round 5 digest.pdf

Ethics f.t.w. P.O.D

R-5 Case Digest do whatcha want whatcha want with my bodeeeyy

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES

OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C.

DEL CASTILLO.

FACTS:

During the World War 2, the Japanese Army systematically destroyed villages and raped Filipina women, our

mothers and sisters, seizing them, holding them captive in their prisons where they were repeatedly ravished and

abused. Since 1998 Petitioner Isabelita Vinuya, along with all the members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, who

were the victims of untold sorrows, have been approaching the Executive Department, requesting assistance in

filing claims in the ICJ against the ruthless Japanese officers who established comfort women stations, asking for an

official apology, and other forms of reparations. However the Department, despite the actual inhuman and barbaric

event, REFUSES to help their own mothers and sisters, SAYING that the petitioners claims has already been fully

satisfied under the PEACE TREATY between Philippines and Japan.

Aggrieved, they seek the intervention of the court in the search for justice.

The Court however, DISMISSED their action on the grounds that (1) The

Executive alone has the prerogative as to

whether to espouse the petitioners claim;

(2) the Philippines is not under any

obligation to espouse their claims.

The petitioners filed for Reconsideration

Accusing Justice Del Castillo of manifest intellectual theft and outright PLAGIARISM when he wrote the decision; and for TWISTING

the true intents of the Plagiarized sources.

They claim that the INTEGRITY of the COURT has been put into question because of Justice Del Castillos FRAUD.

When the authors learned of the alleged plagiarism: their concern was the Courts Conclusion that

prohibitions against sexual slavery are not JUS COGENS (international binding norms that treaty cannot

diminish). Dr. Ellis wrote the Court expressing his concern that the Court may have misread the argument

he made. He said that he wrote that article to argue for APPROPRIATE LEGAL REMEDIES for VICTIMS

of WAR CRIMES. The DEAN of U.P. Law publicized a statement claiming that the VINUYA DECISION

was AN EXTRAORDINARY ACT of INJUSTICE xxx BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND

ISSUE

1. WON Justice Castillo was guilty of PLAGIARISM 2. WON he twisted the works in order to support the Courts position in

the VINUYA decision

HELD:

2 A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC

3 Foreign Articles:

a. Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by

Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale

Journal of International Law (2009);

b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an

International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case

Western Reserve Journal of

International Law (2006); and

c. Enforcing Erga Omnes

Obligations by Christian J. Tams,

Cambridge University Press (2005).

Ethics f.t.w. P.O.D


1. No. Plagiarism means theft of another persons language/ideas. In the Decision, the respondent used FOOTNOTES. Under Footnote 69, he

mentioned Tams articles as a source of the ideas. Although the manner of referencing is inappropriate, this is NOT an ETHICAL MATTER. The

statement SEE TAMS Obligations Erga Omnes 2005 is an attribution to TAMS, even if it is insufficient, it NEGATES the idea of PLAGIARISM

since he DID NOT claimed the challenged passages AS HIS OWN.

MOREOVER, it was due to the fault of his RESEARCHER, who ACCIDENTALLY DELETED the attribution. She merely copy pasted her

sources in Microsoft word and she then accidentally deleted the subject tags

there was 119 sources, the deletion of 2 was not easily detectable.

2. No. nothing in the lifted passages implies that Philippines is not under any obligation in international law to espouse petitioners claims. The lifted

passages provided mere backgrounds of the facts (which are neutral data) that

could support conflicting theories.

CASE DISMISSED: Lack of Merit

On occasions judges and justices have mistakenly cited the wrong sources, failed to use

quotation marks, inadvertently omitted necessary information from footnotes or

endnotes. But these do not, in every case, amount to misconduct. Only errors that are

tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice are subject of disciplinary action.

> If the rule were otherwise, no judge or justice, however competent, honest, or dedicated

he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary with an unblemished record.

Ethics f.t.w. P.O.D


GACAD vs. JUDGE CLAPIS, Jr.

