Issue:: Whether or Not Respondent Judge Violated Some Provisions of The Code of Judicial Conduct

Engineer Garcia v.
Judge de la Pena (February 9, 1994)
FACTS:
This case started when the brother of the respondent judge filed a criminal case for
grave oral defamation against the wife of the complainant. Respondent issued a
warrant of arrest and the wife of the complainant was detained. On the same day,
complainant posted a cash bond but his wife was not released because the respondent
judge left for Cebu and therefore the Order of Release could not be obtained.
Complainant’s wife was only released a day after.
Because of these, complainant filed an administrative case charging respondent judge

with partiality, abuse of authority and grave abuse of discretion. Complainant mainly
argued that respondent judge should have inhibited himself from acting on the case
because one of the parties is his brother and that the delay in the release of his wife
was prejudicial to the rights of the accused.
In his comment, respondent judge argued that even if the private complainant in the
criminal case is his brother, he need not inhibit himself to “mobilize the machinery of
justice” because the case has been pending for quite a long time. Respondent judge
also alleged that to show his neutrality he issued an inhibition order seven days after
the arrest. Respondent added that the Clerk of Court was informed of his trip to Cebu
and that he already prepared an order of release which could be obtained from his wife,
in case the accused actually files a bail bond.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent judge violated Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court
(YES)
And Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (YES)
Whether or not respondent judge violated some provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct
RULING:
The Court ruled in affirmative.
Firstly, the accused violated Rule 3.12 par. (d), Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct- A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases include among others,
proceedings where: (d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party
litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree;
Firstly, the respondent judge violated Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides,
thus:
Sec.1. Disqualification of judges. — No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any

case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been
executor administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he was
presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of
review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them
and entered upon the record.
The rule on compulsory disqualification of a judge to hear a case where, as in the instant
case, the respondent judge is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity
or affinity rests on the salutary principle that no judge should preside in a case in which he
is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge has both the duty of
10
rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion
as to its fairness and as to his integrity. The purpose is to preserve the people's faith and
confidence in the courts of justice.
The SC held that the fact that respondent judge took cognizance of the criminal case,
notwithstanding the fact that he is related within the second degree of consanguinity to
private complainant is obviously a glaring violation of the rule on compulsory
disqualification of a judge to hear a case. The proffered excuse that criminal case has
been dragging on for some time due to the absence of the incumbent judge and the
non-designation of a presiding judge will not justify the violation of a well-settled rule
on compulsory disqualification of judges to hear a case. Respondent judge should have
formally informed the Executive Judge of the RTC of Leyte if, indeed, the case had been
deferred, and thereafter sought the designation of another MTC judge to take
cognizance of the case. He should have foreseen the possibility that his actuation and
motives would have been suspect if he had ruled in favor of the prosecution as his
blood relationship with the private complainant was of general knowledge.
Secondly, respondent also violated Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct--"A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to
advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge."
The excuse given by respondent judge that he left the duly signed order of release with
his wife instead of the Clerk of Court before he left for Cebu exposed his total disregard
of, or indifference to, or even ignorance of, the procedure prescribed by law.
Respondent judge's actuation is unquestionably not sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It
is conduct prejudicial to the rights of the accused.
Respondent judge in this case tainted the image of the judiciary to which he owes
fealty and the obligation to keep it at all times unsullied and worthy of the people's
trust. If judges, who have sworn to obey and uphold the Constitution, shall conduct
themselves as respondent did, in wanton disregard and violation of the rights of the
accused, then the people, especially those who have had recourse to them shall lose all
their respect and high regard for the members of the Bench and the judiciary itself shall
lose the high moral ground from which it draws its power and strength to compel
obedience to the laws.
As this Court has had occasion to declare: "As public servants, judges are appointed to
the judiciary to serve as the visible representation of the law, and more importantly, of
justice. From them, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law." 14 If
judges, who have sworn to obey and uphold the Constitution, shall conduct themselves
as respondent did, in wanton disregard and violation of the rights of the accused, then
the people, especially those who have had recourse to them shall lose all their respect
and high regard for the members of the Bench and the judiciary itself shall lose the high
moral ground from which it draws its power and strength to compel obedience to the
laws.
In summary, SC held that respondent judge, through his oppressive and vindictive
actuations towards the accused arising from his relationship to the private complainant
in the Criminal Case No. 2577, committed a disservice to the cause of justice. He does
not, therefore, deserve to remain in the judiciary and should accordingly be removed
from the service.
The SC dismissed respondent judge from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and
with prejudice to reinstatement or reappointment to any public office including
government-owned controlled corporations.

Issue:: Whether or Not Respondent Judge Violated Some Provisions of The Code of Judicial Conduct

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issue:: Whether or Not Respondent Judge Violated Some Provisions of The Code of Judicial Conduct

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

Issue:: Whether or Not Respondent Judge Violated Some Provisions of The Code of Judicial Conduct

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineer Garcia v.

Judge de la Pena (February 9, 1994)

Because of these, complainant filed an administrative case charging respondent judge

And Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (YES)

The Court ruled in affirmative.

Sec.1. Disqualification of judges. — No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any

You might also like