7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct

LUZ G. CRISTOBAL, vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (Nationa S!i"n!"
#"v"o$%"nt Boa&d, G.R. No. L)*+- A$&i -, /*-

0ACTS1 The deceased, Fortunato S. Cristobal was employed as Supervising

Information Ocer  of the !ational Science "evelopment #oard $!S"# for short
% based in #icutan, Taguig, &i'al. (is original appointment was dated February )*,
+*. On -pril , +/*, he developed loose bowel movement which later worsened
and his e0crement was mar1ed with fresh blood. Self2administered medications
were made but symptoms persisted until -pril )), +/* when he was brought to
the (ospital of Infant 3esus and was there treated by "r. 4illie 5agdameo, who
diagnosed his illness as rectal malignancy. On 6ay ), +/*, he was discharged
with improved conditions but 7ust one year thereafter, he was again con8ned at the
9ST (ospital for the same ailment. - second operation became necessary because
of the recurrence of malignancy in the pelvis. "espite earnest medical e:orts, he
succumbed to his illness on 6ay )/, +// .

The decedent;s widow and bene8ciary, 8led with the <overnment Service
Insurance System $<SIS for short%, a claim for income $death% bene8ts under
=residential "ecree !o. *)*, as amended. The said claim was denied by the <SIS
and in a subse>uent re>uest for reconsideration for the reason that the diseases of
her husband are not included in the list of occupational diseases that are
compensable. In th

ISSUE1 whether or not the wife of 6&. Cristobal can get compensation.

2EL#1 T(? "?CISIO! OF &?S=O!"?!T ?6=5O@??S; CO6=?!S-TIO!

CO66ISSIO! IS (?&?#@ S?T -SI"? -!" T(? &?S=O!"?!T <SIS IS (?&?#@ "I&?
CT?"

.
=?SOSTO
-S =-@ T(?#?!?FITS
"?-T( =?TITIO!? & T(? S96 OF T4? 5A? T(O9S-!" $=),BBB.BB%

). TO &? I6#9&S? =? TITIO!?& 6?"IC-5, S9&<IC-5 - !" (OS=IT-5 ?D=? !

S?S "95@ S9==O&T?" #@ =&O=?& &?C?I=TS

E. TO =-@ =?TITIO!? & T(? S96 OF S?A?! (9!"&?" $=/BB.BB% =?SOS

-S F9!?&-5 ?D=?!S?S -!"
. TO =-@ T(? =? TITIO!?& -TTO&!?@;S F?? S ?9IA-5? !T TO T? ! $BG %
=?&C?!T OF T(? "?-T( #?!?FITS.

The court give due consideration to the respondent;s application of =.". *)* in
ruling on the claim since petitioner;s husband died on 6ay )/, +//, after the
e:ectivity of the provisions of the !ew 5abor Code on ?mployees;
Compensation.
6oreover, medical records did not disclose the date when the deceased
employee actually contracted the disease, rectal malignancy having been
discovered only on
-pril )), +/* when the deceased sought hospital con8nement. From the above
discussion, it is undeniable that the petitioner is entitled to her claim.

http:// s lidepd f.com /reade r/fu ll/d iges ted -cases -judi ci al- conduct 1/ 24
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
SEBASTIAN C. PALANCA, vs. POTENCIANO PECSON, ETC.,

G.R. Nos. L3) and L3)3 0"4&5a&6 +7, /*7)

0ACTSH In Special =roceedings !o. ))* of the Court of First Instance of 6anila,
&afael "inglasan was the attorney of Sebastian =alanca, one of the heirs and an
oppositor to the probate of the will of his deceased father Carlos =alanca y

T a n g u in la y . " u e t o d i: e r e
s e rv i ce s o f - t ty . " in g la s a n
c e s o f o p i n io n , S e b a st ia n = a la n c a d i d a w a y w
w h o i n f a c t w i th d r e w a s = a la n c a ;s c o u n se l a ft
i th t e
e r t he appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of 6anila
probating the will had been elevated to the Supreme Court. On 3uly /, +), -tty.
"inglasan 8led in the testate proceedings a notice of attorney;s lien, alleging that
he was counsel of Sebastian =alanca from September +B until 6arch +)
that the reasonable value of his services is at least =)B,BBB that =alanca had
paid upon account only the sum of =E,BE, leaving an unpaid balance of =*,+/.
On -ugust *, +),
3udge =otenciano =ecson ordered that the notice of attorney;s lien be attached
to the record for all legal intents and purposes. Sebastian =alanca moved to
dismiss the foregoing petition, but the motion was denied on -ugust EB, +).
=alanca;s
subse>uent motion for reconsideration was also denied for lac1 of merit. The action
of 3udge =ecson in ordering that -tty. "inglasan;s notice of attorney;s lien be
attached to the record and in ta1ing cogni'ance of the petition to determine his
fees in Special =roceedings !o. ))*, is assailed by Sebastian =alanca in a
petition for certiorari 8led with this Court against 3udge =otenciano =ecson and
&afael "inglasan
$<.&. !o. 52*EE%.

ISSUEH $%whether the notice of attorney;s lien may be allowed at the stage when it
was 8led, namely, before 8nal 7udgment in favor of =alanca was secured by
respondent attorney.

$)% whether the respondent 3udge acted properly in entertainin g the

petition to determine -tty. "inglasan;s fees and in holding in abeyance =alanca;s
petition for advance inheritance.

2EL#H $%. !O. Section EE provides that an attorney Jshall also have a lien to the
same e0tent upon all 7udgments for the payment of money, and e0ecutions issued
in pursuance of such 7udgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client,
from and after the time when he shall have caused a statement of his claim of
such
lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such 7udgment, or
issuing such e0ecution, and shall have caused written notice thereof to be
delivered to his
client and to the adverse party and he shall have the same right and power
over such 7udgments and e0ecutions as his client would have to enforce his lien
and secure the payment of his 7ust fees and disbursements.J

$)% In view of what has been said, it is obvious that the respondent 3udge neither
acted without 7urisdiction nor abused his discretion in the matters herein
complained of. The petition for certiorari in <.&. !o. 52*EE and the petition for
mandamus in <.&. !o. 52*E* is hereby dismissed with costs against the
petitioner.
h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 2 24
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct

PASTOR SALUD vs. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES , 404 scra 411

FACTS:

On October 19, 1998, Pastor Salud filed a Letter Complaint with the OCA prayin
that the respondent !ude be found administrati"ely liable for delay in renderin
!udment in Ci"il Case #o$ LP%9&%'(($ )he Salud spouses claimed that the *)C had
the period from +ay 199 to Auust 199 to decide Ci"il Case #o$ LP%9&%'((, but had
not resol"ed the matter$ )hey li-ewise pointed to another case pendin before the
respondent, where the litiants had been waitin at least si. /&0 months for the courts
!udment$ )he complainants herein as-ed the OCA to loo- closely at the doc-et of
respondent !udes sala, as they were of the belief that se"eral cases ripe for decision
remained unacted upon$
2134

)he respondent !ude made the statement, accordin to Salud despite the prayer
of the Saluds that a decision be rendered on their unlawful detainer case$ Accordin
to respondent, after he decreed the issuance of a 5rit of 6.ecution Pendin
Appeal, complainant herein filed numerous pleadins not only before the *)C but
also with the Court of Appeals, which souht to thwart the implementation of the
writ issued and, ob"iously, to harass him$ Complainant li-ewise souht to inhibit
him from proceedin with the hearin of Ci"il Case #o$ LP%9&%'(($

ISSUES: whether or not the !ude "iolates the code of !udicial conduct $

HELD: YES. )he Constitution mandates lower court !udes to decide a case within
ninety /9(0 days from its submission$ Li-ewise, the Code of 7udicial Conduct
mandates
!udes to administer !ustice without delay and directs e"ery !ude to dispose of
the courts business promptly within the period prescribed by the law and the rules$

Supreme Court decided ACCORDINGLY, considerin all the circumstances in this

case, on$ lorentino +$ Alumbres, former presidin !ude of the *eional )rial Court
of Las Pi;as, <ranch =>>, is ?#6@ ?6 )OBSA#@ P6SOS P / >,((($((0 for
undue d el ay i n r en de ri n a d ec is io n i n C i"i l Ca se #o $ L P% 9& %'( ($ S ai
d a mo un t i s hereby O*@6*6@ deducted from retirement benefits of respondent$

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 3 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct

Tan T"8 B"n9 v. #avid

0a!ts1
Tan Te1 #eng and "avid, a lawyer, entered into an agreement. - contract was
signed by both parties and it stated thatH $% a !o%%ission:atto&n"6;s <""s
<&o% t=" !i"nts s5$$i"d 46 Tan >i 4" divid"d 7-7- 4"t>""n t="% ,
$)%"avid will not deal directly with their clients without TanKs consent, $E% Tan will be
collecting and 1eeping the said feesLadvances, and $% ot="& !i"nts >=o a&"
&"at"d Tan and a&" !onta!t"d t=&o59= =i% >i 4" =is !i"nts . Their business
agreement did not last because there were mutual accusations of double cross. Tan
Te1 #eng alleged that "avid did not honor their agreement. (e 8led a complaint
against "avid.

