JUD SUSP DISC Rulings

2. TRINIDAD O. LACHICA, Complainant, vs.
JUDGE
JUDICIARY SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINARY CASES ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City, Respondent. A.M. No.
MTJ-05-1609 February 28, 2006
1. ANTONIO OCENAR, complainant, vs. JUDGE
ODELON S. MABUTIN, respondent. A.M. No. MTJ-05-
It must be stressed that the ESSENCE OF DUE PROCESS in
1582 February 28, 2005
administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s
side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
The duties of a judge, in case an application for bail is filed, are to: of.17 Owing to the foregoing confluence of events aggravated by the
delay in our postal system, the Court is inclined to grant the request
of respondent judge.
(1) notify the prosecutor of the hearing on the application for
bail or require him to submit his recommendation;
(2) conduct a hearing on the application for bail whether or In an administrative case, if the respondent judge must be
not the prosecution presents evidence to show that the disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence
guilt of the accused is strong, to enable the court to against the miscreant magistrate should be competent and should be
exercise its discretion; derived from direct knowledge.18The Judiciary to which the
(3) decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members
strong based on the summary of evidence of the could be faulted, it should only be after due investigation and after
prosecution; and presentation of the required quantum of evidence especially because
(4) if the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the the charge is punitive by nature.19
accused upon the approval of the bailbond.
Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must be
Applying the foregoing, this Court finds that Respondent has more examined with a discriminating eye for its consequential effects are
than sufficiently complied with the requirements of the law before his by nature penal in character, such that the respondent judge
approval of the bail application of accused Monsanto, negating a stands to face the sanction of dismissal, disbarment, or suspension.
charge that he was remiss in his duty. Clearly, the prosecutor As champion – at other times tormentor – of trial and appellate
assigned to the court to appear in behalf of the People was notified judges, this Court must be unrelenting in weeding the judiciary of
of the hearing on the application for bail and directed to make a unscrupulous magistrates, but it must also be quick in dismissing
recommendation. The bail application was heard on different administrative complaints which serve no other purpose than to
occasions before the same was granted. The Order allowing the harass them.20
accused to be released on bail on the ground that the evidence of his
guilt was not strong was based on and contained a summary of the
It has been said "[t]he wheels of justice would run smoothly not only
evidence of the prosecution as required by the law.
if the judiciary is purged of the debilitating presence of recreant
judges, but also importantly, if the members who perform their
On the authority of the respondent to grant bail, the long settled rule functions conscientiously are not hampered by groundless and
is that a municipal judge conducting a preliminary investigation of a vexatious charges. In its attempt to cleanse the Aegean stables, so
person in custody and charged with a capital offense has the to speak, this Court must tread on with utmost circumspection and
authority to grant bail.17Rule 114, Section 17 of The Revised Rules of prudence to make sure that only the guilty is denounced and the
Criminal Procedure, provides: innocent absolved."21 It must be stressed in this regard that in cases
where the charges involved are misconduct in office, willful neglect,
corruption or incompetency, the general rules as to admissibility of
SEC. 17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed
evidence in criminal trials apply and the culpability of the
with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or
respondent should be established beyond reasonable
unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge,
doubt.22
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit
trial judge in the province, city, or municipality. If the accused is
arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where the Thus, as in criminal cases where the dictates of due process is
case is pending, bail may also be filed with any Regional Trial Court observed with utmost stringence, the respondent judge in this
of said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with any administrative complaint should likewise be given full opportunity
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit upon reasonable notice23 to defend herself and to adduce evidence in
trial judge therein. support thereof for the Court will not allow itself to be an instrument
that would destroy the reputation of any member of the bench by
pronouncing guilt on the basis of incomplete evidence or mere
In sum, the acts of respondent judge were all in accordance with law
speculation.24
and settled jurisprudence.l^vvphi1.net
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the motion of respondent

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4,
proving the allegations in his complaint with SUBSTANTIAL
Cebu City for a reinvestigation of the above-captioned case is
EVIDENCE,18 i.e., that amount of relevant evidence which a
GRANTED. The records of the case are ordered REMANDED to the
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
Office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City
conclusion.19 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a judge
for further proceedings.
enjoys the PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY in the performance
of his functions.20
3. A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-
4144-RTJ], February 02, 2016 OFFICE OF THE
While it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
every matter in complaints against judges and other court personnel,
v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ,
it is also our duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, MAKATI
from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from
CITY, Respondent.
its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but
neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve
to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.21 I. The Court's disciplinary powers over justices and judges
Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants the Supreme

WHEREFORE, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Court administrative supervision over all courts and their
personnel. This grant empowers the Supreme Court to oversee the
JUDICIARY SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINARY CASES |1
judges' and court personnel's administrative compliance with all laws, 11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits, (emphasis supplied)
rules, and regulations,9 and to take administrative actions against
them if they violate these legal norms.10
The respondent's convictions by the Sandiganbayan for violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for malversation of public funds
In the exercise of this power, the Court has promulgated rules of
confirm that the administrative charges for which he may be found
procedure in the discipline of judges. Section 1, Rule 140 of the
liable are serious charges under Section 8(2) of Rule 140 of the Rules
Rules of Court, as amended by A. M. No. 01-8-10-SC, provides:
of Court, as amended. Malversation is likewise considered as a
serious charge since it is a crime involving moral turpitude.
SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the discipline of
Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of
While the term MORAL TURPITUDE does not have one specific
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by
definition that lends itself to easy and ready application,12 it
the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by
has been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or the
affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts
depravity in the performance of private and social duties
alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said
that man owes to his fellow man or to society in general.13
allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by
public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in
Notably, jurisprudence has categorized the FOLLOWING ACTS AS
writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE: abduction with
constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges
consent, bigamy, concubinage, smuggling, rape, attempted bribery,
by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial
profiteering, robbery, murder, estafa, theft, illicit sexual relations
Conduct.cralawlawlibrary
with a fellow worker, violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, intriguing
against honor, violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, violation of the
Based on this rule, disciplinary proceedings against sitting
Dangerous Drugs Act, perjury, forgery, direct bribery, frustrated
judges and justices may be instituted:
homicide, adultery, arson, evasion of income tax, barratry, blackmail,
(a) motu proprio, by the Court itself;
bribery, duelling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making
(b) upon verified complaint, supported by the affidavits of
fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract, mutilation of public
persons with personal knowledge of the facts alleged, or
records, fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension laws,
by documents substantiating the allegations; or
perjury, seduction under the promise of marriage, estafa, falsification
(c) upon anonymous complaint supported by public records of
of public document, and estafa thru falsification of public document.
indubitable integrity.11
To our mind, malversation - considering its nature - should not be
It was pursuant to this power that the Court - on its own initiative -
categorized any differently from the above listed crimes. The act of
ordered the re-docketing of the OCA's report as a formal complaint
embezzling public funds or property is immoral in itself; it is a
against the respondent and as a regular administrative matter f
conduct clearly contrary to the accepted standards of justice,
or the Court's consideration.
honesty, and good morals.14
The Court likewise possesses the POWER TO PREVENTIVELY
The preventive suspension we impose pending investigation is not a
SUSPEND an administratively charged judge until a final decision is
penalty but serves only as a preventive measure as we explained
reached, particularly when a serious charge is involved and a strong
above. Because it is not a penalty, ITS IMPOSITION DOES NOT
likelihood of guilt exists. This POWER IS INHERENT in the Court's
VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE PRESUMED
power of administrative supervision over all courts and their
INNOCENT. It also matters not that the offenses for which the
personnel as a measure to allow unhampered formal investigation. It
respondent had been convicted were committed in 2001 when he
is likewise A PREVENTIVE MEASURE to shield the public from any
was still the Mayor of Dapitan City.15As explained below, it is likewise
further damage that the continued exercise by the judge of the
immaterial that his criminal convictions by the Sandiganbayan are
functions of his office may cause.
still on appeal with this Court.
In the present case, we placed the respondent under preventive
Optional early retirement
suspension because he is alleged to have committed transgressions
that are classified as serious under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules
In any case, that a judge has retired or has otherwise been
of Court, which provides:
separated from the service does not necessarily divest the Court of
SEC. 8. Serious charges. - Serious charges include:
its jurisdiction to rule on complaints filed while he was still in the
service. As we held in Gallos v. Cordero:20
1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that
Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of
his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the
respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of
guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and
Judicial Conduct;
pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications x x
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as Nor does separation from office render a pending
determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding; administrative charge moot and academic.21
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; II. Administrative Liability
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt; In the present case, our task is not to determine the correctness of
the Sandiganbayan's ruling in Criminal Case Nos. 27467-68, a case
that is separately pending before us and which we shall consider
7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in
under the evidentiary rules and procedures of our criminal laws.
a case pending before the court;
In the present proceedings, our function is limited to the
8. Immorality; determination of whether substantial evidence exists to hold
the respondent administratively liable for acts he is alleged to
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; have committed while he was still the mayor of Dapitan City.
10. Partisan political activities; and In this determination, it is immaterial that the respondent was not
yet a member of the Judiciary when he allegedly committed the acts PRIVATE MORALS. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to
imputed to him; JUDGES MAY BE DISCIPLINED FOR ACTS promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
COMMITTED PRIOR TO THEIR APPOINTMENT TO THE JUDICIARY. judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. As we have
Our Rules itself recognizes this situation, as it provides for the recently explained, a judge's official life cannot simply be detached or
immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for disposition and separated from his personal existence. (emphasis ours)
adjudication of charges against justices and judges before the IBP,
including those filed prior to their appointment to the judiciary. It ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 02-9-02-SC (WHICH TOOK
need not be shown that the respondent continued to do the act or EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1, 2002) provides that an administrative
acts complained of; it is SUFFICIENT that the evidence on case against a judge of a regular court based on grounds which are
record supports the charge/s against the respondent also grounds for the disciplinary action against members of the Bar,
through proof that the respondent committed the imputed shall be considered as disciplinary proceedings against such judge as
act/s violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the applicable a member of the Bar. It also states that judgment in both
provisions of the Rules of Court.22 respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Sardido,23 the Court Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, on the other hand,
definitively ruled that: provides that a lawyer may be removed or suspended from the
The acts or omissions of a judge may well constitute at the same practice of law, among others, for conviction of a crime involving
time both a criminal act and an administrative offense. Whether moral turpitude:
the criminal case against Judge Hurtado relates to an act Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by the Supreme Court on
committed before or after he became a judge is of no what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or
moment. Neither is it material that an MTC judge will be trying an suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
RTC judge in the criminal case. A criminal case against an attorney deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
or judge is distinct and separate from an administrative case against immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
him. The dismissal of the criminal case does not warrant the moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required
dismissal of an administrative case arising from the same set of to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience
facts, x x x (emphases supplied) of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
We reiterate that ONLY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is required to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
support our conclusions in administrative either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
proceedings.24 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is that amount of relevant malpractice.
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. The STANDARD OF SUBSTANTIAL IS
SATISFIED WHEN there is reasonable ground to believe that In Bengco v. Bernardo,34 we ruled that it is not sound judicial policy
the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint
of, even if such might not be overwhelming or even against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be
preponderant.25 rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing
membership in the legal profession during the whole period that the
That the respondent committed acts constituting malversation or criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act should be two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary proceedings
adjudged in the same manner that other acts classified as serious involve no private interest and afford no redress for private
charges under Rule 140 should be weighed — through substantial grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
evidence.26 Expressed from the point of view of criminal law, welfare and to save courts of justice from persons unfit to practice
evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary law. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as
in an administrative proceeding like the present case. an officer of the court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz is

