A.M. No.

RTJ-07-2062* January 18, 2011

IMELDA R. MARCOS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, Respondent.

FACTS: Complainant filed a complaint affidavit charging the respondent for Gross Ignorance of the Law. It al-
leged that the said judge reversed the final and executory order of Judge Reyes, issued 10 years ago which dis-
missed the case against Jose D. Roxas and ordering that the Buddha Statue in issue be released to the heirs of
Roxas. Respondent set the case for hearing in order to release the said Golden Buddha Statue to its rightful
owner. Complainant was one of the subpoenaed parties having an interest in the case. He then issued a final and
executory order awarding the Buddha Statue to Rogelio Roxas upon the final settlement of the estate of Roxas.
further ruling that the statue in the court’s custody was a fake one.

Respondent alleged that the complainant should have filed a pleading manifesting interest or moving recall for
subpoena, but the complainant did not do so. Marcos replied that she could not file a MR since she was not the
aggrieved party may file a MR

The OCA recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service for Gross Ignorance of Law.

HELD: When a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. No matter how noble
his objectives are, being a judge, he is expected to be familiar with laws and procedural rules at all time.

The respondent manifested gross ignorance of the law in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct: Rule 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.

Furthermore, there were already several complaints and cases filed against the respondent showing his gross ig-
norance of the law.

Thus, the respondent is dismissed from service

[A.M. No. RTJ-91-712. July 9, 1996]

BEN D. MARCES, SR., complainant, vs. JUDGE PAUL T. ARCANGEL, Presiding Judge, Branch 12,
Regional Trial Court Davao City, respondent.

FACTS: Respondent was charged with serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, harrassment and immoral-
ity.

According to the complaint, he was arrested allegedly in connection with violation of BP 22 where the said ar-
rest warrants were issued by MTCC Judge Sarabia upon request of the respondent to issue said warrants. Like-
wise, the complaint alleged that the respondent used his position as judge to attempt to influence the baranggay
officials who were conducting mediation conference between the complainant and Mrs. Cañas, anc accused the
complainant of sending death threats against him. The complaint further alleges that the respondent that used
his authority to order the arrest of the members of the complainant’s family. Complainant alleged that said bias
of the respondent against them was due to the illict relationship between the latter and Mrs. Cañas.

The respondent replied stated that said complaint against him was baseless and made out of personal spite, ani-
mosity and in anticipation of the complaints to be filed by him against the complainant.

The Investigating Judge recommended the dismissal of the charges against the respondent for failure to insuffi-
ciency of evidence, except as to the intervention of the respondent in the mediation conferences between the
complainant and the Cañas family which he ordered that the respondent be admonished.
HELD: It has been proven that the said judge failed to show independence when the respondent interfered not
only in the proceedings of the mediation conference, and likewise ordered the arrest of the respondent and his
family, in violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial conduct.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1434 April 29, 1999

ARNULFO B. TAURO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANGEL V. COLET, Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 8, respondent.

FACTS: Complainant alleged that the respondent failed to resolve the case, where he is the complaining wit-
ness, involving three cases for violation of Art 125 RPC (delay in delivery of detained persons to proper judicial
authorities) within the reglamentary period of 90 days. He alleges that the said proceedings were delayed due to
postponements and was worsened by the non-punctuality of the said judge. He further alleges that the when the
respondent was transfered to other RTC including QC and Baguio, he brought with him the records pertaining
to the said cases.

In his comment, the respondent judge admitted that he failed to decide the cases within the said time but alleges
that his failure to do so was caused by his mismanagement records and transcripts of the case and that he was
only able to decide the case upon his return to the RTC Benguet where he records of the case were found which
reminded him of the said cases.

The OCA ruled that the respondent failed to perform his duty to decide cases within the reglamentary period
provided for under Sec. 15, par. 1, Art. VIII of the Constitution and recommended that he be fined P10,000.

RULING: Canon 1, Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which ordains that a judge should administer jus-
tice impartially and without delay was grossly violated.

Respondent cannot justify his failure to decide the case due to reasons which are mismanagement of his notes
and records since they are required to take down notes and prepare decisions with or without the TSN. Like-
wise, it is shown that the respondent failed to perform his duty of adopting a record management system and
shown that he did not even exert effort to find the records of the case. He totally forgot about the said cases and
only remembered the same upon his return to Benguet where he stumbled upon the said records.

Thus, respondent is found guilty of gross inefficiency and fined P 10,000.

A.M. No. MTJ-04-1521 July 27, 2004

ROMEO B. ALMOJUELA, JR., complainant, vs. JUDGE REVELINO M. RINGOR and AMALIA L.
DIRECTO, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Balaoan, La Union, respondents.

FACTS: Complaint charged respondent judge for Grave Misconduct, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty
and Violation of Judicial Ethics, and his Clerk of Court for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty. The com-
plainant, was one of the accused in criminal cases before the respondent. The private offended party in the said
case allegedly executed a waiver exculpating him for the charges, thus he filed a motion for the quashal of the
complaint which was granted by the court.

However, the private complainant later on informed the judge, when she inquired about the status of the case
and learning that it was quashed due to the waiver, that the waiver she executed was done through coercion,
threat and force and she was not aware of the contents of the same. Thus the judge ordered the cancellation of
the previous order in case the said order was leaked.
Complainant also argues that respondent judge communicated with the private complainant and gave her infor-
mation regarding matters to her case, and likewise did not propound questions regarding the circumstances sur-
rounding the execution of said waiver.

The OCA recommended that the respondent judge be fined while dismissing the complaint against the clerk of
court.