IssuesH
. 4L! disciplinary action should be ta1en against "avid

(eldL&atioH
. @?S.
The agreement between Tan Te1 #eng and "avid was void. Such agreement was
tantamount to malpractice, soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or bro1ers. The commerciali'ation of the practice
of law is condemned. &emember that the practice of law is a profession, not a
business. (ence, "avid shouldMve 1nown better than to engage in such 1ind of
agreements. "avid was reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice.

7-  Con&ado ?5" v. Att6. Anasta!io R"via, @&. (+--*

"octrineH
2 4hile a lawyer owes absolute 8delity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his
genuine interest, and warm 'eal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as
well as the e0ertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of the law.

FactsH
&espondent former -tty. -nastacio &evilla represented numerous clients that lost to
an unlawful detainer case against complainant Conrado ue. (owever, even before
representing these people, the SC had opportunity to discipline him in two prior
casesH Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo Garcia v. Atty Anastacio Revilla, Jr. !ow for
this case,respondent is facing a complaint for the following acts, all orchestrated to
stall the e0ecution of the 6TCKs 8nal 7udgment in favor of the complainantH

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 4 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
. &espondentKs abuse of court processes in remediesH he 8led two petitions for
annulment of title, a petition for annulment of 7udgment and a petition for
declaratory relief. (e also raised the lac1 of 7urisdiction of the 6TC and &TC in
these petitions
). Commission of forum2shopping
E. 5ac1 of candor toward his adversary $-tty. 9y% and the courts by resorting to
numerous falsehoods
. The willful insult and maligning of his clientsK former and deceased counsel -tty.
Catolico
. 9nauthori'ed appearance for  of his clients, most of whom were deceased
*. Filing a second and fraudulent petition for annulment of title as counsel for the
&epublic of the =hilippines when obviously unauthori'ed to do so $only the Solicitor
<eneral can do this%

IssueH
. 4L! &espondent ought to be disbarred for his numerous infractions of the laws.

(eldL&atioH
. @?S. The respondent has violated the followingH
a. &ule B.B, Canon B of the Code of =rofessional &esponsibility
b. &ule B.BE, Canon B of the Code of =rofessional &esponsibility
c. &ule ).B), &ule ).B, Canon ) of the Code of =rofessional &esponsibility
d. &ule +.B, Canon + of the Code of =rofessional &esponsibility
e. &ule against forum2shopping
f. Sections )B$d%, ) and )/, &ule E of the &ules of Court
-side from these, respondent also resulted to fraud before the court and even
represented the &epublic without its consent. The Court decided it had given
respondent enough opportunities to stop being a pain in the ass, but he didnMt
comply, so, itMs bye2bye for him.

LUALHATI M. LIANAG vs. JUDGE PATERNO H. LUSTRE,

FACTS: On September 19, 199>, complainant Lualhati +$ Liwana file a complaint to the
Court aainst the respondent 7ude Paterno $ Lustre be dismissed from the ser"ice due to
ross immorality and ra"e misconduct unbecomin of his profession$ Prior to 7uly, 1993,
my husband, 7ose <$ Dafra filed twel"e /1=0 counts of "iolation of <$P$ == aainst Oscar
Chua, @ante Chua and *owena Chua for issuin chec-s amountin to appro.imately '$>
million pesos that were dishonored when presented for payment$ )he said cases were
assined at the +unicipal )rial Court of Calamba, Launa presided by 7ude Paterno
Lustre$ )he case was set for hearin for #o"ember 1&, 1993$ owe"er, when the
date came, 7ude Lustre was not present$ ence, the hearin was reset to @ecember 1>,
1993$ She decided to see !ude Paterno Lustre to reEuest another date of hearin
because of fear that he miht do it aain caressin my breast, -issin me and more
of that$ +rs$ Liwana supported her complaint with the photoraphs$ ?t happened
se"eral times he delayed the hearin he always postponed it$

ISSUE: whether or not the !ude committed the ross misconduct$

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 5 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct

HELD: Y!s. )he *espondent is FB?L)G of ross misconduct$ As he has already retired from
the ser"ice and thus could no loner be dismissed nor suspended, the Supreme Court ordered
that a ?#6 of P3(,((($(( be imposed upon him, to be deducted from his retirement benefits$
urther, he is hereby barred by the Supreme court from any employment in all branches of
the
o"ernment includin o"ernment%owned and %controlled
corporations$

E OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

PEOPL
On September 8, 1999, the People’s motion seeking reconsideration o
1", 199# decision in these cases$ %n said resol!tion, the respondent &!dge
FACTS: o San( )aceda committed no gra*e ab!se o discretion in iss!ing the order o
A!g!st
8, 1989 gi*ing c!stod+ o*er pri*ate respondent A*elino T$ &a*ellana to the
'oniaci
Co!rt o the egional Trial Co!rt, 'ranch 1-, San &ose, Anti.!e, Att+$
A!g!st
ias del osario, d!ring the pendenc+ o Criminal Cases 0os$ ""#2""$ At
Clerk o
e, s!icient reason 3as sho3n 3h+ pri*ate respondent &a*ellana sho!ld not be
/eograc
that timat the Anti.!e Pro*incial &ail$ The trial co!rt’s order speciicall+ pro*ided or
detainedespondent’s detention at the residence o Att+$ del osario$ 4o3e*er,
pri*ate ent 3as not to be allo3ed libert+ to roa m aro!nd b!t 3as to be held
pri*ate ras
respond
detention prisoner in said residence$ 4o3e*er, he 3ent abo!t his normal acti*ities as
i he 3ere a ree man, incl!ding engaging in the practice o la3$ /espite o!r
on o &!l+ "#, 199# prohibiting pri*ate respondent to appear as co!nsel in
resol!ti
l Case 0o$ 5-6-,71 the latter accepted cases and contin!ed practicing la3
Crimina

On April , 199, Senior State Prosec!tor 4enrick F$ !ingo+on iled 3ith the
S!preme Co!rt a motion seeking clariication on the ollo3ing .!estions: ;<1= /oes
the resol!tion o this 4onorable Co!rt dated &!l+ "#, 199#, prohibiting Att+$ &a*ellana
rom appearing as co!nsel reer onl+ to Criminal Case 0o$ 5-6-> < -= %s Att+$ no3
<&!dge= /eogracias del osario still the c!stodian o Att+$ &a*ellana> and <"= Since it
appears that Att+$ <no3 &!dge= del osario ne*er reall+ held and detained Att+$
&a*ellana as prisoner in his residence, is not Att+$ &a*ellana considered an escapee or a
!giti*e o ?!stice or 3hich 3arrant or his arrest sho!ld orth3ith be
7-
iss!ed>; © 

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 6 24
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
%n a resol!tion dated &!ne 18, 199, 3e ;noted; t
he abo*e motion$