III. The Appropriate Penalty hereby DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of all
benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to
Section 11 of Rule 140, as amended, states that [i]f the respondent reemployment in the Government or any of its subdivisions,
is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be instrumentalities, or agencies including government-owned and -
imposed: controlled corporations. As a consequence of this ruling, Judge Ruiz
(a) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the is likewise declared DISBARRED and STRICKEN FROM the roll of
benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification attorneys.
from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or -controlled corporations;
(b) suspension from office without salary and other benefits 4. HEINZ R. HECK, complainant, vs.JUDGE ANTHONY E.
for more than three but not exceeding six months; or SANTOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19,
(c) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY,1respondent. A.M. No. RTJ-
P40,000.00. 01-1657 February 23, 2004
We emphasize that judges should be the embodiment of

competence, integrity, and independence, and their conduct should May a retired judge charged with notarizing documents without the
be above reproach. They must adhere to exacting standards of requisite notary commission more than twenty years ago be
morality, decency, and probity. A magistrate is judged, not only disciplined therefor?
by his official acts, but also by his private morality and
actions. Our people can only look up to him as an upright man The Procedural Issues
worthy of judging his fellow citizens' acts if he is both qualified and
proficient in law, and equipped with the morality that qualifies him
for that higher plane that standing as a judge entails. On the Applicability of Resolution A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC
In Conrado Abe Lopez v. Judge Rogelio S. Lucmayon,32 we ruled On September 17, 2002, we issued Resolution A.M. No. 02-9-02-
that: SC,13 to wit:
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge
must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his
Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals
performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his
and the Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and special courts; and
sala as a private individual. There is NO DICHOTOMY OF
the court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are
MORALITY: A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS ALSO JUDGED BY HIS
likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may
violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional refer the case for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case
other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in
recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers. Sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report shall be
conducted directly by the Supreme Court.
In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also
be considered a disciplinary action against the respondent justice, Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General or other Court designated
judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. The Investigator. Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation,
respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by the
and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report
otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment containing his findings of fact and recommendations together with
in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution. the record and all the evidence presented in the investigation for the
final action of the Supreme Court.
Before the Court approved this resolution, administrative and
disbarment cases against members of the bar who were likewise It is clear from the Rules then that a complaint for disbarment is
members of the court were treated separately. Thus, pursuant to the cognizable by the Court itself, and its indorsement to the IBP is not
new rule, administrative cases against erring justices of the mandatory. The Court may refer the complaint for investigation,
CA and the Sandiganbayan, judges, and lawyers in the report and recommendation to the Solicitor General, any officer of
government service may be automatically treated as the court or a judge of a lower court, on which the Court will
disbarment cases. The Resolution, which took effect on October 1, thereafter base its final action.15
2002, also provides that it shall supplement Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court, and shall apply to administrative cases already filed where the
Although the respondent has already retired from the judiciary, he is
respondents HAVE NOT YET BEEN REQUIRED TO COMMENT on the
still considered as a member of the bar and as such, is not immune
complaints.
to the disciplining arm of the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 616of the 1987 Constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the
Clearly, the instant case is not covered by the foregoing resolution, filing of the complaint, the respondent was still the presiding judge of
since the respondent filed his Answer/Comment on June 13, 2001. the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro City. As such,
the complaint was cognizable by the Court itself, as the Rule
mandates that in case the respondent is a justice of the Court of Tax
The Procedure To Be Followed In Disbarment Cases Involving A
Appeals or the lower court, the complaint shall be filed with the
Retired Judge For Acts Committed While He Was Still A Practicing
Supreme Court.17
Lawyer
The Substantive Issues

The undisputed facts are as follows: (1) the respondent is a retired
judge; (2) the complainant prays for his disbarment; and (3) the acts
constituting the ground for disbarment were committed when the The Retirement Or Resignation Of A Judge Will Not Preclude The
respondent was still a practicing lawyer, before his appointment to Filing Thereafter Of An Administrative Charge Against Him For Which
the judiciary. Thus, the respondent is being charged not for acts He Shall Still Be Held Answerable If Found Liable Therefor
committed as a judge; he is charged, as a member of the bar, with
notarizing documents without the requisite notarial commission
The fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated
therefor.
from the service does not necessarily divest the Court of its
jurisdiction to determine the veracity of the allegations of the
Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on Disbarment and complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary authority over members of the
Discipline of Attorneys provides: bench.
Section 1. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline However, recognizing "the proliferation of unfounded or malicious
of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by administrative or criminal cases against members of the judiciary for
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon verified complaint of purposes of harassment," we issued A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC20 which
any person. The complaint shall state clearly, and concisely the facts took effect on November 3, 2003.
complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
Thus, in order for an administrative complaint against a retiring or
documents as may substantiate said facts.
retired judge or justice to be dismissed outright, the following
REQUISITES must concur: (1) the complaint must have been filed
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by within six months from the compulsory retirement of the judge or
the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the justice; (2) the cause of action must have occurred at least a year
instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against before such filing; and, (3) it is shown that the complaint
erring attorneys including those in the government service: Provided, was intended to harass the respondent.
however, That all charges against Justices of the Court of Tax
Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with
A Judge May Be Disciplined For Acts Committed Before His
them, shall be filed with the Supreme Court: Provided, further, That
Appointment To The Judiciary
charges filed against Justices and Judges before the IBP, including
those filed prior to their appointment to the Judiciary, shall be
immediately forwarded to the Supreme Court for disposition and It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior
adjudication.14 to his appointment to the judiciary.22 In fact, even the new Rule itself
recognizes this, as it provides for the immediate forwarding to the
Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication of charges
The investigation may thereafter commence either before the
against justices and judges before the IBP, including those filed prior
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), in accordance with Sections 2
to their appointment to the judiciary.23 It need not be shown that the
to Sections 12 of Rule 139-B, or before the Supreme Court in
respondent continued the doing of the act or acts complained of; it is
accordance with Sections 13 and 14, thus:
sufficient that the evidence on record supports the charge on the
respondent, considering the gravity of the offense.
Section 13. Supreme Court Investigators. - In proceedings
initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings
Indeed, there is jurisprudence to the effect that the act complained administrative culpability of a lawyer who notarizes documents
of must be continuing in order for the respondent judge to be without the requisite authority therefor.
disciplined therefor. In Sevilla v. Salubre,24 the respondent judge was
charged with violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
At Most, The Delay In The Institution Of The Administrative Case
Responsibility, for acts committed while he was still a practicing
Would Merely Mitigate The Respondent’s Liability
lawyer. The respondent therein refused to turn over the funds of his
client despite demands, and persisted in his refusal even after he
was appointed as a judge. However, the Court also stated in this Time and again, we have stressed the settled principle that the
case that the respondent’s subsequent appointment as a judge will practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on
not exculpate him from taking responsibility for the consequences of those who show that they possess the qualifications required by law
his acts as an officer of the court.25 for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality,
honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of
Notarizing Documents Without The Requisite Commission Therefore
the bar.52 By his actuations, the respondent failed to live up to such
Constitutes Malpractice, If Not The Crime Of Falsification Of Public
standards;53 he undermined the confidence of the public on notarial
Documents
documents and thereby breached Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the
The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
without the requisite commission therefore as "reprehensible, law and legal processes. The respondent also violated Rule 1.01
constituting as it does not only malpractice, but also the crime of thereof which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
falsification of public documents."34 For such reprehensible conduct, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.54 In representing that he
the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the was possessed of the requisite notarial commission when he was, in
practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission and fact, not so authorized, the respondent also violated Rule 10.01 of
disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.35 the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer that
he shall do no falsehood.
In the case of Nunga v. Viray,36 the Court had the occasion to state -
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases
of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the
lawyer as an officer of the court. While we will not hesitate to
Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission
remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of
to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For
lawyers where the evidence calls for it, we will likewise not disbar
one, performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a
him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired
violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the
end.55 Furthermore, a tempering of justice is mandated in this case,
Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
considering that the complaint against the respondent was filed
commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and
twenty-four years after the commission of the act complained
purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath
of;56 that there was no private offended party who came forward and
similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the
claimed to have been adversely affected by the documents so
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
notarized by the respondent; and, the fact that the respondent is a
Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in
retired judge who deserves to enjoy the full measure of his well-
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."37
earned retirement benefits.57 The Court finds that a fine of P5,000.00
is justified in this case.
An Administrative Complaint Against A Member Of The Bar Does Not
Prescribe
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos is found
GUILTY of notarizing documents without the requisite notarial
The qualification of good moral character is a requirement commission therefor. He is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine in the
which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
of the bar. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is
5. A.M. No. P-97-1247 May 14, 1997
essential to maintain one’s good standing in the profession. It is a
(Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I.1 No. 95-71-P) NARITA
continuing requirement to the practice of law and therefore does not
RABE, complainant, vs. DELSA M. FLORES,
preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into
Interpreter III, RTC, Branch IV, Panabo,
any question concerning one’s mental or moral fitness before he
Davao, respondent.
became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely
creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the qualifications to
become a lawyer.44 The rule is settled that a lawyer may be It is well to stress once again the constitutional declaration that a
suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his "(p)ublic office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and
moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but justice, and lead modest lives." 12
also a continuing requirement to the practice of law.45
We have repeatedly held that although every office in the
Furthermore, administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater
of their own, distinct from and may proceed independently of civil demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual
and criminal cases.46 than in the judiciary. Personnel in the judiciary should conduct
themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and
suspicion, and free from any appearance of impropriety in their
Pursuant to the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion than
personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties
that an administrative complaint against an erring lawyer who was
but also in their everyday life. They are strictly mandated to maintain
thereafter appointed as a judge, albeit filed only after twenty-four
good moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable
years after the offending act was committed, is not barred by
behavior so as not to outrage public decency. 13
prescription. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of
the commission of the act complained of and the time of the
institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar 6. G.R. No. 74930 February 13, 1989 RICARDO
cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. Thus, even the lapse VALMONTE, et al. vs . FELICIANO BELMONTE,
of considerable time, from the commission of the offending act to the JR., respondent.
institution of the administrative complaint, will not erase the
The pertinent provision under the 1987 Constitution is Art. 111, Sec. information and to privacy may arise. However, the competing
7 which states: interests of these rights need not be resolved in this case. Apparent
from the above-quoted statement of the Court in Morfe is that the
right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
not to public and governmental agencies like the GSIS. Moreover,
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents,
the right cannot be invoked by juridical entities like the GSIS. As held
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
in the case of Vassar College v. Loose Wills Biscuit Co. [197 F. 982
well as to government research data used as basis for policy
(1912)], a corporation has no right of privacy in its name since the
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations
entire basis of the right to privacy is an injury to the feelings and
as may be provided by law.
sensibilities of the party and a corporation would have no such
ground for relief.
The right of access to information was also recognized in the 1973
Constitution, Art. IV Sec. 6 of which provided:
Neither can the GSIS through its General Manager, the respondent,
invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers. The right is purely
The right of the people to information on 'matters of public concern personal in nature [Cf. Atkinson v. John Doherty & Co., 121 Mich
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and 372, 80 N.W. 285, 46 L.RA. 219 (1899); Schuyler v. Curtis, 147 N.Y.
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be 434, 42 N.E. 22, 31 L.R.A. 286 (1895)), and hence may be invoked
afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be violated.
law.
It may be observed, however, that in the instant case, the concerned
The right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right borrowers themselves may not succeed if they choose to invoke their
to speech and expression. But this is not to say that the right to right to privacy, considering the public offices they were holding at
information is merely an adjunct of and therefore restricted in the time the loans were alleged to have been granted. It cannot be
application by the exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the denied that because of the interest they generate and their
press. Far from it. The right to information goes hand-in-hand with newsworthiness, public figures, most especially those holding
the constitutional policies of full public disclosure * and honesty in responsible positions in government, enjoy a more limited right to
the public service. ** It is meant to enhance the widening role of privacy as compared to ordinary individuals, their actions being
the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking subject to closer public scrutiny [Cf.Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v.
abuse in government. Capulong, G.R. Nos. 82380 and 82398, April 29, 1988; See
also Cohen v. Marx, 211 P. 2d 321 (1949).]
Yet, like all the constitutional guarantees, THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION IS NOT ABSOLUTE. As stated in Legaspi, the In fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the documents
people's right to information is limited to "matters of public evidencing loans granted by the GSIS, subject to reasonable
concern," and is further "subject to such limitations as may regulations that the latter may promulgate relating to the manner
be provided by law." Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure and hours of examination, to the end that damage to or loss of the
is LIMITED TO "TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC records may be avoided, that undue interference with the duties of
INTEREST," AND IS "SUBJECT TO REASONABLE the custodian of the records may be prevented and that the right of
CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW." other persons entitled to inspect the records may be insured [Legaspi
v. Civil Service Commission, supra at p. 538, quoting Subido v.
Hence, before mandamus may issue, it must be clear that the Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387.] The petition, as to the second and third
information sought is of "public interest" or "public concern," and is alternative acts sought to be done by petitioners, is meritorious.
not exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional
guarantee [Legazpi v. Civil Service Commission, supra, at p. 542.] However, the same cannot be said with regard to the first act sought
by petitioners, i.e., "to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the
The Court has always grappled with the meanings of the terms Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-
"public interest" and "public concern". Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately before the
February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then
First Lady Imelda Marcos."
Whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates
to or affects the public.
Although citizens are afforded the right to information and, pursuant
thereto, are entitled to "access to official records," the Constitution
The information sought by petitioners in this case is the truth of does not accord them a right to compel custodians of official records
reports that certain Members of the Batasang Pambansa belonging to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to
to the opposition were able to secure "clean" loans from the GSIS acquire information on matters of public concern.
immediately before the February 7, 1986 election through the
intercession of th eformer First Lady, Mrs. Imelda Marcos.
7. A.M. No. RTJ-01-1655 July 8, 2004
(Formerly OCA IPI 91-1174- RTJ) ATTY. GRACE M.
The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government and its VELOSO AND MA. JOEYLYNN B.
employees and the administrator of various insurance programs for QUIÑONES, complainants, vs. JUDGE ANACLETO M.
the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds assume a public CAMINADE, RTC, Branch 6, Cebu City, respondent.
character
Those who serve in the judiciary, particularly justices and judges,
In sum, the public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the must not only know the law but must also possess the highest
public office held by the alleged borrowers make the information degree of integrity and probity, and an unquestionable moral
sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern. uprightness both in their public and private lives.2
A second requisite must be met before the right to information may We have repeatedly held that, while every office in the government
be enforced through mandamus proceedings, viz., that the service is a public trust, no position exacts greater moral
information sought must NOT BE AMONG THOSE EXCLUDED BY righteousness than a seat in the judiciary.3 Performing as he does an
LAW. exalted role in the administration of justice, a judge must pay a high
price for the honor bestowed upon him. Thus, a judge must comport
When the information requested from the government intrudes into himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or
the privacy of a citizen, a potential conflict between the rights to
otherwise, can weather the most exacting scrutiny of the public that 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.4 more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

