disciplined by the Supreme Court based solely on the basis of the

complaint 0led by the complainant and the ans"er of the respondent $udge, under

the principle of res ipsa lo9uitor The Supreme Court has held that "hen the facts

alleged in the complaint are admitted or are already sho"n on the record, and no

credible eFplanation that "ould negate the strong inference of evil intent is

forthcoming, no further hearing to establish such facts to support a $udgment as toculpability of the respondent is necessary A#n 2e' Petition for dismissal of 8udge

4i3onB

.

A*($ #$&) &")'-$ &(+ -($-- $3"(&(&-= 4u$ R'-"&)= &(+'u(

-$$&) !$3&--&') *'3 (+$ Su!$3$ C'u(= $*u-$ (' $" +$ '#$

u&) ,'u( !',$$&)-. W+$) +$ "(($)(&') "- ,"$= -+$ $!"&)$

(+"( +$)$%$ -+$ $"- +$ '#$ -+$ &- $3&)$ '* +$ +$"% ,"-$'"=

(+u- 3"&) +$ ($)-$. T+&-= &) (u)= (&$- (+$ 'u(#$" '* -&) "-+$-. I-

4u$ R'-"&) u-(&$ &) )'( $"&) +$ u&,&" '#$? E!"&). J2669K

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


A(B Pursuant to Sections + and H, !rticle V###D of the Constitution and in order toheighten public consciousness on the solemnity of $udicial proceedings, allPresiding 8udges of all Trial Courts shall "ear blac1 robes during sessions of their respective Court #n the case at bar, 8udge 2osalinds non-"earing of herrobe due to her medical condition is not eFcusable To be eFempt from non-"earing of robe, she must 0rst secure a Courts permission She cannot simply

eFempt from complying "ith re9uirement

A>B 5o, 8udge 2osalind is not $usti0ed in not "earing her $udicial robe !dministrative

Circular 5o >+ dated ) 8une ()@) ACircular 5o >+B, provides' Pursuant to Sections +

and H, !rticle V###D of the Constitution and in order to heighten public consciousness

on the solemnity of $udicial proceedings, Presiding 8udges of all Trial Courts are

directed to "ear blac1 robes during sessions of their respective Courts Other"ise,

she "ould be held administratively liable for violation of a la"ful order of the

Supreme Court re9uiring $udges to "ear their $udicial robe

@.

C'u( '* A!!$"- JCAK 4u-(&,$ 4u&- "- "3&)&-("(&%$ ,+"$ &(+ '--

&)'"),$ '* (+$ " *' +"%&) &--u$ ") '$ ($3!'"& $)'&)&)Q (+$

&3!$3$)("(&') '* " &( '* $$,u(&')= ") *' +"%&) &--u$ ")'(+$ '$

*' (+$ !"(&$- (' 3"&)("&) (+$ -("(u- u'Q &) (+$ -"3$ ,"-$. B'(+ '$-

"$ '#%&'u- &(+'u( ") $" #"-&- ") %&'"($ CA u$-. I) +&- $*$)-$=

4u-(&,$ 4u&- ,"&3- (+"( (+$ ,+"$)$ '$- $$ ,'$&" ",(- '* (+$ CA

D&%&-&') (' +&,+ +$ #$')$. T+u-= +$ !'-&(- (+"( (+$ ,+"$ -+'u )'(

#$ $ ""&)-( +&3 "')$= #u( -+'u &),u$ (+$ (' '(+$ CA u-(&,$- &)

(+$ D&%&-&'). I- (+$ ,')($)(&') '* 4u-(&,$ 4u&- ($)"#$? E!"&). J2669K

A(B !s to the orders being collegial acts of the C! 4ivision, 8ustice 8uris could not be

held liable alone Collegial 4ivision members share any decision on "hat proceedings

to adopt in the conduct of its business They act by consensus or ma$ority rule

Moreover, error or mista1e of a $udge or a $ustice, as basis for disciplinary action must

be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in bad faith #t is only "hen he acts

fraudulently or corruptly or "ith gross ignorance that he may be administratively held

liable :e cannot be sub$ected to liability J for any of his ocial acts, no matter ho"

erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith #n this case there is no sho"ing of 8ustice

8uris acting in bad faith together "ith the collegiate division

A>B 5o, such contention is untenable The #nternal 2ules of the Court of !ppeals,

particularly Sec +, 2ule V# thereof, provides that all members of the 4ivision shall act

upon an application for T2O and "rit of preliminary in$unction :o"ever, if only the

ponente is present, then the latter shall act alone upon the application Thus, if it "as

the 4ivision that issued the assailed orders, then all its members should be held

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


liable <i1e"ise, if 8ustice 8uris acted alone, then he must bear sole liability #n the

case at bar, 8ustice 8uris seemed to have acted alone

MC

1. W+&,+ '* (+$ *''&) -("($3$)(- &- *"-$? J266@K

aB !ll administrative cases against 8ustices of appellate courts and $udges of lo"ercourts fall eFclusively "ithin the $urisdiction of the Supreme Court

bB !dministrative cases against erring 8ustices of the Court of !ppeals and

Sandiganbayan, $udges, and la"yers in the government service are not automatically

treated as disbarment cases

cB The #P oard of 7overnors may, motu proprio, or upon referral by the Supreme

Court or by a Chapter oard of Ocers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and

prosecute proper charges against erring la"yers including those in the government

service

dB The 0ling of an administrative case against the $udge is not a ground fordis9uali0cation%inhibition

eB Trial courts retain $urisdiction over the criminal aspect of o&enses committed by

$ustices of appellate courts and $udges of lo"er courts

2. A3&)&-("(&%$ !',$$&)- ""&)-( 4u$- '* " ,'u(- ") 4u-(&,$- '*

(+$ C'u( '* A!!$"- ") (+$ S")&")#"") -+" #$

! private and con0dential public but subduedC private but transparent4 public

J2611K

7/23/2019 GROUPS 5&6


. W+"( &- (+$ 3$(+' '* )"(&')" &)u& &)(' (+$ ,')u,( '* Su!$3$

C'u( 3"&-("($-?

A!B !dministrative investigationAB 4is9uali0cation

ACB #mpeachment

A4B 4isbarment

J2611K

groups 5&6

Documents