Ater 3e denied the motion or reconsideration on September 8, 1999, the trial co!rt
res!med hearing Criminal Cases 0os$ ""#2""$ @arlier, on A!g!st -, 1999, olando
)i?ares iled 3ith the egional Trial Co!rt, 'ranch 1-, San &ose, Anti.!e, a motion
seeking the re*ocation o the trial co!rt’s c!stod+ order and the imprisonment o
pri*ate respondent &a*ellana in the pro*incial ?$
ail
ana iled 3ith the S!preme Co!rt an
On 0o*ember 1, 1999, pri*ate respondent &a*ell 18, 199 resol!tion inall+
!rgent motion seeking to clari+ 3hether the &!nen iled b+ the State Prosec!tor on
terminated or resol*ed the motion or clariicatio
April , 199$
sed on the iling o criminal cases
Pri*ate respondent &a*ellana has been arrested bander the c!stod+ o the la3$ The trial
! o pri*ate resp ondent &a*ellana
against him$ '+ s!ch arrest, he is dee med to be d+
co!rt ga*e Att+$ /eogracias del osario the c!sto
t+$ del osario’s residence in his
nal trial co!rt$ 4ence, 3hen Att+$ del
3ith the obligation ;to hold and detain; him in
At oicial capacit+ as the clerk o co!rt o thepersonal c!stodian o acc!sed
regio
be deemed the c!stodian !nder the
osario 3as appointed ?!dge, he ceased to be the
&a*ellana and the s!cceeding clerk o co!rt m!st
same !ndertaking$
ondent &a*elana’s
lie no longer eist$
gi*ing c!stod+ o *er him to the clerk
%n o!r mind, the percei*ed threats to pri*ate respd at the Pro*incia
l &ail o Anti.!e at
Th!s, the trial co!rt’s order dated A!g!st 8, 1989
o co!rt m!st be recalled, and he shall be detaine
San &ose, Anti.!e$ ntion prisoner pri
*ate respondent
as a necessar+ c
egarding his contin!ed practice o la3, as a dete onse.!ence o his
&a*ellana is not allo3ed to practice his proessionder 3as clear that
pri*ate respondent
stat!s as a detention prisoner$ The trial co!rt’s to be held as a d
o Criminal Caseetention prisoner$;
or 0o$ 5-6-, b!t to all
respondent 3o!l
;is not to be allo3ed libert+ to roam aro!nd b!t is d appear in co!rt to
The prohibition to practice la3 reerred not onl+ t
other cases as 3ell, ecept in cases 3here pri*ate
oense is arreste
deend himsel$ 󰂮 d, he is deemed
in act!al restraint o libert+ in ?ail so
on o the oense$ 4e m!st be
7"

As a matter o la3, 3hen a person indicted or angainst him, !nless he is a!thori(ed b+
placed !nder the c!stod+ o the la3$ 4e is placede$ Bet it be stressed that all
75

that he ma+ be bo!nd to ans3er or the commissi

detained in ?ail d!ring the pendenc+ o the case a
the co!rt to be released on bail or on recogni(anc
prisoners 3hether !nder pre*enti*e detention or ser*ing inal sentence can
not
practice their proession nor engage in an+ b!siness or occ!pation, or hold
h p soice,
depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 7 24
 electi*e or appointi*e, 3hile in detention$ This is a necessar+ conse.!ence o arrest
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
and detention$ Conse.!entl+, all the acc!sed in Criminal Cases 0os$ ""#2"" m!st
be conined in the Pro*incial &ail o Anti.!e$

Considering that the pendenc+ o Criminal Cases 0os$ ""#2"" has dragged on or
more than ten <1#= +ears, the presiding ?!dge o the egional Trial Co!rt, 'ranch 1-,
San &ose, Anti.!e, is ordered to contin!e 3ith the trial o said criminal cases 3ith all
deliberate dispatch and to a*oid !rther dela+$

WHEREFORE, the A!g!st 8, 1989 order o the trial co!rt is hereb+ S@T AS%/@. All
acc!sed in Criminal Cases 0os$ ""#2"", incl!ding A*elino T$ &a*ellana and Art!
ro F$ Paciicador are ordered detained at the Pro*incial &ail o Anti.!e, San &ose,
Anti.!e, eecti*e immediatel+, and shall not be allo3ed to go o!t o the ?ail or
an+
reason or g!ise, ecept !pon prior 3ritten per mission o the trial co!rt or a la3!l
p!rpose$

Bet copies o this resol!tion be gi*en to the Pro*incial /irector, P0P Anti.!e
Pro*incial Police Oice, San &ose, Anti.!e and to the Pro*incial &ail arden,
Pro*incial &ail o Anti.!e, San &ose, Anti.!e$

EFREN JAVIER and PEDRO JAVIER vs. JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN,

JR., 192 SCRA 434

FACS! On 8 August 1989 disbarment proceedings on the ground of "dishonorable conduct"

w er e ins titu ted befor e the C ommittee o n B ar Dis cipline o f the Integra ted B
complainants
ar
de by fren !aier #son$ and %edro !aier #father$ against respondent &alador %'
(u)man* !r'* as a member of the Bar and as %residing !udge of the +egional ,rial Court*
-a.ati* -etro -anila' /oweer* pursuant to &upreme Court Circular 0o' 289* dated
9
3ebruary 1989* re4uiring that complaints filed in the IB% against !ustices and !udges of the
lower Courts be promptly referred to the &upreme Court for appropriate action*
the
Complaint was eentually transmitted to this Court' +espondent filed in -anila two
#5$
criminal complaints* the first* for iolation of B'%' Blg' 55 against fren* who* howeer* was
ac4uitted* and the second* for stafa against Complainants and 6olita !aier*
which
complaint was dismissed' ,he third charge concerns +espondent7s alleged act of
harassment
in continuing with the criminal prosecution of complainant* fren* for iolation of
Batas
%ambansa Blg' 55 despite his haing been informed that fren was not the owner and
drawer of the chec.* and* therefore* is not the proper person to be charged' 6ater * the
complainants filed this administratie charge against +espondent !udge on four counts of
"dishonorable conduct*" as follows

1' +espondent had loaned money to Complainants at usurious interest as can be

gleaned from the fact that after receiing %1*:::':: in installments* he still
see.s to recoer the amount of %;55*81';<
5' +espondent too. adantage of his position as +egional ,rial Court !udge of -a.ati*
-etro -anila* by filing a collection case against Complainants and 6olita !aier
h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 8 24
 before the same Court and ma.ing false and fraudulent manifestations
that
Complainants had failed to pay any amount as of 8 &eptember 1988<

' +espondent resorted to harassment by filing a criminal complaint for iolation of

B'%' Blg' 55 against Complainant* fren* despite .nowledge that the latter was
not the drawer of the =C%B chec.< and
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
>' +espondent failed to reeal the true facts of the case* in iolation of Articles 185
and 18 of the +eised %enal Code penali)ing "3alse testimony*" when he filed the
administratie charges with the Bureau of Internal +eenue and the Ciil &erice
Commission against Complainant %edro notwithstanding .nowledge of the fact
that %edro was not inoled in the transaction in 4uestion'  nad

ISS UE ! " #$%# $& ' & n '% % #$ & $s (' nd $n % ) *d +$ v' -a%$s % #$  'd $ ' / )
*d   a-
'nd*%.