Canons 35 and 46 of the new Code of Judicial Conduct mandate,
respectively, that "judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct
WHEREFORE, Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial
above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of the
Court in Cities, Cebu City, Branch IV, is found GUILTY of gross
reasonable observer" and that "judges shall avoid improprieties and
misconduct and is SUSPENDEDfrom office for six (6) months
the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities." These very
without salary and other benefits and STERNLY WARNED that a
stringent standards of decorum are demanded of all magistrates and
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
employees of the courts.
severely.
Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, considers a

violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a serious offense. A
9. A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886ANONYMOUS
respondent found guilty of a serious charge may be meted the
COMPLAINT, Complainant vs.PRESIDING JUDGE
penalty of: (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of
EXEQUIL L. DAGALA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
COURT, DAPASOCORRO, DAP A, SURIGAO DEL
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
NORTE, Respondent
government-owned or controlled corporations, provided, that the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
(2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for Section 1 of Rule 140 states that proceedings for the discipline of
more than three but not exceeding six months; or (3) a fine of more judges and justices of lower courts may be instituted in three ways:
than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000. by the Supreme Court motu proprio, through a verified complaint,
and through an anonymous complaint. A verified complaint must be
supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of
WHEREFORE, respondent judge is found guilty of violating Canons
the facts alleged or by documents which may substantiate the
3 and 4 of the new Code of Judicial Conduct by committing sexual
allegations. An anonymous complaint, on the other hand, should be
harassment and is hereby SUSPENDED from office for a period of
supported by public records of indubitable integrity.25
six months without pay effective immediately, with the warning that
a repetition of the same offense shall be punished with dismissal
from the service. While anonymous complaints should always be treated with
great caution, the anonymity of the complaint does not, in
itself, justify its outright dismissal.26 The Court will act on an
8. TRINIDAD O. LACHICA, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1609 v. JUDGE
anonymous complaint –
ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
In the Judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a x x x provided its allegations can be reliably verified and
necessity.[14] Respondent must bear in mind that the exacting properly substantiated by competent evidence, like public
standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to records of indubitable integrity, "thus needing no corroboration by
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the evidence to be offered by the complainant, whose identity and
judiciary.[15] When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the integrity could hardly be material where the matter involved is of
law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, public interest," or the declarations by the respondents themselves in
encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in reaction to the allegations, where such declarations are, properly
the integrity of the judiciary itself.[16] speaking, admissions worthy of consideration for not being self-
serving.27 (Citations omitted.)
Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct of a person concerned
in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or
Since a disciplinary case is an administrative proceeding, technical
to the right determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful,
rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and
improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated,
administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process
obstinate or intentional purpose.[17] To justify the taking of drastic
in its strict judicial sense.28Administrative due process essentially
disciplinary action, as is what is sought by complainant in this case,
means "an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to
the law requires that the error or mistake must be gross or patent,
seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."29 When
malicious, deliberate or in bad faith.[18]
the Court acts motu proprio, this opportunity arises through the filing
of a comment upon order of the Court.1âwphi1 In a case where the
It need not be overemphasized that in receiving the cash bond
proceedings are initiated by a complaint, the Rules of Court state
respondent judge ran afoul with Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal
that the complaint must state the acts or omissions constituting a
Procedure.
violation of our ethical rules. To our mind, this is the standard of
what suffices as information as to the allegations against a
A judge is not one of those authorized to receive
respondent. It is sufficient that the acts or omissions complained of
the deposit of cash as bail, nor should such cash be
are clearly identified.
kept in the office of the judge.
Gross misconduct under Section 8(3), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules In light of these findings, we concur with the OCA's conclusion that
of Court, as amended, is classified as a serious offense punishable by Judge Dagala is guilty of gross misconduct. Misconduct has been
any of the sanctions enumerated in Section 11 of the same Rule defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate
which provides that: violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially
by a government official. Misconduct is considered grave
SEC. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is guilty of a where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the
serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be law, or flagrant disregard of established rules are present.36
imposed:
We also agree with the OCA's findings that Judge Dagala is guilty of
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits immorality.
as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, We have repeatedly said that members of the Judiciary are
that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave commanded by law to exhibit the highest degree of moral certitude
credits; and is bound by the highest standards of honesty and
integrity.43 In Regir v. Regir,44 we held:
It is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain Judges, from the lowest to the highest levels are the gems in the
intimate relations with a person other than his or her spouse. vast government bureaucracy, beacon lights looked upon as the
Moreover, immorality is not based alone on illicit sexual intercourse. embodiments of all that is right, just and proper, the ultimate
It is not confined to sexual matters, but includes conducts weapons against injustice and oppression. The Judiciary
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, hemorrhages every time a Judge himself transgresses the very law
depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless he is sworn to uphold and defend at all costs. This should not come
conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable to pass.
members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward
good order and public welfare.45 Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot was DISMISSED from the service for gross
misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interests of the
service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice
Immorality is a recognized ground for the discipline of
to re-employment in any branch of the government, including
judges and justices under the Rules of Court.46 The New Canon
government-owned and controlled corporations, except the money
of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to
value of accrued earned leave credits.he was ORDERED to cease and
avoid "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their
desist immediately from rendering any order or decision; or from
activities."47
continuing any proceedings, in any case whatsoever, effective upon
receipt of a copy of this Decision. Lastly, he was REQUIRED to SHOW
In Castillo v. Calanog, Jr.48 (Castillo), we laid down the DOCTRINE CAUSE why he should not be disbarred as a member of the
OF NO DICHOTOMY OF MORALITY. We explained why judges as Philippine Bar.
public officials are also judged by their private morals:
11. Aa REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Complainant,
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge vs. JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA, Respondent.
must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his
performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his FIRST CASE: Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and it is of
sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of public interest that the collection of which should not be restrained.
morality: a public official is also judged by his private The improper issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was
morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public aggravated by the inadequate injunctive bond.
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must
behave with propriety at all times. As we have very recently To make matters worse, respondent judge failed to observe the
explained, a judge's official life [cannot] simply be detached or constitutionally-guaranteed right of the Republic to due process.
separated from his personal existence. Thus: Records show that the Office of the Solicitor General was not served
copies of the motions for intervention. Thus, respondent judge
should not have acted upon such motions without the necessary
The Court has consistently held that absence of criminal liability proof of service on all parties, much less, proceeded with their
does not preclude disciplinary action.54 As in the case of hearing ex parte, to the prejudice of the Republic and other
disciplinary action of lawyers, acquittal of criminal charges is not a respondents. The investigating justice stressed that respondent
bar to ·administrative proceedings. In Pangan v. Ramos,55 we held judge disregarded the right of the Republic to due process, not only
that "[t]he standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by once, but five times in all the motions for intervention filed by the
conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal intervenors-corporations.
law. Moreover, this Court in disbarment proceedings is acting in an
entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in trying SECOND CASE: Respondent judge again issued a Writ of
criminal cases."56 Preliminary Injunction that did not satisfy the legal requisites for its
issuance, and which was enforced outside his territorial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Exequil L. Dagala is The applicant, in this case, questions his reassignment as District
hereby found GUILTY of IMMORALITY and GROSS Collector of the Port of Subic to the Port of Cagayan de Oro. We
MISCONDUCT. Accordingly, he is DISMISSED from the service uphold the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the applicant failed to
with FORFEITURE of his retirement and other benefits except establish that he has a clear and unmistakable right that was violated
accrued leave credits, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from so as to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. He could
re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, not claim a vested right to his position in the Port of Subic. A public
including any government-owned and controlled corporation or office is not a private property.
government financial institution.
Further, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued to enjoin acts
performed outside the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge. It
10. A.M. No. RTJ-06-1982 December 14, 2007 was directed against government officials whose offices in Manila are
(Formerly A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC) SHERLITA O. outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of
TAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Olongapo City.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog
City, respondent. FIRST AND SECOND CASES: We find respondent judge guilty of
gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best
Mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. interest of the service.
A mere denial, like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence, which
cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration Ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice. Judges are called
of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
a categorical testimony that rings the truth on one hand, and bare and procedural rules. Basic rules should be at the palm of their
denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. hands. Their inexcusable failure to observe basic laws and rules will
render them administratively liable. Where the law involved is simple
As held in People vs. Espino delay in the commission of rape is not and elementary, lack of conversance with it constitutes gross
an indication of fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never ignorance of the law. "Verily, for transgressing the elementary
complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to jurisdictional limits of his court, respondent should be
silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame administratively liable for gross ignorance of the
to the world or risk the offender’s making good on his threats. This is law."
understandable, considering the inbred modesty of Filipinas and their
aversion to the public disclosure of matters affecting their honor. "When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and
elemental a rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his
All those who don the judicial robe must always instill in their minds functions, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the
the exhortation that [T]he administration of justice is a mission. position and title he holds or he is too vicious that the oversight or

omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of that "(t)he purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the
judicial innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution and to
authority." protect him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the
trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the
Respondent Ramon S. Caguioa, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial state from useless and expensive trials (Joint Resolution, October 17,
Court of Olongapo City, Branch 74 is found GUILTY of gross 2005, Rollo pp. 142-143).
ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, and is hereby ordered DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE
Moreover, petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of regularity in
with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except leave credits.
the performance of the official duties of respondents by affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption
prevails and becomes conclusive until it is overcome by no less than
THIRD CASE: Respondent judge issued a Writ of Execution without
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Every reasonable
basis. The Writ ordered respondent sheriff to place private
intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case
respondents in possession of the disputed property, even when no
of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful, construction
adjudication of even possessory rights over the subject property was
should be in favor of its lawfulness (Bustillo vs. People of the
made.
Philippines, G.R. No. 160718, May 12, 2010).
Respondent judge did not adjudicate any rights of the parties and
resolved no other matter except the dismissal of the case on the Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions brought against any
ground of "prescription." Thus, the order to place private judge in relation to the performance of his official functions are
respondents in possession of the disputed property is not necessarily neither complementary to nor suppletory of appropriate judicial
included in or necessary to the judgment of dismissal of the case on remedies, nor a substitute for such remedies.21 Any party who may
the ground of "prescription." feel aggrieved should resort to these remedies, and exhaust them,
instead of resorting to disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions.
Respondent Ramon S. Caguioa, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial We explained why in In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo:22
Court of Olongapo City, Branch 74 is found GUILTY of simple
misconduct, and is hereby ordered SUSPENDED from office without Given the nature of the judicial function, the power vested by the
pay, for a period of THREE MONTHS. Constitution in the Supreme Court and the lower courts established
by law, the question submits to only one answer: the administrative
12. A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J January 31, or criminal remedies are neither alternative or cumulative to judicial
2012 RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. OSCAR review where such review is available, and must wait on the result
L. ONGJOCO, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD/CEO OF thereof.
FH-GYMN MULTI-PURPOSE AND TRANSPORT
SERVICE COOPERATIVE, AGAINST HON. JUAN Q. In this regard, we reiterate that a judge’s failure to correctly interpret
ENRIQUEZ, JR., HON. RAMON M. BATO, JR. AND the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not
HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE necessarily incur administrative liability,23 for to hold him
JUSTICES, COURT OF APPEALS administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision
he renders, assuming he has erred, will be nothing short of
Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides as follows: harassment and will make his position doubly unbearable. His judicial
office will then be rendered untenable, because no one called upon
to try the facts or to interpret the law in the process of administering
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without
justice can be infallible in his judgment.24Administrative sanction
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
and criminal liability should be visited on him only when the
which it is based.
error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or is committed
with evident bad faith,25 or only in clear cases of violations
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision by him of the standards and norms of propriety and good
of the court shall be refused due course or denied without behavior prescribed by law and the rules of procedure, or
starting the legal basis therefor. fixed and defined by pertinent jurisprudence.26
The essential purpose of the constitutional provision is to require that 13. A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J FEBRUARY
a judicial decision be clear on why a party has prevailed under the 19, 2013 ETHELWOLDO E. FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO
law as applied to the facts as proved; the provision nowhere A. HENSON and ANGEL S. ONG, Complainants, vs.
demands that a point-by-point consideration and resolution of the COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RAMON
issues raised by the parties are necessary.12 M. BATO, JR., ISAIAS P. DICDICAN and EDUARDO
B. PERALTA, JR., Respondents.
This constitutional provision deals with the disposition of petitions
for review and of motions for reconsideration. In appellate courts, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for
the rule does not require any comprehensive statement of facts or the discipline of Justices of the CA and the Sandiganbayan
mention of the applicable law, but merely a statement of the "legal and Judges of regular and special courts.
basis" for denying due course.
Under Rule 140,17 there are three ways by which administrative
Thus, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional proceedings may be instituted against justices of the CA and the
requirement when a collegiate appellate court, after deliberation, Sandiganbayan and judges of regular and special courts: (1) motu
decides to deny a motion; states that the questions raised are factual proprio by the Supreme Court; (2) upon verified complaint (as in this
or have already been passed upon; or cites some other legal basis. complaint) with affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of
There is no need to explain fully the court’s denial, since the facts the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate
and the law have already been laid out in the assailed Decision. said allegations; or (3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by
(Emphasis supplied) public records of indubitable integrity.18
Time and again, it has been held, no less than by the Supreme In this verified administrative complaint, the essential facts
Court, that mere suspicions and speculations can never be the basis comprising the conduct of the respondent Justices of the CA
of conviction in a criminal case. Guided by the same doctrinal rule, complained of are not disputed, and are verifiable from the copies of
this Office is not duty-bound to proceed with the indictment of the orders and pleadings attached to the complaint and to the comments
public respondents as charged. Indeed well entrenched is the rule of the respondent Justices. There is, thus, no need to assign the
matter to a retired member of the Supreme Court for evaluation, the writ was erroneous, as a matter of public policy a magistrate
report, and recommendation. cannot be held administratively liable for every discretionary but
erroneous order he issues.40 The settled rule is that "a Judge cannot
be held to account civilly, criminally or administratively for an
The pertinent provisions of the 2009 IRCA relevant to the instant
erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith."41 The case
administrative complaint are Sections 2(d), 4 and 5 of Rule VI,
of Cortes v. Sandiganbayan42 is instructive. We quote:
quoted below as follows:
It must be stressed that as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in