FACTS:

Criselda Gacads brother, Gregorio Cardenas, was gunned down. She filed criminal

charges against the suspects. The provincial prosecutor suggested that they see

Respondent Judge and prepare an amount of 50k for the latter, so that he would deny

the motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused. In the Golden Palace Hotel, the

prosecutor along with his wife and the petitioner met with the respondent judge

where the judge uttered the most inglorious battle quote sige, kay dot, ako bahala,

gamuson nato ni sila (okay leave it to me we will crush them AWWOOOOOO!)

the next day petitioner entrusted his driver BAYLOSIS the 50k and sent him to the

judge, with the prosecutors nephew. After denying the motion for reinvestigation, a

week after the prosecutor told the petitioner that the judge was borrowing another

50k from her, for his mothers hospitalization, but the petitioner refused. From that

moment, the two stupid dogs (judge and prosecutor) began to prejudice their case.

Judge Clapis set hearing on February, however the notices were mailed on fucking

march. How the fuck do you expect the petitioner to be there. Judge Clapis granted

BAIL Petitioner filed for INHIBITION. To PROVE how corrupt the

motherfuckers are, in a CASE against her BROTHER, the prosecutor asked her to

pay 80k so that the case would be dismissed, and it did got dismissed despite the

strong evidence against her brother.

ISSUE:

1. WON respondent is liable for extortion?

2. WON he is liable for gross misconduct?

HELD:

1. No it was not SUBSTANTIALY PROVEN. In Administrative cases: charges

based on suspicions/speculations cannot be given credence.The Petitioner has

the onus probandi of proving her allegations based on substantial evidence. In

this case, there was no evidence that the Judge did receive the 50k. However,

the judge only offered a flat denial, without presenting the prosecutor to

deny/refute the petitioners claims.

4

Ethics f.t.w. P.O.D


2. YES. Even if its not Substantially Proven, he can be held liable for GROSS

MISCONDUCT (Kaw vs. Osario) He act in PATENT Disregard of well know

rules. The Investigating Justice found her Narration as CREDIBLE. Moreover

the judge only denied her allegation in the hearing, but not on his comment,

and without presenting evidence to support his denial.

His act of telling her WE WILL CRUSH THEM constitutes GROSS

misconduct. He tolerated unreasonable postponements.

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior in connection with ones performance of official functions and

duties. For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a persistent disregard

of well-known rules The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere

error of judgment

Furthermore, he was liable for GROSS IGNORANCE of the LAW for being partial

in granting bail and for failing to set the case within reasonable time. He has also

already been administratively sanctioned before.

Again, judges are reminded that having accepted the exalted position of a judge, they owe it to the

public to uphold the exacting standard ofconduct demanded from them. As the Court repeatedly

stressed:

The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the

integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the peoples confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the

highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. When the judge himself

becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute,encourages

disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It

is therefore paramount that a judges personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.

Judge GACAD dismissed (his position VACANT)

-gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law

- Forfeiture of all benefits

- -disqualified from appointment to any public office

Miss na kita baba

Ethics f.t.w. P.O.D


PIMINTEL vs. SALONGA

FACTS:

Petitioner is the counsel of record in several cases pending before Judge Salonga. He

filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against said judge on the ground of

Serious Misconduct, Ignorance of the law, inefficiency in office, and partiality.

Pending the administrative case, petitioner moved the court to have the respondent

judge disqualified from sitting in those cases, but the judge merely rejected this

motion, since according to him, the administrative complaint against him is not a

ground for his disqualification under the Rules of Court. And that the said Civil

cases are now in their final disposition, and to transfer them to another sala would

only make the parties suffer further efforts and expenses.

ISSUE:

- Is a judge disqualified from acting in litigations in which counsel of record for one of the parties is his adversary in an administrative case

said counsel lodged against him?

Rules of Court,, Rule 137, Section 1 Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consaguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which be has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.

Petitioner claims his case falls within the 2nd

paragraph.