0ELD! ,his is premised on the truism that a !udge7s official life cannot simply be detached
or separated from his personal e?istence and that upon a !udge7s attributes depend the
public perception of the !udiciary' ,hus
"%ublic confidence in the !udiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of
@udges' A @udge must aoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof' Being
the
sub@ect of constant public scrutiny* a @udge should freely and willingly
accept
restrictions on conduct that might be iewed as burdensome by the ordinary citi)en' chanr

oble

ir tuallawlibr ar
y

A @udge should personify @udicial integrity and e?emplify honest public serice'
,he personal behaior of a @udge* both in the performance of official duties and in
priate life should be aboe suspicion'" #Commentaries on Canon* 5':1$
&o e?acting are the standards of @udicial department that a !udge is een en@oined from
ma.ing inestments in any enterprise that is li.ely to be inoled in litigation'
"A @udge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to
reflect adersely on the court7s impartiality* interfere with the proper performance of
@udicial actiities* or increase inolement with lawyers or persons li.ely to come
before the Court' A @udge should so manage inestments and other financial
interests as to minimi)e the number of cases giing grounds for dis4ualification" cr alaw

#Code of !udicial Conduct* +ule ':5$

,he rationale for the rule applies with e4ual igor in this case'
hile +espondent !udge may hae had reasons of conenience for filing his collection suit in
-a.ati where he sits as one of the ,rial !udges* a sense of propriety should hae impelled
him to desist' In the eyes of the public* it arouses suspicion* rightly or wrongly*
that
adantage is being ta.en of one7s position and that a !udge7s adersary is sure to get a raw
deal' As it turned out* +espondent !udge* in his official stationery* upbraided the &heriff who
enforced the rit of %reliminary Attachment for not haing ta.en into custody all the items
h e h ad le ied u po n a nd " as .ed" h im to do s o " with in for ty eight h ou rs " # ?
hibit ! * Complaint* +ollo* p' >>$' In this regard* +espondent had e?posed the Bench to
possible charges of e?ertion of undue pressure and influence'

,/ &=%+- court fi nds +espondent !udge* &alador %' de (u)man* !r' guilty on three #$
counts* of irresponsible* improper and dishonorable conduct in disregard of the Code of
!udicial thics* he is hereby &+6 C0&=+D* with a stern warning that a repetition of
the said acts or similar acts in the future shall receie graer
sanctions'

6et this Decision be spread upon the personal records of +espondent !

udge'

MERCEDIA G. LORENZO v. JUDGE PRIMO L. MARUEZ

FACTS: On October 11* 198 e?ecuted by -ercedita (' 6oren)o and in an endorsement of
December 5* 198 of the Chief &tate %rosecutor transmitting the report of the 0ational Bureau of
Inestigation dated 0oember * 198* the herein respondent !udge %rimo 6' -ar4ue) of the -unicipal ,rial
h p sCourt
depd#-,C$
com eade u d ges
of &ariaya* ed cases
Eue)on ud c a conduc
is charged on three counts* namely #1$ harassment in failing to indorse 9 24
 the reappointment of complainant -ercedita (' 6oren)o as -unicipal ,rial Court Aide* such reluctance of
the respondent must be because she was a protegee of the respondentFs predecessor* former !udge !ose
%arentela* !r'* who reportedly e?posed the illegal issuance of the subpoena to Obosa by the
Respondent'
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
0eertheless* it is the priilege of the respondent as presiding @udge of his court to recommend the
employee with whom he will wor.' I f he did not choose to hae said complainant reappointed* he cannot
thereby be held administratiely liable< #5$ for iolation of &ection 1* +ule 1 of the +ules of Court in
deciding Ciil Case 0o' 15:5 entitled Gilusang Bayan %ampananalapi ng &ariaya ' (ilda Balid* t Al'* when
he was the former counsel of the plaintiff* the complaint was filed by Crisostomo 6' 6una* president and
board chairman of the plaintiff* who is his uncle' 1 ,he respondent was then a member of the board of
directors of the plaintiff' 5 In an order of 0oember 58* 198;* !udge %arentela declared defendants in
default for failure to file their answer' hen the respondent assumed office he issued an order on 3ebruary
1:* 198 re4uiring plaintiff to secure the serices of another counsel in his place and he set the case
for hearing' On -arch 9* 198* he issued an order considering the case submitted for decisionand #$
for issuing a subpoena for the appearance of !ose D' Obosa* a prison inmate of the 0ational Bilibid
%risons
#0B%$ to appear before him when said person has no case pending before him nor is he a witness in any
pending case therein'

ISSUE 1'whether or not respondent @udge guilty of gross misconduct'

5' whether or not the respondent @udge iolates rules of the court'

0ELD ,he respondent committed grae and serious misconduct in the performance of his duty' /e
demonstrated his unfitness to be a @udge as in fact by his behaior he has placed the @udiciary in disrepute'
 /e abused the great powers of his office so that he should not stay a moment longer as a member of the
@udiciary'

,he &upreme Court held that the respondent is cleared of the charge of harassment filed by -ercedita ('
6oren)o* he is hereby found guilty of grae and serious misconduct for deciding Ciil Case 0o' 15:5* entitled
Gilusang Bayan %ampananalapi ng &ariaya #GB%&$ ' (ilda Balid* t Al'* wherein he was a former counsel for
plaintiff in iolation of &ection 1* +ule 1 of the +ules of Court* and for haing illegally issued a subpoena
for the appearance of prison i nmate !ose ,' Obosa of the 0B% before him in Criminal Case 0o' 895>*
entitled "%eople of the %hilippines ' Cesar &alamat<" and as pe nalty thereof* the respondent is hereby DI&-
I&&D from the serice with pre@udice to reinstatement in the goernment and forfeiture of his retirement
benefits* if any* but without pre@udice to the payment of his accrued leae or salaries already earned'

ARA0AM L. RAMIREZ s' 0ON. ANONIA CORPUZ

MACANDOG

FACS! !udge Antonia Corpu)2-acandog of the +egional ,rial Court of Caloocan

City* Branch CHH* and stands charged in si? separate complaints of arious forms of
misconduct in the performance of her official duties' ,hese are Administratie -atter 0o'
+212+,!, Administratie -atter 0o' +292+,!* Administratie -atter 0o' +2;512+,!,
Administratie
-atter 0o' +2;8>2+,!* Administratie -atter 0o' +2;82+,! and Administratie -atter 0o'
8;2>29982+,C' In the Administratie -atter 0o' +212+,!* where the petitioner Abraham
6' +amire) petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on !une 59* 198 by Deputy &heriff
Abraham 6' +amire) of the +egional ,rial Court of Caloocan City to secure his release from
the Caloocan City @ail' +amire) was ordered arrested on !une 5* 198 by respondent @udge
for direct contempt of court consisting in his alleged disobedience to the writ of preliminary
in@unction dated !anuary 51* 198 issued in Ciil Case 0o' 8;85 en@oining him from
demolishing the improements of the interenors in said case'chanrobles irtual law library

Deputy &heriff +amire) had preiously been directed by !udge &ocorro ,irona26iwag of
Branch CHHIII of the same court in an order dated !anuary 11* 198* to demolish the
improements of the defendants in 9 Ciil Cases' &aid defendants are the interenors in
Ciil Case 0o' 8;85 on whose motion respondent @udge issued the preliminary
in@unction'chanrobles irtual law library

,he immediate e?ecution of the order of arrest was effected thru a handwritten note of
respondent @udge addressed to then superintendent of the 0orthern %olice District* Brig'
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 10 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
(en' Alfredo 6im' =pon orders of this Court* howeer* Deputy &heriff +amire) was
released from @ail on !uly 5* 198' ,hereafter* the court resoled to treat the petition as an
1 2
administratie case and to re4uire respondent @udge to comment thereon'

+espondent @udge denied haing acted arbitrarily or capriciously in causing the arrest of
+amire)' &he @ustified the arrest as a means of presering substantial @ustice so that any
decision rendered in Ciil Case 0o' 8;85 may not be rendered moot and academic and as a
curatie measure to presere the greater interest of social @ustice' ,he handwritten note* on
the other hand* was e?plained as a means to presere the integrity of courts of @ustice in

the enforcement of alid and lawful orders' &he added that the writ of preliminary in@unction
was issued by her in the e?ercise of her original @urisdiction* while the Order of !anuary 11*
198 was issued by !udge 6iwag in the e?ercise of appellate @urisdiction* which the latter
should not hae done as she should hae remanded the case to the court of origin for
e?ecution'

ISSUE! whether or not !udge -acandog will be dismiss in the serice'

0ELD! &' ,he &upreme Court held that respondent !udge -acandog has shown
herself to be mentally and morally unfit to remain in her office' /er remoal must
perforce be effected'chanrobles irtual law library