Sec. 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases.― 
his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot
be subjected to liability — civil, criminal or administrative — for any
xxxx of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in
good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross
(d) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of the ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be
following proceedings has been taken, namely: (i) giving due course; administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render
(ii) granting temporary restraining order, writ of preliminary judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or
injunction, or new trial; (iii) granting an application for writ of habeas interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be
corpus, amparo, or habeas data; (iv) granting an application for a infallible in his judgment.
freeze order; and (v) granting judicial authorization under the Human
Security Act of 2007, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom It is also worth mentioning that the provisions of Article 204 of the
the case is assigned and the Justices who participated therein, Revised Penal Code as to "rendering knowingly unjust judgment"
regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station. x x refer to an individual judge who does so "in any case submitted to
x. him for decision" and has no application to the members of a
collegiate court such as the Sandiganbayan or its divisions, who
Sec. 4. Hearing on Preliminary Injunction.―The requirement of a reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their
hearing on an application for preliminary injunction is satisfied with collective judgment after due deliberation. It also follows,
the issuance by the Court of a resolution served upon the party consequently, that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
sought to be enjoined requiring him to comment on said application Practices Act on the ground that such a collective decision is "unjust"
within a period of not more than ten (10) days from notice. Said cannot prosper.
party may attach to his comment documents which may show why
the application for preliminary injunction should be denied. The Court The remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative
may require the party seeking the injunctive relief to file his reply to complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed decision or
the comment within five (5) days from receipt of the latter. order to the higher court for review and correction. An administrative
complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still
If the party sought to be enjoined fails to file his comment as available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a
provided for in the preceding paragraph, the Court may resolve the petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted
application on the basis of the petition and its annexes. with fraud, malice, or dishonesty. x x x.43(Citations omitted)
The preceding paragraphs notwithstanding, the Court may, in its It was also emphasized in the above case that as an established rule,
sound discretion, set the application for a preliminary injunction for an administrative, civil or criminal action against a judge cannot be a
hearing during which the parties may present their respective substitute for an appea1.44
positions or submit evidence in support thereof.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201- CA-J
Sec. 5. Action by a Justice.―All members of the Division shall act is hereby DISMISSED.
upon an application for temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction. However, if the matter is of extreme urgency and a 14. A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667 April 10,
Justice is absent, the two other Justices shall act upon the 2012OFFICE OF THE COURT
application. If only the ponente is present, then he/she shall act ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
alone upon the application. The action of the two Justices or of vs.JUDGE JAMES V. GO and Clerk of Court MA.
the ponente shall, however, be submitted on the next working day to ELMER M. ROSALES, Municipal Trial Court in Cities
the absent member or members of the Division for ratification, (MTCC), Branch 2, Butuan City, Respondents.
modification or recall.
Resolutions of this Court should not be treated lightly. As a judge,
Justice Bato, sitting as acting senior member of the Special respondent must be the first to exhibit respect for authority.20
14th Division of the CA, had authority to act on the urgent
motions to resolve the petitioners’ application for writ of
Judges should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals
preliminary injunction.
much more so this Court from which all other courts should take
their bearings. A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be
Section 4, Rule VI of the 2009 IRCA provides that the construed as a mere request and should not be complied with
requirement of a hearing for preliminary injunction is partially, inadequately or selectively.
satisfied with the issuance of a resolution requiring the party
sought to be enjoined to comment on the application within
In Guerrero v. Judge Deray,22 the Court held that a judge "who
10 days from notice.
deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the
resolution of [the Supreme] Court is guilty of gross misconduct and
The members of the Special 14th Division acted collectively insubordination." This ruling was reiterated in Dela Cruz v.
and in good faith and their Resolution granting a writ of Vallarta23 and Visbal v. Tormis.24 Also in Guerrero, this Court held that
preliminary injunction in the consolidated CA petitions "indifference or defiance to the Court’s orders or resolutions may be
enjoys a presumption of regularity. punished with dismissal, suspension or fine as warranted by the
circumstances."25
Having established that the herein complainants have no personality
to assail the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CA’s former 15. G.R. No. 179914 June 16, 2014 SPOUSES
Special 14th Division, we cannot now permit them to harass the CA REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON, Petitioners,
Justices who issued the same. For even granting that the issuance of
JUDICIARY SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINARY CASES | 10