HELD:

NO. To take or not to take cognizance of a case, does not depend upon the discretion

of a judge not legally disqualified to sit in a given case. It is his duty not to sit in its

trial and decision if legally disqualified; but if the judge is not disqualified, it is a

matter of official duty for him to proceed with the trial and decision of the case. He

cannot shirk the responsibility without the risk of being called upon to account for

his dereliction.

Ethics f.t.w. P.O.D


Efforts to attain fair, just and impartial trial and decision, have a natural and alluring

appeal. But, we are not licensed to indulge in unjustified assumptions, or make a

speculative approach to this ideal. It ill behooves this Court to tar and feather a judge

as biased or prejudiced, simply because counsel for a party litigant happens to

complain against him. As applied here, respondent judge has not as yet crossed the

line that divides partiality and impartiality. He has not thus far stepped to one side of

the fulcrum. No act or conduct of his would show arbitrariness or prejudice.

Therefore, we are not to assume what respondent judge, not otherwise legally

disqualified, will do in a case before him

Ethics f.t.w. P.O.D


LIWANAG vs. JUDGE LUSTRE

FACTS: Complainant Luwalhati Liwanag is the wife of Jose Zafra, who filed 12 counts of BP 22 against the

Chuas, the accused posted bail then when the case was finally set for hearing the judge was not present. Petitioner went to see the judge on his chamber to inquire about the case, she asked the judge if its possible to schedule the hearing in January, the judge affirmed and asked her to come back after the

hearing at 7am. As requested, when she came back she thanked the judge and promised to give him 5%

as a token of gratitude. While giving the petitioner a copy of the order the judge touched her shoulders

then fondled her breast. Surprised as to the demeanor of the judge, she was petrified/ frozen, she could

do nothing, as the judge played with her titties. The judge even told her his schedule @.@ wtf judge. She

did not appear to the schedules as the judge requested and as a result the Judge delayed their case. The

judge then told her to obey his wishes if she wants their case to go on smoothly since he will be the only

one to decide her case. He abused his authority in order to get a felatio from a married woman and push

her on the fear of retaliation. She was compelled to be a sex toy bound to fulfill the 65 year old diabetic

bastard judges every dirty desire for the sake of getting a favorable

decision for her family, who was DELAYING the case to prolong

his relationship with her.

ISSUE: WON judge should be dismissed due to Gross

immorality and Gross MISCONDUCT

HELD:

YES. putang ina siya. However he already

RESIGNED. He can no longer be dismissed. He is ordered to pay a fine of 40k, plus he is disqualified in EVERYTHING. As a rule, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary in

deciding administrative cases. Only substantial evidence is required. Given this requirement, we

find that there is enough evidence on record to sufficiently establish complainants case against respondent. The photographs submitted by complainant to this Court show her and respondent in various places. The first two show them talking beside an outlet of Andoks Litson Manok, another shows respondents car parked by a sidewalk, its front passenger door open. The car is seen leaving in the next photograph. In the next two

photographs, the car is seen in the driveway of what appears to be one of a row of rooms. On top of this rooms doorway is the letter "D". Next are five photographs which show complainant and respondent coming out of the room

together and heading towards respondents parked car.

The Court cannot countenance any act or omission, on the part of the officials at

every level in the administration of justice, which erodes rather than enhances the

publics faith and trust in the judiciary. Respondents disgraceful conduct surely merits sanctions even if he has already retired as of November 1, 1998. For the

serious misconduct of respondent, the penalty provided for in Rule 140, Section 10,

of the Rules of Court, by way of fine in the maximum amount should be imposed

We are not in accord with the OCAs recommendation, however, as regards forfeiture of all retirement benefits due respondent. We note that implementation of this penalty, while directed at respondent, might adversely affect

innocent members of his family, who are dependent on him and his retirement gratuity. It is our considered view that,

given the circumstances of this case, the maximum fine of P40,000.00 would be sufficient penalty.

Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence

Sec 5. Substantial evidence. -- In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGESFACTS:The petitioners filed for ReconsiderationA.M. No. 10-7-17-SC

round 5 digest.pdf

Documents