In iew of the disclosure by respondent that the decision in Ciil Case 0o' C2981
was rendered under undue pressure and influence* the party aggrieed thereby
may ta.e such remedial steps as may be warranted'chanrobles irtual law library

/+3O+* respondent !udge Antonia Corpu)2-acandog is hereby ordered

dismissed from the serice* with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay* and
with pre@udice to reinstatement in any branch of the goernment or any of its
agencies or instrumentalities'chanrobles irtual law library

,his Decision is immediately e?ecutory'

LEON UMALE "s. HONORABLE ONOFRE #ILLALU$

FACTS: Petitioner Leon Bmale impuns the "alidity of the order dated April 1>, 191 of
respondent 7ude Onofre A$ illaluH of the Circuit Criminal Court sittin at Pasi, *iHal,
disEualifyin or inhibitin himself from tryin the robbery chare aainst si.teen /1&0 accused
includin the si. /&0 pri"ate respondents 6duardo eliciano, Antonio @a"id, irilio Chico, <en!amin
6scandor, *olando Samson, and Alfonso Co, entitled IPeople "s$ +arina Feronimo$ Petitioner
Leon Bmale is the complainant in the said robbery case, the robbery ha"in been alleedly
committed on September
=1, 19( in his warehouse in Pasi, *iHal from which were assorted te.tile materials "alued at
P==9,&>9$9(3$ )he oriinal information was dated 7anuary 11, 191, while the first amended
information was dated +arch 3, 191$ )he case was filed by the actin state prosecutor, who
conducted the preliminary in"estiation directly with the Circuit Criminal Court presided by
respondent 7ude Onofre A$ illaluH, who from 7anuary 19 to April 1=, 191, issued se"eral
orders
for the arrest of the accused, fi.in their ba il bonds, allowin an accused to post cash or surety bond
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 11 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
for his pro"isional liberty, for their arrainment, or for their commitment to the pro"incial !ail, as well
as issued subpoena duces tecum and contempt citations aainst certain police officers who failed
to appear on the days set for hearin$

owe"er, on April 1>, 191, without any party mo"in for his disEualification or inhibition, respondent
7ude Onofre illaluH "oluntarily inhibited himself from tryin the case Ifor the peace of mind of the
parties concerned and to insure an impartial administration of !usticeI on the round that before the
criminal case was filed in his court, he already had personal -nowlede of the sameJ and directed
the immediate forwardin of the records of the case to the 6.ecuti"e 7ude of the Court of irst
?nstance of Pasi, *iHal, for proper disposition$ PetitionerKs motion for reconsideration of said order
of inhibition was denied on April 1&, 191 by said respondent 7ude$ Another motion of petitioner for
the deferment of the rafflin of the case in the Court of irst ?nstance of *iHal was denied by the
6.ecuti"e 7ude, who li-ewise re!ected petitionerKs motion for the return of the case to the Circuit
Criminal Court$ )he case was, after rafflin, assined to <ranch ??? of the Court of irst ?nstance of
*iHal, then presided by then 7ude <en!amin AEuino and doc-eted as Crim$ Case #o$ ==9$

I : J I IN INHIBITING HIMSELF FROM THE CASE

SSUE HETHERI OR NOT THE UDGE ACT ONLAR COURT IS #ALID.
AND TRANSFERR NG THE C ASE TO THE
REGU: $ r rt l t tt i iary Act and the *ules of Court do not prohibit
t r ffli r r %r ffli t i t me station and in the same 7udicial @istrict of a
HELD G6S r t )he Sup teme Couit he d ha ri i hell 7ud c or assined is disEualified or "oluntarily
r ffled
i hei aiti n i o elf fa r nli amon! he t 7udes $ n i he sabeen done in many instances$ ?t was li-ewise
case whei et he 7udet o whom r ft r t wasri i na
o  l y atr ferred to the reular Courts of irst ?
nh b n h mse o "a d and us causes )h nstance s
hasitti t i , i l$ li it ft tri l t e decision rendered in the case depends
done n he case a ba a e he c m na case solely ans
s n t a ! Pas
ri i ti* Haf t )he "art d y or t he a! and t tter of the case and o"er the parties, to whom
h due
onr he u fsd l c on o he cou r o"e $ he sub ec ma
p ocess o aw has been acco ded ud

rt r r ,t r rt l r t e committed no ab use of discretion$

S
u he mo e he Sup eme Cou he d esponden 7
? ? ? ? ? 6@, 5?) COS)S AFA?#S) P6)?)?O#6*$
56*6O*6 )6 P6) ) O# S 6*6<G @ S+ S

CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN
VICTOR TUZON vs . JUDGE LORETO

g
ch
ainst &!dge Boreto Cloribel2P!r!
71 ar
FACTS: An administrati*e complaint gganan, ", or illegal practice o la3, gross
Code o &!dicial Condignorance tialit+, kno3ingl+ rendering !n?!st
and 3ill!l *iolations o thepetition or certiorari a
3ith the Co!rt o Appeals a ?!dgment,
T!g!egarao, Caga+an, 'ran ch ", presided o*er b+ r
The order denied T!(on !ct$ On &!ne -, 1998, Dictor $ T!(on iled
in Ci*il Case 0o$ 5-69$ ssailing the order o the egional Trial Co!rt,
7- he case be s!bmitted  espondent &!dge Boreto Cloribel2P!r!gganan
 n Edirecting pri*ate r’s motion to allo3 cross2eamination o his
3itness and directed that t
comment thereon and to sho3 ca!se 3h+ the pra+ or resol!tion$ On &!l+ -, 1998, the Co!rt o
7"
both 3ithin ten <1#= da+s rom notice hereo$ O espondent a+m!ndo @$ Catral to ile
comment or a+m!ndo Catral and hersel, and athe
75
er or in?!ncti*e relie sho!ld not be granted
O n &!l+ --, 1998, respondent ?!dge iled the
h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc
ied her name and signat!re on the comment$ 12 24
 n A!g!st -, 1999, the Co!rt o Appeals dismissed the petition or certiorari or lack o
merit$

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
On Febr!ar+ 15, -###, T!(on iled 3ith the S!preme Co!rt an administrati*e complaint against
7

respondent ?!dge deploring the act o iling a comment in the ci*il case as illegal pri*ate practice
76
o la3$ T!(on also a*erred that respondent ?!dge antedated her decision in Ci*il Case 0o$
5-6, making it appear that the decision 3as prom!lgated on &!ne -", 1999, 3hen in act it
3as iss!ed later$

On )arch -", -###, respondent ?!dge iled 3it h the S!preme Co!rt a comment
7
on the administrati*e complaint o Dictor $ T!(on$ She admitted a!thoring the comment
iled 3ith the Co!rt o Appeals in the ci*il case in*ol*ing complainant$ She stated that she did
so beca!se
Att+$ %sidro e+es, co!nsel or the pri*ate respondent a+m!ndo @$ Catral in that ci*il case,
3as
sick and !nable to perorm his 3ork$ espondent ?!dge denied antedating an+ decision and
alleged that complainant ailed to present an+ e*idence to s!pport s!ch acc!
sation$

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT JUDGE PURUGGANAN GUILTY IN VIOLATING THE

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND REVISED RULES OF THE COURT.