vs. ATTY. REY FERDINAND GARAY AND PHILIPPINE in the custody of the law. The fact that the respondent Judge already
NATIONAL BANK, Respondents. granted bail when the accused has not been arrested yet compounds
the aggravation.10
Records show that spouses Sombilon failed to comply with the three-
day notice rule and the required proof of service embodied in We likewise agree with the finding of the Executive Judge that the
Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, thereby respondent’s CLAIM OF GOOD FAITH WILL NOT EXONERATE
rendering the motion fatally defective. Despite this, Judge Venadas, HIM FROM ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY.
Sr. still took cognizance of the motion filed by spouses Sombilon,
depriving PNB and Atty. Garay of their right to due process.
The respondent Judge also argues in his Position Paper submitted to
the undersigned Executive Judge that there is absolutely no evidence
Blatant disregard of basic, elementary, and well-known rules of to show that he was motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or
procedure and law is gross ignorance of the law,83which is classified corruption in granting bail. As such, he argues that his act which was
as a serious charge under Rule 140, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, done in his official capacity is not subject to disciplinary action.
as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, punishable by either dismissal
from service, suspension for more than three months but not
Unfortunately for the respondent Judge, it is already settled that
exceeding six months, or a fine of more than ₱20,000.00 but not
when a judge grants bail to a person charged with a capital
exceeding ₱40,000.00.84
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment without conducting the required [bail]
In Administrative Matter No. RTJ-06-2000, Judge Rolando S. hearing, he is considered guilty of ignorance or
Venadas, Sr. of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, incompetence the gravity of which cannot be excused by a
Bukidnon, Branch 8, is hereby found guilty of grave abuse of claim of good faith or excusable negligence. …12
authority bordering on gross ignorance of the law and is ordered to
pay a FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱20,000.00) to be
A judge owes it to himself and his office to know by heart basic legal
deducted from the withheld amount of ₱100,000.00 from his
principles and to harness his legal know-how correctly and justly –
retirement benefits pursuant to the April 18, 2007 Resolution in A.M.
anything less than that is constitutive of the serious charge of gross
No. 12600-Ret.
ignorance of the law, perhaps, grave misconduct.16 In Celestina B.
Corpuz vs. Judge Orlando F. Siapno,17 we had the occasion to state,
16. A.M. MTJ No. 04-1526 February 2, 2004 thus:
JOCELYN V. GRAGEDA, complainant vs. JUDGE NIETO
T. TRESVALLES,* Municipal Trial Court, Virac,
When a judge displays an utter unfamiliarity with the law and the
Catanduanes, respondent.
rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A judge
owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law and
We agree that the respondent judge is administratively liable for is expected to keep abreast of laws and the prevailing jurisprudence.
granting bail to an accused charged with murder without conducting Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of
the requisite bail hearing. injustice.18
The importance of a hearing in applications for bail should once more While the Executive Judge agreed that the respondent should be
be emphasized. Section 8, Rule 114 provides as follows: held administratively liable, it was recommended that he be merely
reprimanded, as "a balancing of the equities involved should tilt the
scales in favor of the respondent for his loyalty, diligence and
Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. - At the hearing of an
reliability." Thus:
application for bail filed by a person who is in custody for the
commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that 17. A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255 January 17, 2011
the evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3335-RTJ) SPOUSES
bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial DEMOCRITO AND OLIVIA LAGO, Complainants,
but, upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for vs. JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., REGIONAL
additional examination unless the latter is dead, or otherwise, unable TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, GINGOOG
to testify. CITY, Respondent.
The importance of the Rule lies on the fact that on the result of the When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a
bail hearing depends the right of an accused to provisional liberty temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or any
vis-à-vis the duty of the State to protect the people against initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be
dangerous elements. The resolution of the issue affects important raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party
norms in our society: liberty on one hand, and order on the other. To or the person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be
minimize, if not eliminate, error and arbitrariness in a judge’s preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied by service of
decision, the Rules require the judge to hear the parties and then summons, together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory
make an intelligent assessment of their evidence.9 pleading and the applicant’s affidavit and bond, upon the adverse
party in the Philippines.
The respondent’s argument that a hearing is "only necessary if there
is an application for admission to bail" is erroneous. As found by the However, where the summons could not be served personally or by
Executive Judge: substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a
resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a
nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous
…[T]he fact that the accused has not even filed yet any application
service of summons shall not apply.
for bail at the time bail was fixed on December 5, 2000 aggravates
matters. To state the obvious, there was no occasion for the
respondent Judge to exercise any discretion on the matter of bail at (d) The application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter
that point in time as the accused was not asking to be released on be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing
temporary liberty. The respondent Judge should have followed the which shall be conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the
straight and trodden path, well-traveled by members of the bench, sheriff’s return of service and/or the records are received by the
that bail should not be allowed in cases of murder. It might also be branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall be
worth mentioning, in passing, that the right to bail may be waived transmitted immediately.
considering its personal nature. It arises from the time one is placed
Culled from the foregoing provisions, particularly with respect to the parameters of tolerable misjudgment. When the law or the rule is so
second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, as elementary, not to be aware of it or to act as if one does not know it
amended, it is clear that, on the matter of the issuance of an ex constitutes gross ignorance of the law. One who accepts the exalted
parte 72-hour TRO, an executive judge of a multiple-sala court position of a judge owes the public and the court proficiency in the
(applicable to respondent judge), or the presiding judge of a single- law, and the duty to maintain professional competence at all times.
sala court, is empowered to issue the same in matters of extreme When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he
emergency, in order to prevent grave injustice and irreparable injury erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A judge is expected
to the applicant. However, it is also an unequivocal provision that, to keep abreast of the developments and amendments thereto, as
after the issuance of the 72-hour TRO, the executive judge of a well as of prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge
multiple-sala court is bound to comply with Section 4(c) of the same can easily be the mainspring of injustice.15
rule with respect to the service of summons and the documents to
be served therewith.
In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a
judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.
The records of this case clearly show that respondent judge failed to However, the assailed judicial acts must not be in gross violation of
cause the raffle of Civil Case No. 2009-905, since RTC, Gingoog City, clearly established law or procedure, which every judge must be
is a multiple-sala court, or to cause the notification and service of familiar with. Every magistrate presiding over a court of law must
summons to complainants after he issued the 72-hour TRO. have the basic rules at the palm of his hands and maintain
Respondent judge’s July 7, 2009 Order was explicit when the civil professional competence at all times.16
case was set for summary hearing on July 14, 2009, purportedly to
determine whether or not the TRO issued could be extended for
18. A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255 February 8, 2012
another period. Thus, it is manifest that respondent judge had
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3335-RTJ) SPOUSES
directly assumed jurisdiction over the civil action and all together
DEMOCRITO and OLIVIA LAGO, Complainants,
disregarded the mandatory requirements of Section 4(c), Rule 58,
vs. JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., Regional Trial
relative to the raffle in the presence of the parties, and service of
Court, Branch 43, Gingoog City, Respondent.
summons. This is gross error.
RESOLUTION
Even assuming that there was a valid raffle to RTC, Branch 43,
Gingoog City, where respondent judge acts as the presiding
magistrate, the supposed extreme urgency of the issuance of the 72- It is a settled doctrine that judges are not administratively
hour TRO was belied by his setting of the required summary hearing responsible for what they may do in the exercise of their judicial
for the determination of the necessity of extending the 72-hour TRO functions when acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction.6 Not
to 20 days, one week after the issuance thereof. Indeed, Section 5, every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of
Rule 58 is explicit that such summary hearing must be conducted his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad
within the said 72-hour period. faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice.7 To hold otherwise
would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon
to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering
What is more appalling is that respondent judge extended the 72-
justice can be infallible in his judgment.8
hour TRO, which had already and obviously expired, into a full 20-
day TRO. An already expired TRO can no longer be extended.
Beyond such time, the TRO automatically expires, unless, To constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the
before the expiration of the said period, he, supposedly in subject decision, order or actuation of the respondent judge in the
his capacity as presiding judge to whom the case was performance of his official duties is contrary to existing law and
raffled, conducted the required summary hearing in order to jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith,
extend the TRO’s lifetime. fraud, dishonesty or corruption.9
Again, Rule 58, as amended, mandates a full and comprehensive In this case, complainants failed to show that Judge Abul was
hearing for the determination of the propriety of the issuance of a motivated by bad faith, ill will or malicious motive when he granted
writ of preliminary injunction, separate from the summary hearing the TRO and preliminary injunction. Complainants did not adduce
for the extension of the 72-hour TRO. The preliminary injunction any proof to show that impropriety and bias attended the actions of
prayed for by the applicant can only be heard after the trial court has the respondent judge.
ordered the issuance of the usual 20-day TRO. Within that period of
20 days, the court shall order the party sought to be enjoined to 19. A.M. No. CA-04-38. March 31, 2004 FRANCISCO
show cause at a specified time and place why the injunction should GALMAN CRUZ, appellee, vs. JUSTICE PORTIA
not be granted. During that same period, the court shall also ALIÑO-HORMACHUELOS, JUDGE VICTORIA
determine the propriety of granting the preliminary injunction and FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, JUDGE CAESAR A.
then issue the corresponding order to that effect. In the case of CASANOVA, JUDGE RENATO C. FRANCISCO, JUDGE
respondent judge, he gravely failed to comply with what the rule MANUEL D. J. SYCIANGCO and JUDGE ESTER R.
requires, i.e., to give complainants the opportunity to comment or CHUA-YU, appellants.
object, through a full-blown hearing, to the writ of injunction prayed
for. Instead, respondent judge railroaded the entire process by
treating the summary hearing for the extension of the TRO as the The Court has consistently held that judges will not be held
very same hearing required for the issuance of the writ of administratively liable for mere errors of judgment in their rulings or
preliminary injunction.1avvphi1 decisions absent a showing of malice or gross ignorance on their
part. Bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the
judgment is adverse to a party. To hold a judge administratively
Verily, the absence of the hearing required by the Rules of Court is accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders,
downright reprehensible and, thus, should not be countenanced. The assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment
requirement of a hearing is so fundamental that failure to comply and would make his position unbearable.20 Much less can a judge be
with it not only amounts to gross ignorance of rules and procedure, so held accountable where to all indications, as in this case, the
but also to an outright denial of due process to the party denied such judgment complained of is far from erroneous. The judgment in the
a hearing. Undoubtedly, the acts and omissions of respondent judge ejectment case has gone through all the levels of review, it is high
warrant sanction from this Court. time that any doubts on the validity of the decision be laid to rest.
Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law or of Furthermore, there is no cogent reason to delve into the allegations
the rules, and that, when committed in good faith, does not warrant of connivance, fraud and deception between Governor Pagdanganan
administrative sanction, the rule applies only in cases within the and the judges of Bulacan as they are not sustained by an iota of
evidence but are only based on the unfounded perception of in appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction or
complainant. Familiarity between Governor Pagdanganan and the application of procedural or substantive law or legal principle) include
judges of Bulacan is insufficient proof, as connivance or conspiracy a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of judgment or final
transcends companionship. This Court can not give credence to order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary
charges based on mere suspicion or speculation.21 It is well settled remedies against error or irregularities which may be deemed
that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden extraordinary in character (i.e., whimsical, capricious, despotic
of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are, inter alia, the special
complaint.22 In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is civil action of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for
the presumption that the respondents have regularly performed their inhibition, a petition for change of venue, as the case may be.
official duties,23 as in this case.
Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary
Complainant may strongly disagree with the decisions of the proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not
respondents but unsubstantiated allegations of grave misconduct and complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial
gross ignorance of the law serve no purpose other than to harass remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and
judges and cast doubt on the integrity of the entire judiciary. As a exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of
member of the bar for half a century,24 complainant should know judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-
better than to file an unfounded administrative complaint. requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the
judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature.
It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted
20. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1888. February 11, 2005]
and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to
EDGARDO O. MAQUIRAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE
an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be
JESUS L. GRAGEDA, respondent.
said to have opened, or closed.
DECISION
Law and logic decree that administrative or criminal remedies are
neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such
. . . [A]s a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or review is available, and must wait on the result thereof. Indeed,
corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject since judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence
to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. He from external forces or factors, they should not be subject to
cannot be subjected to liability civil, criminal or administrative - for intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for
any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the
in good faith. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is performance of their duties and functions; and it is sound rule, which
not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to must be recognized independently of statute, that judges are not
elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. The generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction
Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative and in good faith; and that exceptionally, prosecution of the judge
of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the can be had only if "there be a final declaration by a competent court
stigma of being biased and partial. Thus, not every error or mistake in some appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust character of
that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him the challenged judgment or order, and ** also evidence of malice or
liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with bad faith, ignorance of inexcusable negligence, on the part of the
deliberate intent to do an injustice. Good faith and absence of judge in rendering said judgment or order" or under the stringent
malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient circumstances set out in Article 32 of the Civil Code.
defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find
refuge.
21. A.M. No. CA-09-47-J February 13, 2009
[Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-121-CA-J] GENARO
Finally, complainant also charges respondent of knowingly rendering SANTIAGO III, Complainant, vs.JUSTICE JUAN Q.
unjust judgment under Art. 206 of the Revised Penal Code, which ENRIQUEZ, JR. of the Thirteenth [13th] Division,
constitutes a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules Court of Appeals, Respondent.
of Court,[21] for his Orders dated June 30, 2003 and September 29,
2003. We find the same devoid of merit. As a rule, the acts of a
That cases cited to support a Decision are not applicable, and the
judge which pertain to his judicial functions are not subject
appreciation of evidence and facts is erroneous, do not necessarily
to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud,
warrant the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge,
dishonesty, corruption or bad faith.
unless the Decision is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty or with
deliberate intent to cause injustice.23
A charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment constitutes a
criminal offense. The keyword in said offense is knowingly. Thus, the
The remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative
complainant must not only prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed decision or
judgment is patently contrary to law or not supported by the
order to the higher court for review and correction. An administrative
evidence but that it was also made with deliberate intent to
complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still
perpetrate an injustice. A judges mere error in the interpretation or
available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a
application of the law per se will not warrant the imposition of an
petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted
administrative sanction against him for no one is infallible. Good faith
with fraud, malice, or dishonesty…
and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper consideration
are sufficient defenses that will protect a judicial officer from the
charge of rendering an unjust decision. The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly
indicative of the arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be
branded the stigma of being biased and partial. Thus, unless he is
Moreover, the alleged error committed by respondent in issuing the
shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an
subject Orders pertains to the exercise of his adjudicative functions.
injustice, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the
Such error cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings
performance of his duties renders him liable…The failure to interpret
but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies.[24] As held
the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not
in Flores vs. Abesamis:[25]
necessarily render a judge administratively liable.24 (Italics in the
original; underscoring supplied)
As everyone knows, the law provides ample judicial remedies against
errors or irregularities being committed by a Trial Court in the
Assuming arguendo that respondent’s citation of cases in support of
exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or
the Decision and his appreciation of the facts and evidence were
irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error
erroneous, since there is no showing that the Decision, all times in a manner that would merit the respect and confidence of
reconsideration of which was still pending at the time the present the people.7
complaint was filed, is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty or
was rendered with deliberate intent to cause injustice, the complaint Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and
must be dismissed. definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful
behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.9 The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of
The PRINCIPLE OF "JUDICIAL IMMUNITY" insulates judges,
corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard
and even Justices of superior courts, from being held to account
established rules, which must be established by substantia] evidence.
criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision
As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption,
rendered in good faith.25 To hold otherwise would render judicial
clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established
office untenable. No one called upon to try the facts or interpret the
rule must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.10
law in the process of administering justice could be infallible in his
judgment.26 Dishonesty, on the other hand, is defined as a disposition to lie,
cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack
. . . A judicial officer cannot be called to account in a civil action for of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
acts done by him in the exercise of his judicial function, however straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.11
erroneous. In the words of Alzua and Arnalot v. Johnson, " … it is a
general principle of the highest importance to the proper A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, which provides:
administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the
authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals
convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to and the Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and special courts; and
himself." This concept of judicial immunity rests upon consideration court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are
of public policy, its purpose being to preserve the integrity and likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for
independence of the judiciary. This principle is of universal violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional
application and applies to all grades of judicial officers from the Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such
highest judge of the nation and to the lowest officer who sits as a other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally
court.27 (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied) recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.

A charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on be considered a disciplinary action against the respondent Justice,
the ground that a collective decision is "unjust" cannot prosper. judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. The
Consequently, the filing of charges against a single member of a respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint
division of the appellate court is inappropriate. 29 (Underscoring and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or
supplied) otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment
in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.
22. A.M. No. P-03-1757 December 10,
2003GRIO LENDING SERVICES, complainant, Accordingly, Judge Madrid is directed to show cause why she should
vs. SALVACION SERMONIA, CLERK IV, REGIONAL not be disbarred for violation of the Code of Professional
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, ILOILO Responsibility, particularly Canons 116 and 717 and Rule
CITY, respondent. 1.0118 thereof.
Penalties on Judge Madrid and Rillorta

