SULLANO, GRACIA B.

3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

#11

Dela Cruz v Concepcion, RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1994

Facts:
Eliza Ratilla de la Cruz, Edeline Cuison, Ana Maria Cruz, and Lolita Santiago
filed a case against the accused for acts of lasciviousness. The accused Loreto
Estrella, Jr., summoned the victims and told them that he needs to examine
their private parts pursuant to a DECS memorandum. 
During the hearing, the four girls gave almost identical experience. The
accused on his part admitted that indeed he made such examination; however
denied that he touched the private parts of the girl.  Moreover, he argued that he
only did such in compliance with the DECS order. 
Upon hearing the prosecution and the defense, respondent Judge observed
that the girls consented, without any force employed upon them. The Judged
reasoned out that it is inconceivable that the girls did not make any objections if
indeed their private parts were touched with lust on the mind of the couch.  Thus,
Respondent Judge arrived on the conclusion that since the touching was necessary
in the examination required by the memorandum, no acts of lasciviousness can be
attributed to the accused. 

Issue:
Whether or not the decision of the respondent judge constitutes gross
ignorance of the law and violation of the Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Held:
 To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject decision, order or
actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be
moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. 
Neither bad faith nor malice may be imputed against the respondent judge.
Wrong appreciation of evidence cannot be a ground for gross ignorance of the law.
The court held that if we hold respondent guilty as charged, then we might be
telegraphing the wrong signals to our trial judges. For then, where administrative
sanctions are imposed on them for rendering judgments of acquittal based on
reasonable doubt or on difficult questions of law, they would be inclined, and not
without practical reason, to hand down verdicts of conviction, in case of doubt. For
that course would be safer for them to pursue since, after all, erroneous convictions
may still be corrected on appeal. But that would be disregarding the true concept
1
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

and judicial implication of "reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, under which judges
are directed according to the Rules of Court to render a judgment of acquittal. 
It should be asked of what law was the respondent judge grossly ignorant
when he acquitted the accused? Corollarily, did he knowingly render an unjust
judgment when he extensively discussed and satisfactorily explained his decision?
As such, the reiterate that "mere errors in the appreciation of evidence,
unless so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith, or
that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision, are irrelevant and immaterial
in an administrative proceeding against him. Therefore, respondent judge was
acquitted for the case charged.

2
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

#12
Ualat v Ramos, MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996

Facts:

Complainant Sabio is an agricultural lessee of an agricultural lot consisting of

4.7 hectares owned by Leonardo Coma and complainant Ualat is Sabio’s caretaker.
Sabio filed with DARAB a complaint for Recovery of Possession against the
landowner and Raymundo Sabio, brother of complainant Sabio. The landowner on
the other hand filed against herein complainants Sabio and Ualat an Illegal Detainer
case with the respondent judge’s sala. The DARAB ruled in favour of herein
complainants, however respondent Judge ruled, in the case before him, in favour of
the landowner ordering the complainants, among others, to vacate the property.

The complainants now contends that even if the case falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR, the respondent judge still took cognizance of the
case because of personal interest and motive.

Respondent Judge denied the charges and alleged that he was without
knowledge of information about the complaint with the DAR, nor was he made
aware of the DAR resolution because nothing of this sort was stated by the parties
in their pleadings, nor were these brought out in the proceedings.

The report of the Investigating Judge recommended the dismissal of the

complaint against the respondent Judge with a stern warning that he should be
more careful especially in those cases where the defendant claims to be the tenant
of the land in question.

However the Court Administrator disagreed with the recommendation of the

investigating judge pointing out that the defendants in the civil case has alleged in
their affidavits of landlord-tenant relationship and that this information should have
cautioned the respondent judge in taking cognizance of the case at once.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is culpable for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, ignorance of the law and serious misconduct.

3
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

Held:
Yes.
It can be readily seen from the answer filed by the complainants Sabio and
Ualat in the civil case, that they alleged the existence of an agrarian tenancy
relationship between themselves and the landowner. Additionally, in the
proceedings before him, the complainants were even represented by a lawyer from
the DAR. All of these should have been sufficient to put the respondent Judge on
notice that the matter before were claiming protection under our agrarian laws and
must be referred firs to the DAR. The knowledge of existing agrarian laws and
prevailing jurisprudence would have prompted the judge to refer the case to DAR.
With these established facts, the respondent judge could not use the excuse of
jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Of course, it is in the
interest of the landowner to hide of the existence of the landowner-tenant
relationship.
It is a pressing responsibility of judges to keep abreast with the law and
changes therein, as well as with the latest decisions of this Court. Ignorance of the
law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one — certainly not judges.
When the law is elementary, so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross
ignorance of the law.