RATIO: %n iling s!ch comment, respondent ?!dge *iolated the pro*ision in the e*ised !
les o Co!rt 3hich pro*ides:

EGnless other3ise speciicall+ directed b+ the co!rt 3here the petition is pending, the p!
blic respondents shall not appear in or ile an ans3er or comment to the petition or an+
pleading therein$ % either part+ ele*ates the case to a higher co!rt, the p!blic respondents
shall be incl!ded therein as nominal parties$ 4o3e*er, !nless other3ise speciicall+ directed,
the+ shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein

HELD: YES., the Co!rt hereb+ inds respondent ?!dge Boreto Cloribel2P!r!gganan g!ilt+ o
illegal practice o la3, in *iolation o the Code o &!dicial Cond!ct and the e*ised !les
o Co!rt$ The Co!rt hereb+ metes o!t on her the penalt+ o s!spension rom oice or a period
o three <"= months, 3itho!t pa+, and to pa+ a ine o ten tho!sand <P1#,###$##= pesos, 3ith a
3arning that the commission o the same or similar act 3ill be dealt 3ith more se*erel+
$

This esol!tion is eecti*e immediatel+$

A. DAVID G. OMPOC s' JUDGE NORIO E. ORRES

S$(%$56$& 27, 1989

FACS On &eptember 9* 198; -r' +amon !' 6iwag* &erice

Chief*
,echnical &taff* -inistry of !ustice #now Department of !ustice$
referred to the Court Administrator a sworn letter complaint dated
h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 13 24
 18 !une 198; of Atty' Daid (' Ompoc against !udge 0orito
'
,orres' chanr oblesir tuallawlibr ar y

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct

A ciil case no' +25;> for e@ ectment entitled* -arcos A' scobar*
plaintiff ersus Deco &ales* defendant* was filed sometime in 198 >
with the City Court of Cebu' After the usual raffle it was assigned to
!udge 0orito ,orres* Branch II' hile the case was being tried on
the merits* at one time he inited me to see him at h is residence at
Banawa* Cebu City and he instructed me to bring my client * -r'
Charlie ,aguiam* proprietor of Deco &ales along with me.That

m e et in g a t t h e res i d e n c e o f
J ud ge T or r e s w a s ap rc etus ae lly
an d M r . T a g u i am n t* ahe l d with me
n d in th e c o u rs e o f o u r in tim a t e
conversation he gave us a guide what evidence and argument we
have to present. Also in that meeting Judge Torres requested Mr.
Charlie Taguiam, who is engage (sic in the business of Car !ecorto
install a brand new airconditioner on h is ,oyota /i2Ace and said
airconditioner was installed without !udge 0orito ,orres paying for
it' 3urthermore* @udge ,orres been re4uested -r' ,aguiam loans with
a diferrent amounts'

ISSUE! hether or not !udge ,orres iolated the code of @udicial

conduct'

0ELD! ES. ACCO+DI0(6* the Court +esoled to

DI&-I&& respondent !udge from the serice* with forfeiture of all
his accrued retirement benefits* leae and other priileges* if
any* and with pre@udice to re2employment in any
branch* agency or instrumentality of the goernment* including
goernment2owned or controlled corporations' chanr oblesir tuallawlibr ar y

,he Court also +esoled to +E=I+ respondent to show cause

within ten #1:$ days from receipt of this +esolution why he should
not be DI&BA++D for gross professional misconduct and iolation
of the attorney7s oath* consisting of the same acts of which he has
here been found to be guilty' chanr oblesir tuallawlibr ar y

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES "s$ ALEJANDRO IBASAN, SR., a%&as 'L(r&)*'+ ALEJANDRO
IBASAN, JR., a%&as 'I)s&-'+ ALEJANDRO IBASAN II, a%&as 'B('+ a)/ ALEJANDRO IBASAN III
a%&as 'T&(, J)! , 1234

FACTS: )he decision of the Circuit Criminal Court, @aupan City, )hird 7udicial @istrict,
con"ictin Ale!andro ?basan, Sr$, alias ILorinIJ Ale!andro ?basan, 7r$ alias I?ntsi-IJ Ale!andro ?basan ??
alias I<oyI and Ale!andro ?basan ??? alias I)itoI of the crime of murder$

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 14 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
After the information was filed but before the accused could be arrained, a motion to amend the
chares to murder and for the presentation of additional e"idence con"inced the iscal t o conduct
a rein"estiation$ A notice of rein"estiation was issued by the @istrict State Prosecutor, upon
proper authority of the @aupan City iscal, with the ad"ice that he Iwill conduct a rein"estiation
of the abo"e%entitled case on 5ednesday, Auust 9, 198,

)he motion was ranted and accused Ale!andro ?basan, 7r$ alias I?ntsi-I was accordinly
arrained on 7uly =8, 198 with a plea of #O) FB?L)G to homicide$ SubseEuently, he left for
abroad after wai"in his riht to be present durin the proceedins$ <ut after the trial, the court
found the four
appellants uilty as chared$ ence, this appeal$)he accused%appellants interposed the followin
assinments of errors:the lo3er co!rt erred in not dismissing the case as against the acc!sed ale?andro
ibasan, ?r$, on the gro!nd o do!ble ?eopard+, the lower court erred in acti"ely participatin in andor
conductin the e.amination of witnesses as thouh it were the prosecutionJ and in depri"in the
defense from presentin other material witnesses by i"in hope and impressions which turned
out to be false after all, the lower court erred in its appreciation of the facts as presented, and in
ma-in conclusions not supported by the e"idence as adduced, the lower court erred in not
dismissin the
case as aainst all the accused after the prosecution had rested its case and upon motion to dismiss
filed by defense based on three "alid rounds, the lower court erred in not acEuittin the four
remainin accused after the termination of the trial on the round that the prosecution utterly failed to
pro"e their uilt beyond reasonable d oubt, the lower court erred in den yin the four con"icted
accused of their riht to bail, their riht to ha"e their case transferred to another sala or other court
of competent !urisdiction, and their riht to be detained in the local !ail pendin their appeal instead
of in the national penitentiary at muntinlupa$

ISSUE: 56)6* O* #O) )6 ?SCAL CO++?))6@ A# 6**O* 5?) )6 CAS6 @6C?S?O#$

HELD: )he Court decided At the o utset, it is important to note the "ery peculiar factor
which had i"en rise to the first issue$ irst of all, we find Euite unusual that the accused Ale!
andro
?basan, 7r$, alias I?ntsi-I was allowed to lea"e the country while standin chared with the serious
crime of homicide$ is claim of innocence did not preclude the possibility of his !umpin bail while
abroad and not returnin to answer the chares aainst him$ )he accused was allowed to be
arrained earlier than his co%accused e"en as the circumstances of murder were bein
rein"estiated$

Second, it was error for the court to allow the ad"ance arrainment of ?ntsi- for homicide when the
prosecution was still rein"estiatin the case to determine the possibility of amendin the
information to murder$ ?ntsi- should ha"e been arrained for murder and afterwards could ha"e
been con"icted either of homicide or murder as may be pro"en, the former bein an offense
necessarily included in the crime chared$

cannot sanction the conduct of the fiscal and the court$ )hey should be more prudent and cautious
in the performance of their duties$

)he records, howe"er, show that the courtKs Euestions did not amount to interference as to ma-e
the case for the prosecution and depri"e the accused of their defense$ )he Euestions of the !ud e
addressed to the witnesses and the accused were merely to clarify certain points and confirm
certain statements$ )he number of times that a !ude inter"enes is not necessarily an indication of
bias$ ?t cannot be ta-en aainst a !ude if the clarificatory Euestions he propounds happen to re"eal
certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of on e party$

A !ude may properly inter"ene in the trial of a case to promote e.pedition and a"oid unnecessary
waste of time or to clear up some obscurity /People "$ Catindihan, 9 SC*A 19&J Par$ 13 Canons
of
7udicial 6thicsJ Administrati"e Order #o$ 1&= dated Auust 1, 193&, 3= O$F$ 18('0$ ?n this respect,
the record shows no irreularity in the conduct of the trial !ude$
htt p:// slidepdf.com/r eade r/f u ll/d iges ted -cases -j udi ci al- conduct 15/ 24
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
As to the alleed depri"ation of the appellantsK riht to present other material witnesses, we find
the same without basis$

THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR "s$JUDGE #IRGILIO S. LANSANG, MTC, C