HELD: Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence.

In this case, the respondent is clearly ignorant of the procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation since
he prematurely quashed the complaint against the complainant without summoning the private offended party to
ascertain whether the said waiver was voluntarily executed in accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.

Likewise, he violated Canon 1, Rule 1.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge should
be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and resist any pressure from what-
ever source. Respondent Judge demonstrated that he was susceptible to external pressure when he stated that
"Accused's counsel and mother, before this case was set for hearing were consistently following [up] for the res-
olution of the Court on the pleadings filed.

Thus, the respondent judge is fined P25,000

A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362 February 22, 2011

(formerly A.M. No. 01-2-49-RTC)

JUDGE NAPOLEON E. INOTURAN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City, vs. JUDGE
MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan, Ne-
gros Occidental, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785

(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1945-MTJ)

SANCHO E. GUINANAO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, Respondent.

FACTS: Respondent Judge was charged by complainant judge for Gross Ignorance of Law and Procedure and
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, where he was ordered to be fined and directed to explain why he
should not e administratively charged for the approval of bail applications and the release of the accused in sev-
eral criminal cases.

Respondent judge twice moved for extension of time to file MR and comply with the directive, but he failed to
do so. He later on filed a motion for extension of time to file explanation and cited poor health for failure to
comply with the resolution, which was granted. But still he did not comply with the said directive.

On the other case, the respondent judge is charged for delay in the disposition of the case by the complainant for
ejectment, which had already been submitted for resolution on April 2005. Due to the show cause order for
contempt for failure to head the OCA directives to file a complaint, he informed the OCA that the said case was
decided on February 2008.
HELD: Compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that
a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This duty is verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Con-
duct:

SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order
to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the Judiciary.

SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce
public confidence in the Judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by Judge Limsiaco constitutes no less than clear acts of defi-
ance against the Court’s authority. His conduct also reveals his deliberate disrespect and indifference to the au-
thority of the Court, shown by his failure to heed our warnings and directives. Judge Limsiaco’s actions further
disclose his inability to accept our instructions.

Likewise, the respondent’s failure to decide the ejectment case within the period allowed by law shows his lack
of competence in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 1.01 - A judge should
be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.

Since there are already several complaints filed against the respondent judge, the court resolved that he should
be dismissed from service, but since he is already retired, the court resolved to forfeit the retirement benefits of
the said respondent and barred from reemployment in any branch of government.

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139 August 9, 2010

MICHAEL B. BELEN, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, Regional Trial Court,
Calamba City, Branch 36, Respondent.

FACTS: Complainant filed a complaint against respondent judge due to the latter’s filing of an estafa case
against the complainant’s father despite the lack of probable cause as determined by the prosecutor. The respon-
dent likewise filed a motion before the OCPros alleging that the said prosecutor was always absent during hear-
ings in the estafa case, and likewise filed a disciplinary action against the same before the IBP.

To refute the allegations against the prosecutor, the complainant executed an affidavit stating the allegations
against the prosecutor were false. Thus, the respondent started to harrass the complainant by sending several let-
ters to government authorities about the alleged violations in sanitation, environmental laws and otherlaws com-
mitted by the complainant’s piggery business. All of the letters used the letterhead indicating the respondent’s
official government position. Likewise, respondent filed complaints against the complainant for violations of
several PDs.

In his comment, he alleged that he never neglected his duties and denied using the official letterhead of the
court.

HELD: Canon 1, Sec 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct states that: SECTION. 4. Judges 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 im-
pression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

The OCA ruled correctly that the said respondent be fined P11,000 since it was apparent that he intended to use
the prestige of his official position to promote his personal interest. He violated Section 4 of Canon 1 and Sec-
tion 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary when he used a letterhead
indicating his position as the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36. According to Justice
Garcia, while the computer-printed letterhead of respondent judge is not the official letterhead of the RTC of
Calamba City, Branch 36, the use of the same reflects respondent judge’s designation and position in the judi-
ciary, and indicates that the letters came from the "chambers" of the presiding judge of Branch 36. Undoubt-
edly, respondent judge was trying to use the prestige of his judicial office for his own personal interest.

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1621 September 27, 2007

CONCERNED BOHOLANOS FOR LAW AND ORDER, Complainants, vs. JUDGE DIONISIO R. CAL-
IBO, JR., RTC, BRANCH 50, LOAY, BOHOL, Respondent.

FACTS: An anonymous complaint was filed against the respondent for conduct unbecoming of a judge when he
publicly spoke on radio and in public fora regarding his bias and parochial views on certain controversial issues
against public personalities and public officials.

Respondent judge claimed that the complaint was filed by the alter ego of the governor. He states that a very
questionable and controversial project was being pursued by the Provincial Governor which was to sell the two
major performing assets of the Province of Bohol, the Provincial Electrical System (PES) and the Provincial
Waterworks System (PWS) of the Provincial Utilities Division (PPUD), without consultation from the cus-
tomers of the said utilities since they are the only major profitable ventures of the province. He stated that while
initially he was silent and distanced himself from the media, when it became apparent that the Governor was ig-
noring the legitimate issues presented by the people, he decided to take part in the debate.

Likewise, it as alleged that he made two telephone to Judge Melicor the petition to stop the governor from his
plan, wherein he allegedly tried to intervene with the manner of the outcome of the case.

HELD: However, his two telephone calls to Judge Achilles L. Melicor who was presiding the court where the
petition to stop the governor was pending, definitely violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Section
3 of Canon I, which states that “Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.”