4
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

#13
Del Rosario v Cedillo, MTJ-04-1557, October 21, 2004

Facts:
Complainant Del Rosario allegedly extended P12,000,000.00 to Estrella and
was secured by the latter with three postdated checks and two real estate
mortgages. The TCTs turned out to be fake and the the three checks were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The issue on falsification of the real estate
mortgages is pending in Malolos, Bulacan while the BP 22 case was raffled to
respondent Judge Cedillo. The notice of dishonour of the checks were allegedly
received and signed by A. Estrella. Estrella filed for Demurrer to Evidence. Estrella
claimed that the prosecution did not prove the 3 rd element of BP 22, that the notice
of dishonour was sent to and received by Estrella. The respondent judge granted
the demurrer to evidence and dismissed not only the criminal aspect but also the
civil case for the BP 22.
The Court Administrator found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance
of the law in dismissing both the criminal and civil aspects of the BP 22 case.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law
in dismissing both the criminal and civil aspects of the BP 22 case.

Held:
The judge did not err in dismissing the criminal aspect of the BP 22 case for
the prosecution’s failure to establish that Estrella received the notice of dishonour in
the form of a demand letter. The prosecution never made the effort to identify the
person who allegedly received and signed the registry receipt as A. Estrella. Estrella
herself or the her authorized agent was never proven by the prosecution.
The Supreme Court cannot rule on the administrative liability of the
respondent judge for dismissing the civil aspect of the case because it is still
subject of the complainant’s petition for relief from judgment with motion for
reconsideration pending and awaiting the designation of another judge in view of
respondent judge’s inhibition. An administrative complaint against a judge cannot
be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved
by the decision of the judge. The administrative or criminal remedies are neither
alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available and
must wait for the result thereof.

5
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

#14
Yu-Asensi v Villanueva, MTJ-00-1245

Facts:

The complaint is in connection with the criminal case for reckless imprudence
resulting in serious physical injuries wherein the complainant is the father of the 7
year old boy who was hit by a car driven by accused Santos. The case is before the
sala respondent Judge Villanueva.

The complainant declared that he had attended eight hearings in the criminal
case and that the respondent judge would always be late for about 1 and ½ hours
late and that he had witnessed mixed negative reactions from both litigants and
lawyers and witnesses against the respondent judge while waiting for him to
arrive.
The respondent judge answered that Yu-Asensi and his counsel is harassing
him for adverse rulings and resolutions he has rendered in the proceedings of the
criminal case. He also alleged that that he has a calendar of 30 to 40 criminal cases
for each session and conducts hearings up to 5:30 in the afternoon. He also avers
that he has one of the highest disposition of cases in the MTC of Quezon City.

The Investigating Judge finds the respondent guilty of habitual tardiness

which amounts to serious misconduct and inefficiency in violation of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of habitual tardiness
tantamount to serious misconduct and inefficiency in violation of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics.

Held:
Yes.
Various guidelines and circulars regarding punctuality and session hours have
been issued as restatement of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which enjoin judges to
be punctual in the performance of their judicial duties, recognizing that the time of
the litigants, witnesses and attorneys are of value. If a judge is not punctual in his
habits, he sets bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction in the
administration of justice.

6
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

The Court views the conduct of the respondent judge as untenable and
unjustified. The respondent is presumed to be aware of his duties and
responsibilities under the Code of Judicial Conduct. The fact that the respondent
judge has been castigated thrice for the same reason has not reformed him; he
also has six other administrative complaints pending against him.

Verily, the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct,

official or otherwise, of the men and women, from the judge to the least and lowest
of its personnel, hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and
everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of
justice. For his part, a judge, as the visible representation of the law and the
embodiment of the people's sense of justice must always strive to live up to his
responsibility of assisting parties-litigants in obtaining a just, speedy  and
inexpensive determination of their cases and proceedings.