%ar- F&!%/, A)*!%!s C&, J)! 12, 1220

FACTS: An administrati"e complaint, dated ebruary =&, 199(, was filed aainst 7ude
irilio S$ Lansan, +etropolitan )rial Court, Clar- ield, Aneles City, based on the followin
findins of the 7udiciary Plannin @e"elopment and ?mplementation Office and the @eputy Court
Administrator *eynaldo L$ SuareH in the course of an in"estiation conducted in his court, that cases

deemed submitted for decision, some of which had been submitted since 199 and 19 8= had
remained undecided as of 7anuary ', 199(, contrary to his monthly certification that he has no
pendin ci"il and criminal cases under submission for decision or determination beyond the 9(%day
period, that cases calendared for hearin durin the month of 7une 1989 to @ecember 1 989, show
that for the month of October 1989, onl y one /10 hearin was conductedJ for #o"ember, only one /
10 hearin alsoJ for @ecember, also one /10 hearinJ for the month of 7anuary 199(, only two /=0
days
ha"e been set for trial hearinJ for the month of ebruary 199(, only one /10 and for the month
ofauust 1989, it appears that no case has been disposed of, that while it has been "erified from
reports and records in his office that he has been solemniHin se"eral marriaes between ili
pino citiHens and Americans or foreiners on an a"erae of about three /'0 marriaes a day
aside from notariHin public documents for a fee, his monthly reports for 1989 to the Statistic
@i"ision of this
Court do not show any marriae solemniHed or document notariHed by him, that the accumulated
caseload of 18= cases has remained in"ariably a bac- lo which has not been reduced o"er the
year despite the few casw that are filed a"erain from 3 to & cases a month only$

6arlier howe"er, on 7anuary =&, 199(, in "iew of the special "isit of Court of Appeals Associate
7ustice Leonor ?nes Luciano to the +etropolitan )rial Court, Clar- ield, prompted b y "arious
complaints aainst 7ude Lansan and the l atter bein aware of the seriousness of the chares,
respondent 7ude submitted his irre"ocable resination to ta-e effect 7anuary '1, 199($

ISSUE: 56)6* O* #O) *6SPO#@6#) 7B@F6 are uilty of his actuation, practices
and conduct as an !udicial officer$

HELD: G6S$ Considerin all the alleations, issues and aruments raised in the complaint and in
the Comment and the resination letter of respondent 7ude dated 7anuary =&, 199(, the Court
finds7ude irilio S$ Lansan FB?L)G of the chares complained of$ is actuations, practices
and conduct are unbecomin of a !udicial officerJ his acts of commission and omission ha"in
been committed throuh admitted nelience on his part, failure to report to the Supreme Court or
to the Court Administrator, his rie"ances aainst his own Cler- of Court aainst whom he ne"er
filed any formal complaints reardin the latterKs alleed irreularitiesJ his apparent acceptance of
the accuracy of the reports submitted by his Cler- of CourtJ and unmitiated failure to as- for
administrati"e remedies from the Supreme Court and Court Administrator and the e.istence up to
now of 18= pendin cases which accordin to the Court Administrator had been submitted for
decision, and not merely pendin trial$ )he Court li-ewise *esol"ed not to accept such
resination
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /
h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 16 24
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
/acceptance of resinations from the !udiciary bein a preroati"e of the President of the
Philippines0, but instead to consider him *6)?*6@, with al l benefits and ratuities forfeited$

FELDMERO M. LONGOAN vs. 0ON. EMILIO L.

POLIG J*n$ 14, 199

FACS! A letter2complaint was addressed to the Court

Administrator on !uly 18* 198; charging the respondent @udge with
gross negligence of duty or abuse of authority for his failure to
apprise complainant of the status of Ciil Case 0o' ;>1 despite the
former7s registered letters re4uesting the status' chanr oblesir tuallawlibr ar y

Ciil Case 0o' ;>1 inoled a dispute for collection of a sum of

money between the complainant as plaintiff and one Arsenic
Cunaden as defendant' ,he complainant obtained a faorable
@udgment from -unicipal Circuit !udge 3lora -' ,el2e4uen of the 5nd
-unicipal Circuit Court of Bau.o2&ibangan* -ountain %roince on
October 5;* 1981' It was on appeal when the matter sub@ect of the
letter2complaint came about' ,he respondent @udge further delay
the @udgement and lost the record of the > cases upon the
inestigation of the Office of the Court Administration'

ISSUE! :#$%#$& '& n'% %#$ )*d+$ a&$ +*-%; '/ n$<*sa6-$
n$+-+$n$ and +&'ss 5s'nd*%.

0ELD! ;$s. A @udge is e?pected to ensure t hat the records of cases

#

assigned to his sala are intact' ,here is no @ustification for missing

records sae fortuitous eents' ,he loss of not one but eight records
is indicatie of gross misconduct and ine?cusable negligence
unbecoming of a @udge' 3or true professionalism in the bench to e?
ist* @udges whose acts demorali)e the ethical standards of a
@udicial office and whose acts demonstrate unfitness and
unworthiness of the prestige and prere4uisites attached to said
office must be weeded out'
chanr oblesir tuallawlibr ar y

In sum* the Court finds respondent @udge guilty of ine?cusable

libr ar y

negligence* gross inefficiency and grae and serious misconduct in

the f.discharge
tt :// li /r
of this
r/f ll/ i -
functions'
-j i i l- t
chanr oblesir tuallawlibr ar y

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 17 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
ACCO+DI0(6* the CO=+, +&O6D to DI&-I&& +&%O0D0,
!=D( from the serice with forfeiture of all his accrued retirement
benefits* leae and other priileges* if any* and with pre@udice to re2
employment in any branch* agency or instrumentality of the
goernment* including goernment owned or controlled
corporations'

Ja)ar 2, 123

ATTY. ARTURO A. RO MERO "s$ HON. JUDGE GABRIEL O. #ALLE, JR

FACTS: On #o"ember =8, 1983, Atty$ Arturo A$ *omero filed a complaint aainst 7ude
Fabriel O$ alle, 7rJ$ of the *eional )rial Court of Laoa City, <ranch M?? with ra"e misconduct
and oppression$ ?n the words of complainant himself, the acts complained of consisted in:)hat
instead of directin complainant to proceed with the mar-in o f e.hibits and to continue the direct
e.amination, respondent continued to utter embarrassin remar-s which hurt complainant and,
therefore, the
latter tried to ma-e further e.planations on said e.hibits and to defend his interity in a
controlled and respectful manner, but his honor, the respondent !ude suddenly baned his
a"el producin
such a deafenin noise that se"eral persons from the ad!oinin branches of the Court came: that
without declarin a recess, said respondent !ude unceremoniously *6+O6@ his coat and told,
anrily, herein complainant: IGou step out and we will finish the matterIJ immediately thereafter,
respondent !ude stepped down from the rostrum and leftJ)hat, sha-en and stunned by such
sudden aressi"e beha"iour of respondent, complainant then stood by his seat, and as some
people in the Courtroom rushed out of the Courtroom, complainant loo-ed around and then saw
respondent !ude outside the courtroom holdin a un with his riht hand, in front of him, facin
towards complainant,
in an anry and menacin manner, and waited for complainant to o outsideJ confronted by such
alarmin and threatenin stance of respondent, complainant could not mo"e for a moment, as
complainant was totally unarmed, surprised and shoc-edJ and when complainant saw
respondent
7ude bris-ly wal-ed to and fro still holdin a un, complainant then as-ed the Court stenorapher:
IPlease put in the record that the 7ude is holdin a unIJ that l uc-ily thereafter, Atty$ ?sidro
+adamba, member of the Sanunian Panlalawian, succeeded in pacifyin respondent !ude and
shortly, said respondent returned to the CourtJ that after some re mar-s by respondent !ude,
complainant mo"ed that the onorable respondent "oluntarily inhibit himself from further tryin the
case in the liht of the antecedents, but denied it and ordered the resettin of the caseJ he e"en
ha"e other four complaint raise by different complainant$

ISSUE: 56!6!r (r )( 6! r!s7()/!) 8/*! &s *&% &) "&(%a&)* 6! c(/! (9 8/&c&a% c()/c.

