Sir Ericson

The Law Firm of Chavez vs. Justice Dicdican, etc., A.M. No.
CA-09-48-J, March 13, 2009
Facts:
This is an administrative complaint against Justice Isaias P. Dicdican for violation of Canon 21 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct in the resolution of the incidents in the special civil action for certiorari, entitled "St.
Mary Mazzarello School and Sr. Maria Pacencia Bandalan, FMA v. Hon. Fernando R. Elumba, Ma. Kryssil
Asparen, represented and assisted by her parents, Sps. Christopher and Sylvia Asparen."
The special civil action for certiorari stemmed from a complaint filed by Ma. Krissyl Asparen with the
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City for nullification of disciplinary sanctions, damages with prayer for
temporary restraining order (TRO)/injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. 0512512, entitled "Ma. Krissyl
M. Asparen v. St. Mary Mazzarrello and Sr. Maria Pacencia Bandalan, FMA, Department of Education."
The school involved in the case had imposed disciplinary sanctions on its student, Ma. Krissyl M.
Asparen, but the same was lifted upon the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by Hon. Elumba,
the presiding judge of the trial court.
Immediately thereafter, complainant and Ma. Krissyl Asparen sought the inhibition of respondent from
the case on the ground that the latter had previously represented various religious organizations and
institutions during his practice of law and the petitioner school in the case is run by a religious
organization while petitioner Sr. Bandalan is a nun belonging to said organization.
respondent Justice admitted on record that he once served as counsel of religious organizations but
denied that such circumstance affected his impartiality in the case.
Despite his inhibition, respondent Justice allegedly participated again in the case when his name
appeared as one of the signatories of a Resolution.
Complainant alleged that respondent Justice’s actions showed his manifest bias and prejudice against his
client in the case—a blatant disregard of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Issue:
Whether respondent Justice’s actions showed his manifest bias and prejudice against his client in the
case
Ruling:
The Court finds the instant administrative complaint devoid of merit and should accordingly be
dismissed.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the
acts complained of rests on the complainant. In fact, if the complainant upon whom rests the burden of
proving his cause of action fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim,
the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. Even in administrative cases, if a
court employee or magistrate is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be
competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail.
In the present case, complainant failed to substantiate his imputations of impropriety and partiality
against respondent Justice. Aside from his naked allegations, conjecture and speculations, he failed to
present any other evidence to prove his charges. Hence, the presumption that respondent regularly
performed his duties prevails. On the other hand, respondent Justice adequately explained that since his
voluntary inhibition from the case, he no longer participated in the case and his perceived participation
in the issuance of the assailed Resolution was a result of a typographical mistake.
Salazar vs. Marigomen, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2004, October 19, 2007
FACTS:
Doroteo M. Salazar (Salazar) charged Judge Antonio D. Marigomen (Judge Marigomen) with gross
ignorance of the law, bias, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service and rendering a decision
violative of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Rules of Procedure and the Constitution in
connection with Election Case he presided. In said election case, Judge Salazar is accused of admitting in
evidence uncertified photocopies of the contested ballots contrary to Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.
Salazar also accuses Judge Marigomen of partiality after he ordered his Clerk of Court to coordinate with
counsel for the protestee in the election case and to testify for her, despite the objection of the
protestant in relation with the presentation of the plain photocopies of the contested ballots.
Furthermore, Judge Marigomen allowed Atty. Reinerio Roeles, the co-counsel for the protestee, to testify
despite the protestant’s objection on the ground that his testifying would be a violation of professional
ethics and despite Judge Marigomen’s citation of authorities on the matter. Finally, Salazar claims that
Judge Marigomen violated the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as well as the Constitution for not clearly
and distinctly stating the facts and the law on which his decision was based.
In his Comment, Judge Marigomen proffers, among other things that Salazar is not the real party in
interest and, in any event, the complaint is moot and academic as the election protest had been decided
on appeal by the COMELEC; and if errors were committed, they pertain to the exercise of his adjudicative
functions which cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings.
Subsequently, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Marigomen be found
guilty of (a) gross ignorance of the law and fined in the amount of P20,000, and (b) bias and dishonesty,
amounting to grave misconduct and suspended for six months without pay. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the administrative case shall be dismissed because the complainant is not a real party
in interest
2. Whether or not respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, bias and dishonesty
RULING:
Administrative matter involves the exercise of the Court’s power to discipline judges. It is undertaken
and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, that is, to maintain the faith and confidence of the people
in the government. Thus, unlike in ordinary cases, there is no private offended party in administrative
proceedings who may be entitled to judicial relief. The complainant need not be a real party in interest,
as anyone may file an administrative complaint against a judge, the only requirement being that the
complaint be verified and it ―be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Court finds the evaluation of the case by the OCA in order. Judge Marigomen’s questioned acts do
not conform to Canons 3 and 5 regarding impartiality and equality of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary.
And respondent indeed committed falsehood, as found by the OCA. Judge Marigomen’s claim that he
allowed the protestee’s counsel, Atty. Roeles, to testify over the objection of the protestant’s counsel
because the latter failed to submit a memorandum in support of the objection, is belied by the records
of the case. Thus, in a pleading captioned ―Manifestation, the protestant’s counsel submitted a
memorandum of authorities on the matter.
Judge Marigomen also indeed failed to state in his decision why he invalidated 90 ballots in favor of the
protestant and to specify the ballots being set aside, thereby violating the Constitution.

Sir Ericson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sir Ericson

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

Sir Ericson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Law Firm of Chavez vs. Justice Dicdican, etc., A.M. No.

CA-09-48-J, March 13, 2009

Salazar vs. Marigomen, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2004, October 19, 2007

You might also like