7
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

#15
Office of the Court Administrator v Fuentes, AM No. RTJ-13-2342

Facts:
The judicial audit conducted at RTC Branch 49 of Tagbilaran City presided by
responded judge Fuentes reported that the court had 272 (138 criminal and 134
civil) pending cases as of June 13, 2011. 83 of these cases were deemed submitted
for decision, 70 were already beyond the reglementary period to decide, with some
cases submitted for decision as far back as 2003. Furthermore, 31 of these 70
cases were appealed from the first level courts, with two criminal cases involving
detention prisoners. The Court has directed respondent judge to cease and desist
from hearing cases and devote his time in deciding cases and resolving pending
motions/incidents.
The respondent explained that he offers no justification for such adverse
findings. He averred that he is not a resident of Bohol but of Ozamiz City and that
he had to go home from time to time upon proper leave to visit his family which
process has affected his health and his case disposition.
The OCA received verified complaint from herein complainant Paulino Butral
Sr. charging respondent of delay in rendering in a civil case before him. It has been
17 months since the case was submitted for decision. The OCA recommended that
the respondent judge be found guilty of gross inefficiency for his failure to decide
70 cases within the reglementary period.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of gross inefficiency.

Held:
Yes.
The respondent judge’s reason of traveling to his hometown to visit his
family will not absolve him from liability. The Court has always reminded judges
that it is not unmindful of the circumstances that may delay the disposition of the
cases assigned to them. Thus, the Court remains sympathetic to seasonably filed
requests for extension of time to decide cases. Unfortunately, no such requests
were made by Judge Fuentes III until the judicial audit was conducted by the OCA
and a directive was issued to him by the Court.

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Javellana, the Court held that a judge
cannot choose his deadline for deciding cases pending before him. Without an
extension granted by the Court, the failure to decide even a single case within the
required period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction. If
8
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

a judge is unable to comply with the period for deciding cases or matters, he can,
for good reasons, ask for an extension. An inexcusable failure to decide a case
within the prescribed 90-day period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the
imposition of administrative sanctions such as suspension from office without pay or
fine on the defaulting judge. The fines imposed vary in each case, depending chiefly
on the number of cases not decided within the reglementary period and other
factors, such as the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the
damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the
judge, and other analogous circumstances.

The Court deem the reduction of the fine proper considering that this is the
first infraction of Judge Fuentes III in his more than 15 years in the service. The
Court also take into consideration the fact that Judge Fuentes III exerted earnest
effort to fully comply with the directives of the Court as contained in the resolution.

#16

9
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

Ruiz v Bringas, AM No. MTJ-00-1266, April 6, 2000

Facts:

The complaint filed by Prosecutor Ruiz against respondent judge alleges of

the use of intemperate languages against lawyers appearing before his court. The
complainant alleges that the respondent is fond of insulting and maligning both
young lawyers and old including the prosecutors who appear before him in the
presence of party ligitgants and lawyers. He berated new practicing lawyers. He
once insulted an old lawyer Atty. Sanchez by uttering to the latter “you go to hell”.
These incidents just left ignored by the lawyers lest they would lose the case
pending before the respondent judge.
The complainant also pointed out that this is not the first time that a
complaint was filed against him for the same conduct. Also it alleges that
respondent misrepresented himself as a graduate of Ateneo Law School when the
fact shows that his name does not appear in the directory of graduates. And finally,
that the respondent has changed the name of the court from Municipal Trial Court
to City Trial Court.
Respondent judge answered that the remarks he made is in disgust at
complainant’s unpreparedness, that his conduct was affected by his recent stroke
which makes him irritable.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of serious misconduct.

Held:
Yes.
The Court would have been willing to recommend a reprimand but as it is
reflected in the respondent judge’s records, it is apparent that neither admonition
nor fine could make him change his attitude towards litigants and lawyers.

Anent the charge of changing the designation of his court from Municipal Trial
Court in Cities to "City Trial Court", the same could lead to confusion among
litigants and lawyers as such designation is really not within the provisions of
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Hence, this practice must be stopped and
respondent judge should be admonished to be more circumspect in his choice of
words when referring to his court.
Regarding the charge that respondent had misrepresented himself as a
graduate of Ateneo Law School, the same should be dismissed for being too trivial.
Even assuming that Judge Bringas indeed misrepresented on this aspect, the

10
SULLANO, GRACIA B. 3-A PALE CASE DIGEST PART 2 January 7, 2021

misrepresentation is inconsequential as it will not in any way affect his qualification

as a judge. He is still a graduate of law and a prosecutor before he became a judge.

 The duty to maintain respect for the dignity of the court applies to members
of the bar and bench alike. A judge should be courteous both in his conduct and in
his language especially to those appearing before him. He can hold counsels to a
proper appreciation of their duties to the court, their clients, and the public without
being petty, arbitrary, overbearing, or tyrannical. He should refrain from conduct
that demeans his office and remember always that courtesy begets courtesy. Above
all, he must conduct himself in such a manner that he gives no reason for reproach.
(San Juan v. Bagalacsa, 283 SCRA 416 (1997)) As stated in Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all his activities.

11