Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Macias v. Judge Araula

    Uploaded by

    Ike Gaamil
    Judge Araula was accused of serious infractions of the law and unethical participation in partisan politics for delivering political campaign speeches in support of his wife's party and urging people to vote for them. He was also accused of threatening and coercing market vendors who supported the opposing party after his wife's party lost the election. While most of the accusations were not proven, the court did find that Judge Araula was guilty of challenging opponents to a fist fight while intoxicated. The court issued a reprimand and warned that any future similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Macias v. Judge Araula

    Uploaded by

    Ike Gaamil
    86 views1 page
    Judge Araula was accused of serious infractions of the law and unethical participation in partisan politics for delivering political campaign speeches in support of his wife's party and urging people to vote for them. He was also accused of threatening and coercing market vendors who supported the opposing party after his wife's party lost the election. While most of the accusations were not proven, the court did find that Judge Araula was guilty of challenging opponents to a fist fight while intoxicated. The court issued a reprimand and warned that any future similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Araula was accused of serious infractions of the law and unethical participation in partisan politics for delivering political campaign speeches in support of his wife's party and urging people to vote for them. He was also accused of threatening and coercing market vendors who supported the opposing party after his wife's party lost the election. While most of the accusations were not proven, the court did find that Judge Araula was guilty of challenging opponents to a fist fight while intoxicated. The court issued a reprimand and warned that any future similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    86 views1 page

    Macias v. Judge Araula

    Uploaded by

    Ike Gaamil
    Judge Araula was accused of serious infractions of the law and unethical participation in partisan politics for delivering political campaign speeches in support of his wife's party and urging people to vote for them. He was also accused of threatening and coercing market vendors who supported the opposing party after his wife's party lost the election. While most of the accusations were not proven, the court did find that Judge Araula was guilty of challenging opponents to a fist fight while intoxicated. The court issued a reprimand and warned that any future similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    36 - Macias v. Judge Araula (1982) Doctrine: • Avoidance of appearance of impropriety.

    – A judge’s
    official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only
    in the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
    reproach. • Essential conduct. – He should be temperate, ... patient ... . • Judges, indeed, should be not
    only men of highest integrity but they should also at all times conduct themselves in such a manner as to
    be above suspicion. Facts: Lamberto Macias filed an administrative complaint against Judge Araula, a
    judge in Southern Leyte, for serious infractions of the law, illegal and unethical participation in partisan
    politics, and electioneering, when: 1. He delivered the political campaign speech in a rally sponsored by
    the Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL), urging his audience to vote for the KBL candidates (his wife was
    the Chairman of KBL); and 2. He delivered again a political campaign speech at a KBL rally during which
    he said, among others, “Let us unite in this election; it is useless to support the Pusyon Bisaya because it
    is leaderless; President Marcos is still around to promote the welfare of the town of Dauin.” Macias
    likewise asserted in the same complaint that the judge was guilty of serious infractions of the law,
    oppression, and grave misconduct, when: 1. Two days after the elections in which the KBL candidates
    lost in Dauin, aggrieved and enraged by the people’s repudiation oh his political leadership and of his
    wife’s leadership in Dauin, he made a round in the public market, in the company of members of his
    family and goons, threatened, coerced, and physically ejected licit market vendors who were identified
    as Pusyon Bisaya followers, overturning and throwing out tables and market equipment, warning and
    challenging Pusyon followers in the market, and telling them to get out and that they can no longer sell
    goods in the market because they are Pusyon; and 2. In the same occasion, he, together with his three
    sons and goons, challenged Douglas Enriquez and his brother Atty. Enriquez, a Pusyon coordinator in
    Dauin, to a fist fight (raised clenched fists and shouted, “You are brave, you challenge me!”); and when
    Douglas ran to his brother Rudy, Judge Araula, his sons, and his goons followed him, and while there, his
    sons tore Douglas’ collar, slapped him, and threw a lighted cigarette upon the face of Rudy. At this time,
    the judge was drunk. Issue: 1. W/N Judge Araula is guilty Held/Ratio: 1. NO (except for #2 in the second
    paragraph). [The case was long and most of them focused on the findings of fact of the investigating
    judge.] The investigating judge found the witness as regards the events in the market place to be not
    credible, as she often changed her testimonies. The witnesses presented for the first two charges were
    also overturned by witnesses offered by Judge Araula. The Court also considered it mitigating that Judge
    Araula was enraged, since the complainants supposedly went to the city hall with brooms and made fun
    of them (Pusyon swept the elections, hence the brooms). Also, most of the complained acts were done
    by his sons, not by him, and there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was drunk. Nevertheless,
    the Court found the last allegation sufficient for a reprimand and stern admonition that a repetition of
    similar acts would be dealt with more severely (see doctrines).

    You might also like