Further, Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the 1987 Administrative Code defines "just debts" as including those As this Court has repeatedly stated, the conduct and behavior of
"claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of
debtor." It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent admitted the justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, should be
existence of her debt to the complainant in this case. circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.23 The Court
has not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty on those who have
The same rule classifies the willful failure to pay just debts as a light fallen short of their accountabilities. Any conduct that violates the
offense and prescribes the penalty of reprimand for the first offense, norms of public accountability and diminishes, or even tends to
suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense, diminish, the faith of the people in the justice system has never been
and dismissal for the third offense. Apparently, this is the and will never be tolerated or condoned by this Court.24
respondent’s first offense; hence, the penalty of reprimand is proper.
It must be stressed that the penalty imposed by the law is not 24. A.M. No. RTJ-01-1638 December 8, 2003
directed at the respondent’s private life but at her actuation ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA, complainant,
unbecoming a public official.3 vs. JUDGE BENEDICTO A. PAZ, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 6, Aparri, Cagayan and JUDGE SEGUNDO B.
It bears stressing at this point that employees of the judiciary should CATRAL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Aparri,
be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of Cagayan, respondents.
official duties but also in their personal and private dealing with other
people so as to preserve at all times The retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from the service
does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which
23. A.M. No. P-09-2633 OCA v. ROLANDO C. TOMAS and he should still be answerable.8 The withdrawal or recantation of the
ANGELINA C. RILLORTA, former Officers-in-Charge, complainant by the administrative charges does not necessarily result
Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Isabela in the dismissal of the administrative case. We have repeatedly ruled
that:
Judge Madrid is Guilty of Grave Misconduct and Serious
Dishonesty xxx, withdrawal of a complaint or subsequent desistance by the
complainant in an administrative case does not necessarily warrant
Public office is a public trust. This constitutional principle requires a its dismissal. Administrative actions cannot depend on the will or
judge, like any other public servant and more so because of his pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own,
exalted position in the Judiciary, to exhibit at all times the highest condone what may be detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by
degree of honesty and integrity. As the visible representation of the the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its
law tasked with dispensing justice, a judge should conduct himself at disciplinary power. The Court does not dismiss administrative cases
against members of the Bench merely on the basis of withdrawal of
the charges. Desistance cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to therein, manifested that he was withdrawing his complaint for the
investigate and decide the complaint against the respondent. To be simple reason that he had no evidence to support it, We dismissed
sure, public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of the complainant to substantiate the charges. Considering that in the
officials and employees of the judiciary. And the program and efforts present case complainant not only failed to present any evidence to
of this Court in improving the delivery of justice to the people should substantiate his complaint but, on the other hand, respondent has
not be frustrated and put to naught by private arrangements presented proofs which show the falsity of the charges, We can do
between the parties.9 no less than approve the recommendation of the Investigating
Judge.
Respondent Judge Paz may have good and noble intentions.
However, the Code of Judicial Conduct11 mandates that a judge It may be apropos to mention here that in certain cases, the
should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and acceptance by the President of respondent's courtesy resignation
independence. He should so behave at all times as to promote public does not necessarily render the case moot or deprive Us of the
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid authority to investigate the charges. In Perez v. Abiera, 3 We have
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. His said that the rule that the resignation or retirement of the
personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties respondent in an administrative case renders the case moot and
but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for he is the academic is not a hard and fast rule. Each case is to be resolved in
visible personification of law and of justice.12 the context of the circumstance present thereat. Thus, We explained:
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: ... (T)he jurisdiction that was Ours at the time of filing of the
A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the
in all activities. respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the
RULE 2.01. - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare
xxx him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices
RULE 2.04. – A judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. ... If
the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and
administrative agency. integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and
faithfully; if guilty, he deserve to receive the corresponding censure
Even the personal behavior of judges in their everyday lives should and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.
be beyond reproach. Judges should avoid even the slightest
infraction of the law.13 Those who occupy exalted positions in the
26. A.M. No. 12535-Ret April 22, 2008 RE:
administration of justice must pay a high price for the honor
Application for Retirement/Gratuity Benefits under
bestowed on them. Their private as well as their official conduct
R.A. No. 910 as amended by R.A. No. 5095 and P.D.
must be always free from the appearance of impropriety.14
No. 1438 filed by Mrs. Cecilia Butacan, surviving
spouse of the late Hon. Jimmy R. Butacan (former
Judges should be extra prudent in associating with litigants and Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4,
counsel appearing before them to avoid even a mere perception of Tuguegarao City), who died on July 28, 2005.
possible bias or partiality. Judges need not live in seclusion, nor
avoid all social interrelations. When time and work commitments
May the heirs of a judge who was found guilty of gross neglect of
permit, judges may continue to relate to members of the bar in
duty and dismissed from the service with disqualification from
worthwhile endeavors in such fields of interest as are in keeping with
holding public office for an offense committed before he was
the noble objectives of the legal profession.
appointed judge, be entitled to gratuity benefits?
However, in pending or prospective litigations before them, judges

The Court does not agree with the OCA Legal Office and the OCA.
should be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that may tend to
The dismissal of the administrative case against Judge Butacan by
awaken the suspicion that their personal, social or sundry relations
reason of his demise is in accordance with Bote v. Judge
could influence their objectivity. Not only must judges possess
Eduardo19 where the Court held that in view of the death of Judge
proficiency in law, they must also act and behave in such manner
Escudero, for humanitarian reasons, it is inappropriate to impose any
that would assure litigants and their counsel of the judges’
administrative liability of a punitive nature; and declared the
competence, integrity and independence.15
administrative complaint against the respondent Judge, dismissed,
closed and terminated.
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his
What then is the effect of the final decision of the CA affirming the
activities. A judge must not only be impartial, he must also appear to
CSC Resolution dated April 12, 1996 finding Judge Butacan, as then
be impartial. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by
Chief of the Legal Division of CSC Regional Office No. 2, guilty of
irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. Fraternizing with
grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and imposing the
litigants tarnishes this appearance.16
penalty of dismissal from service with all the accessory penalties
including disqualification from holding public office and forfeiture of
25. A.M. No. 755-MJ January 31, 1978 ROGELIO benefits?
PESOLE, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE LUCIO
L. RODRIGUEZ, of Tabogon, Cebu. respondent.
The Court resolves that upon the demise of Judge Butacan on July
28, 2005, his heirs are entitled to all gratuity benefits under R.A. No.
The rule is that charges of misconduct against judges should be 910, to be reckoned from June 19, 1995, the date of his appointment
proven by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise they should be as MTCC Judge up to September 11, 2004 when the CA Decision
dismissed. Thus, in Valle v. Campos. Jr., 1 where the complainant in affirming the CSC Resolution, became final and executory.
like mariner as the complaint in the present case, manifested in
writing that he was withdrawing his complaint because he was no
In any event, his appointment to the judiciary does not erase any
longer interested in the further prosecution of the case, We
misfeasance which he may have committed while in the CSC.
dismissed the complaint because the charges thereon could not be
substantiated. so, too, in Pawaki v. Malik, 2 where the complainant
appeared for the hearing of the administrative case without counsel In effect, his appointment as MTCC judge is conditional, that is,
and witnesses, and, upon being asked if he was ready to proceed subject to the final determination of the administrative complaint
with the investigation of the charges filed against respondent judge against him. And this is where the role of the judiciary came in. Upon
being notified by the CSC of the conviction of Judge Butacan for
grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, the OCA initiated the this Court also applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in judging the
corresponding administrative complaint against Judge Butacan. This errant Judge’s misdeeds. (People v. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712
step finds support in Heck v. Santos20 where the Court held that [1985]; Cathay Pacific Airways v. Romillo, 142 SCRA 262 [1986];
while the infraction was committed before the respondent’s Prudential Bank v. Castro, 142 SCRA 223 [1986]; and Consolidated
appointment as judge, the Court may still discipline him therefor. Bank and Trust Corporation v. Capistrano, 159 SCRA 47 [1988] We
differentiate this case from these cited cases.chanrobles virtual
lawlibrary
However, upon his demise, the administrative complaint of the OCA
had to be considered closed and terminated. As it stands therefore,
In these res ipsa loquitur resolutions, there was on the face of the
there is no valid reason why the heirs of Judge Butacan should not
assailed decisions, an inexplicable grave error bereft of any
be entitled to gratuity benefits for the period he rendered service as
redeeming feature, a patent railroading of a case to bring about an
MTCC Judge up to the finality of the CSC Resolution on September
unjust decision, or a manifestly deliberate intent to wreak an
11, 2004 which imposed the penalty of "dismissal from service with
injustice against a hapless party. The facts themselves, previously
all the accessory penalties including disqualification from holding
proven or admitted, were of such a character as to give rise to a
public office and forfeiture of benefits."
strong inference that evil intent was present. SUCH INTENT, IN
SHORT, WAS CLEARLY DEDUCIBLE FROM WHAT WAS
27. [A.C. No. 3086. May 31, 1989.] IN RE: Petition for ALREADY OF RECORD.
the dismissal from the service and/or disbarment of
JUDGE BALTAZAR R. DIZON, Presiding Judge of the
28. G.R. No. L-64276 March 4, 1986CATHAY PACIFIC
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113.
AIRWAYS, LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL V.
HON. ALEXANDER A. PADILLA, Commissioner of
ROMILLO, JR., ETC., ET AL., respondents.
Customs, petitioner-complainant.
. . . no prejudice could have been caused to plaintiff by the

JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; ORDER OF DISMISSAL MAY BE admission of defendant's answer, since the latter had not yet been
MODIFIED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES; CASE AT BAR. declared in default and plaintiff had not yet presented her evidence
— After another painstaking look at the records of this administrative on the merits. The lower court, therefore, in the exercise of its
case, we have decided to act favorably on the respondent’s plea to discretion petition, should have admitted defendant's answer instead
view with less rigor the error of judgment he committed. We have of declaration her in default. (p. 893.)
also taken into account the long government service of the
respondent spanning more than twenty-six (26) years. There is no
It should be borne in mind that the policy of the law is to have every
clear indication from the records that the respondent’s assailed
litigated case tried on the merits as much as possible. It is for this
decision was inspired by corrupt motives or a reprehensible purpose
reason that judgments by default are frowned upon.
to set the plainly guilty free. There is gross misjudgment — yes, but
not a deliberate twisting of facts to justify his decision. His plea that
because the penalty for violation of CB Circular No. 960 was that Time and again the Court has enjoined trial judges to act with
provided for in the Revised Penal Code, he believed that intent or circumspection and not to precipitately declare parties in default,
malice was an essential element of the offense of course deserves needlessly compelling the aggrieved party to undergo the additional
but scant consideration. But because such belief is clearly wrong expense, anxiety and delay of seeking the intervention of the
does not rule out its being held and acted upon in good faith, not appeciate courts and depriving them of the much needed time and
from improper motives. There is likewise no question that he did not attention that could instead have well been devoted to the study and
transgress the procedural requirements needed for the rendition of a disposition of more complex and complicated cases and issues. (Akut
judgment in a criminal case. The facts are all stated in the decision. vs. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 213, 220.)
It was his egregiously erroneous interpretation of the law which led
us to discipline the Respondent. Respondent Judge Dizon has, in our 29. A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC January 31, 2008 Re:
view, sincerely evinced a humble repentance. He admits his errors in CONVICTION OF JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES,
interpreting the law but he pleads that they are not of such gravity REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 121, CALOOCAN
as to deserve a penalty of "virtually capital punishment." Our CITY IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. Q-97-69655 to 56
decision to dismiss the respondent Judge took effect on February 23, FOR CHILD ABUSE
1988. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we feel he has
been sufficiently punished for the administrative infraction. We,
therefore, order his reinstatement. Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of
the court, such conduct as tends to bring the authority and
(A) JUDGE CAN NOT BE HELD TO ACCOUNT OR ANSWER, administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or
CRIMINALLY, CIVILLY, OR ADMINISTRATIVELY, FOR AN prejudice parties, litigant or their witnesses during litigation.
ERRONEOUS DECISION RENDERED BY HIM IN GOOD
FAITH." There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct contempt
and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed when a person
"It is a truism that the learning process in law does not stop upon is guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to
graduation from college and admission to the Bar. There should be, obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including
on the contrary, more sustained intellectual effort on the part of the disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or
members of the legal profession. Certainly, judges are not exempt refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an
from this obligation. It is even more incumbent on them as they are affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so. Indirect
thought of as the oracles of law.’ There is likely then to be a contempt or constructive contempt is that which is committed out of
disillusionment in the judicial process if, as did happen here, an the presence of the court. Any improper conduct tending, directly or
occupant of the bench was found to be woefully lacking in legal indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
knowledge. . . . The efforts for improvement in the mode of justice would constitute indirect contempt.
administering the government in all its manifold complexity would
come to naught if our people can harbor the suspicion that judges do
not even know what the law is."cralaw virtua1aw library In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be
commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars
While the Court does not require perfection and infallibility, it and certified true copies of documents or papers involved
reasonably expects a faithful and intelligent discharge of duty by therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for
those who are selected to fill the positions of administrators of filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court
justice. concerned . . . . (Emphasis supplied)
We are not unmindful of the fact that in a few other recent decisions,
A lawyer is an officer of the Court. It is a lawyer's sworn and moral corrupt, partial, or oppressive. As heretofore stated, the
duty to help build and not unnecessarily destroy the people's high undersigned finds no proof beyond reasonable doubt along
esteem and regard for the courts so essential to the proper that line.
administration of justice.
In order that a judge may be held liable for knowingly rendering an
An act unrelated to a judge's discharge of judicial functions may give unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond doubt that the judgment
rise to administrative liability even when such act constitutes a is unjust as it is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence,
violation of penal law. When the issue is administrative liability, the and the same was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do
quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence, or that an injustice. "Es tan preciso," commented Viada, "que la falta se
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept cometa a sabiendas, esto es, con malicia, con voluntad reflexiva, que
as adequate to support a conclusion. Evidence to support a en cada de uno de estos articulos vemos consignada dicha expresion
conviction in a criminal case is not necessary, and the dismissal of para que por nadie y en ningun caso se confunda la falta de justicia
the criminal case against the respondent in an administrative case is producida por ignorancia, la preocupacion o el error, con la que solo
not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative inspira la enemistad, el odio o cualquiera otra pasion bastarda y
case. CONVERSELY, CONVICTION IN THE CRIMINAL CASE corrompida. Esta es la prevaricacion verdadera."1
WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY WARRANT A FINDING OF GUILT
IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE. We emphasize the well-settled
To hold a judge liable for the rendition of a manifestly unjust
rule that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from
judgment by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, it must
administrative matters, and each must be disposed of according to
be shown, according to Groizard, that although he has acted without
the facts and the law applicable to it.
malice, he failed to observe in the performance of his duty, that
diligence, prudence and care which the law is entitled to exact in the
In Nuñez v. Atty. Arturo B. Astorga,38 the Court held that the mere rendering of any public service.2 Negligence and ignorance are
existence of pending criminal charges against the respondent-lawyer inexcusable if they imply a manifest injustice which cannot be
cannot be a ground for disbarment or suspension of the latter. To explained by a reasonable interpretation.3 Inexcusable mistake only
hold otherwise would open the door to harassment of attorneys exists in the legal concept when it implies a manifest injustice, that is
through the mere filing of numerous criminal cases against them. to say, such injustice which cannot be explained by a reasonable
interpretation, even though there is a misunderstanding or error of
the law applied, in the contrary it results, logically and reasonably,
30. A.C. No. 134-J January 21, 1974 IN RE: THE HON.
and in a very clear and indisputable manner, in the notorious
RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
violation of the legal precept.4
FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL,
BRANCH I, SILAY CITY.
It is also well-settled that a judicial officer, when required to
exercise his judgment or discretion, is not liable criminally,
Be that as it may, under Section 173 of the Revised Administrative
for any error he commits, provided he acts in good faith.
Code, the grounds for removal of a judge of first instance are (1)
serious misconduct and (2) inefficiency. FOR SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT TO EXIST, THERE MUST BE RELIABLE 31. A.M. No. 227-RTJ October 13, 1986 GREGORIO R.
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE JUDICIAL ACTS ABAD, complainant, vs.ILDEFONSO BLEZA, respondent.
COMPLAINED OF WERE CORRUPT OR INSPIRED BY AN
INTENTION TO VIOLATE THE LAW, OR WERE IN PERSISTENT
Coming to the question of respondent's culpability of the charges
DISREGARD OF WELL-KNOWN LEGAL RULES. (In re
thus levelled against him on the basis of the facts, the arguments
Impeachment of Hon. Antonio Horrilleno, 43 Phil. 212). In the case
and the applicable provisions of law, it appears inescapable that
at bar, there has been no proof that in issuing the order of
respondent has not committed any wrongdoing to evoke disciplinary
September 5, 1968 (Exh. B), and in rendering a judgment of
action in acquitting Ponce of attempted homicide. The ground for
acquittal the respondent Judge was inspired by a dishonest or
acquittal was insufficiency of evidence due to inconsistencies of the
corrupt intention which prompted him to violate the law or to
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which he specifically
disregard well-known legal rules. In fact, in spite of the biting
pointed out in the decision. In addition, respondent found that Ponce
language of the complainants in their complaint and in their
never pulled the gun tucked at his waist during the incident,
memorandum, they admit that the respondent Judge is not dishonest
although prosecution witnesses testified otherwise. In the face of
as far as they know. Of course, there has been an insinuation that
conflicting evidence, it is difficult to impute dishonesty and unfairness
"respondent Judge prostituted this Court and acquitted, obviously in
to respondent in arriving at his conclusion as to which side told the
bad faith, Councilor Caramonte of Bantayan, province of Cebu, in all
truth. And even if he made an error in his perception of the facts as
likelihood because of the dirty hands of power politics." Inasmuch
he saw them, it cannot be justly presumed that he did it in bad faith
as proceedings against judges as the case at bar, have been
or with malicious intent. FOR NOT EVERY ERROR OR MISTAKE
said to be governed by the rules of law applicable to penal
OF A JUDGE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES MAKES
cases, the charges must, therefore, be proved beyond
HIM LIABLE THEREFOR. TO HOLD A JUDGE
reasonable doubt (In re Horrilleno, supra), and it is
ADMINISTRATIVELY ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERY
incumbent upon the complainants to prove their case not by
ERRONEOUS RULING OR DECISION HE RENDERS,
a preponderance of evidence but beyond a reasonable doubt,
ASSUMING THAT HE HAS ERRED, WOULD BE NOTHING
and in this venture, it is believed they failed. There is,
SHORT OF HARASSMENT AND WOULD MAKE HIS POSITION
indeed, a paucity of proof that respondent Judge has acted
UNBEARABLE.
partially, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily or
oppressively.
In the case of Ajeno v. Inserto (71 SCRA 166, 172), this Court held
that: ... Even in the remaining years of his stay in the judiciary, he
xxx xxx xxx
should keep abreast with the changes in the law and with the latest
decisions and precedents. Although a judge is nearing retirement, he
In issuing the order of Sept. 5, 1968, respondent Judge as stated in should not relax in his study of the law and court decisions. Service
his answer, was guided by the Model Code of Evidence cited by Chief in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on the law
Justice Moran in his Comments on the Rules of Court. Whether in from beginning to end...
taking judicial notice of the facts stated in the order of September 5,
1968, respondent Judge erred or not, it is believed, this is not the
The records fail to show malice, ill-will or even bias on the
proper forum to dwell on the matter. Since this is an
part of respondent judge. His decision pointed out, one by one,
administrative case against him the controlling factor should
the glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence which led to
be the circumstances surrounding the issuance of such order
the exculpation of defendant Ponce. In Pabalan v. Guevarra (74
— whether in doing so the respondent Judge was arbitrary,
SCRA 53, 58), this Court held that ... Even on the assumption
that the judicial officer has erred in the appraisal of the
evidence, he cannot be held administratively or civilly liable
for his judicial action. A judicial officer cannot be called to
account in a civil action for acts done by him in the exercise
of his judicial function however erroneous...
32. A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 August 5, 2009OLGA

M. SAMSON, Complainant, vs.JUDGE VIRGILIO G.
CABALLERO, Respondent.
In Ratti v. Mendoza-De Castro,15 we held that the making of

untruthful statements in the PDS amounts to dishonesty and
falsification of an official document. Dishonesty, being in the nature
of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave
credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the
government service.
Respondent, a judge, knows (or should have known) fully well that
the making of a false statement in his PDS could subject him to
dismissal. This Court will not allow him to evade the consequences of
his dishonesty. Being a former public prosecutor and a judge now, it
is his duty to ensure that all the laws and rules of the land are
followed to the letter. His being a judge makes it all the more
unacceptable. There was an obvious lack of integrity, the most
fundamental qualification of a member of the judiciary.
Time and again, we have emphasized that a judge should conduct

himself in a manner which merits the respect and confidence of the
people at all times, for he is the visible representation of the
law.16 Regrettably, we are convinced of respondent’s capacity to lie
and evade the truth. His dishonesty misled the JBC and tarnished the
image of the judiciary. He does not even seem remorseful for what
he did as he sees nothing wrong with it.

be considered a disciplinary action against the respondent justice,
judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. The
respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint
and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or
otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment
in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.
(Emphasis supplied)
Before the Court approved this resolution, administrative and

disbarment cases against members of the bar who were likewise
members of the court were treated separately.18 However,
pursuant to the new rule, an administrative case against a
judge of a regular court based on grounds which are also
grounds for the disciplinary action against members of the
Bar shall be automatically considered as disciplinary
proceedings against such judge as a member of the Bar.19
This must be so as violation of the fundamental tenets of

judicial conduct embodied in the new Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, the Code of Judicial
Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics constitutes a
breach of the following Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR):20

JUD SUSP DISC Rulings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUD SUSP DISC Rulings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUD SUSP DISC Rulings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2. TRINIDAD O. LACHICA, Complainant, vs.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the motion of respondent

Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants the Supreme

5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; II. Administrative Liability

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz is

We emphasize that judges should be the embodiment of

The Substantive Issues

3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, considers a

JUDICIARY SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINARY CASES |8

It must be stressed that as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in

JUDICIARY SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINARY CASES | 10

In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also

Penalties on Judge Madrid and Rillorta

However, in pending or prospective litigations before them, judges

. . . no prejudice could have been caused to plaintiff by the

32. A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 August 5, 2009OLGA

In Ratti v. Mendoza-De Castro,15 we held that the making of

Time and again, we have emphasized that a judge should conduct

In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also

Before the Court approved this resolution, administrative and

This must be so as violation of the fundamental tenets of

JUDICIARY SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINARY CASES | 18

You might also like