HELD: YES. 6! c(r /!c&/!  *espondent !ude appears to ha"e a "alid e.planation for un,
but such e.planation cannot be ta-en as carryin a satisfactory$ or his ha"in chosen to carry the
same in plain "iew of the complainant and other lawyers inside the courtroom when he came out of
his chambers on his way to the stairs$ )a-en in the liht of what had !ust transpired, the actuation
of respondent !ude was not an i nnocent esture, but one calculated to instill fear in or intimidate
complainant$ 5e cannot let this pass unnoticed$ *espondent !udeKs beha"ior constitutes ra"e
misconduct$ ?t is a serious "iolation of the Canons of 7udicial 6thics which reEuire that a I!udeKs
official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal beha"ior, not
only upon the bench and in the performance of !udicial duties, but also in his e"ery day life, should
be beyond reproach$I 1 +oreo"er, it re"eals an attitude diametrically opposed to our pronouncement in De la Paz v. Inutan, &3
SC*A >3($ that Ithe !ude is the "isible representation of law, and more importantly, of !ustice$I Certainly, one who li"es by the unci"iliHed
precept of Imiht is riht,I is unworthy of an office entrusted with the duty to uphold the rule of law$

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 18 24

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
56*6O*6, 7ude Fabriel O$ alle, 7r$ is found uilty of ra"e misconduct and is hereby ordered
@?S+?SS6@ from the ser"ice, without forfeiture of retirement benefits but with pre!udice to
reinstatement in any branch of the o"ernment or any of its aencies or instrumentalities$
Complainant Atty$ Arturo A$ *omero is reEuired to show cause why no disciplinary action should be
ta-en aainst him for conduct unbecomin of an officer of the court, within fifteen /1>0 days from
notice$

)he decision is immediately e.ecutory$

D!c!;<!r 14, 122

EMILIA E. ANDRES "s$STANLEY R. CABRERA

FACTS: ?n a resolution of this Court dated October 11, 199, respondent Stanley *$
Cabrera$ a successful bar e.amine in 19 and aainst whom a petition to disEualify him from
membership in the <ar is pendin in this Court in the abo"e%entitled case, was reEuired to show
cause why he should not be cited and punished for contempt of court$

)he abo"e citation for contempt aainst the respondent was issued by the Court followin the
persistence of the respondent in the use of, abusi"e and "ituperati"e lanuae despite the
CourtKs admonition implicit in Our pre"ious resolution of 7une >, 199 deferrin the oath%ta-in of
respondent pendin showin that he has amended his ways and conformed to the use of polite,
courteous and ci"il lanuae$

)he petition to disEualify respondent from admission to the <ar was filed by Atty$ 6milia $
Andres, Leal Officer ?? in the Office of the +inister, +inistry of Labor on the round of lac- of
ood moral character as shown by his propensity in usin "ile, uncouth, and in ci"il lanuae to
the e.tent of bein reprehensi"ely malicious and criminally libelous and li-ewise, for his procli"ity
in filin baseless, malicious and unfounded criminal cases$

?t appears that Atty$ 6milia 6$ Andres, desinated as Special ?n"estiator to in"estiate the
administrati"e chare filed by +rs$ Presentacion *$ Cabrera, mother of the respondent, a ainst
one, Atty$ <en!amin PereH, former earin Officer of the defunct 5or-menKs Compensation Bnit,
*eion
?, +anila, for alleed dishonesty, oppression and discourtesy, recommended the dismissal of the
chare e"en as the records of two rele"ant 5or-menKs Compensation cases were not produced at
the hearin, notwithstandin the reEuest of the respondent$ 5hen the +inister of Labor dismissed
the chares upon Atty$ AndresK recommendation, respondent filed with the City iscal of +anila
criminal chares of infidelity in the custody of documents$ falsification of public documents, and
"iolation of the Anti%Fraft and Corrupt Practices Act aainst the in"estiator$

Supportin these criminal chares are affida"its of respondent Stanley *$ Cabrera wherein Atty$
Andres$ now the petitioner, points to the "ile, in ci"il and uncouth lanuae used by respondent,
as shown in the followin e.cerpts:

9$ )hat the moronic statements of Atty$ 6rnesto CruH and Atty$ 6milia Andres are
the product ofmoronic conspiracy to conceal the said falsified, fraudulent and
unauthoriHed document in the sense that how can the CA*S conduct a dilient
search tor the aforesaid document when accordin to themoronic excuse of the
Chief of the said office which too- o"er the functions of the defunct 5CC
considerin that it is easier to resort to the list of the in"entory of cases before
conductin a dilient search unless both are morons with reards to their public
office $$$ /emphasis
supplied0$
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 19 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
1($ )hat due to the fact that Actin *eferee <en!amin *$ PereH, Alfredo Antonio, 7r$,
Atty$ 6rnesto CruH and Atty$ 6milia Andres has perpetrated a moronic but criminal
conspiracy to conceal the falsified fraudulent and unauthorized petition $$$
/emphasis supplied0$

$$$ And to show beyond reasonable doubt that that the letter is a
manufactured e"idence respondent Atty$ Andres in another demonstration of
her unparalleled stupidity in the dischare of her public functions moronically failed
to affi. her sinature to further ara"ate matters said manufactured e"idence
was moronically recei"ed upon unlawful inducement by respondents Atty$ CruH and
Atty$ Andres in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy by the ?diotic with reards to
the dischare of public functions $$$ /emphasis supplied0

)he same words and phrases are used in respondentKs other affida"its supportin the criminal
cases aainst the petitioner such as the followin:

er moronic but criminal participation as a conspirator

another demonstration of her unparalleled stupidity in the dischare of her

public functions moronically failed to affi. her sinature

said manufactured e"idence was moronically recei"ed by unlawful inducement

by respondents

idiotic recei"in cler- of CA*

unparalleled stupidity of chief respondent

On April =8, 19, this Court reEuired respondent to file a n answer to the petition to d isEualify
him from admission to the <ar and ordered at the same time that his oath%ta-in be held in
abeyance until further orders$ ?n his answer, respondent admits the filin of criminal cases in the
City iscalKs Office aainst the petitioner but he claims that his lanuae was not "ile uncouth and
un ci"il due to
the simple reason that the same is the truth and was made with ood intentions and !ustifiable
moti"es pursuant to respondentKs sense of !ustice as cherished under the #ew Society, aside from
bein absolutely pri"ileed$ *espondentKs answer, howe"er, repeats his former alle ations that IAtty$
6milia Andres is not only a moronI and reiterates Ithe moronic dischare of public functions by
complainant Atty$ 6milia Andres$I

)he records show repeated motions of respondent dated October =1, 19 and ebruary ==,
198 for the early resolution of his case and in his letter d ated April 11, 198 addressed to then
Chief
7ustice red *uiH Castro, respondent souht, in his "ery words Isome semblance of !ustice from the
onorable Supreme Court of the PhilippinesI and another letter to the Chief 7ustice dated Auust
1, 198 ma-in reference to the Ia"alance of the sadistic resolution en banc,I Ithe cruel a nd
inhuman punishment the Court has speedily bestowed upon undersined respondent,I Ithe Court
does not honor its own resolution,I and closin his letter thus N IA "ictim of the CourtKs inhuman
and cruel punishment throuh its supreme inaction$I

5e referred the petition of Atty$ 6milia Andres to the Leal ?n"estiator of the Court for in"estiation,
report and recommendation which was submitted on +ay =3, 199$ Actin on said report, the
Court resol"ed to defer the oath%ta-in of respondent pendin showin that he has amended his
ways and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous and ci"il lanuae$ )hereafter, respondent
filed on September ', 199 an Brent 6.%Parte +otion to annul Our resolution of 7une >, 199 and
to rein"estiate the case, preferably i"in opportunity to respondent to arue his case orally
before
the Court or to allow h im to ta-e his oath of office as an attorney$ 5e denied the motion$
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /
h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 20 24
7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
On September 11, 199, respondent filed an Brent +otion for Contempt of Court, prayin the
Supreme Court to cite complainant Atty$ 6milia Andres for contempt of court, allein that her
false and malicious accusations coupled with her i mproper and obno.ious acts durin the
in"estiation impeded, obstructed and deraded the administration of !ustice$ Bnder pararaph =
of said motion, he states:

=$ )hat with all due respect to this Court, the aforestated resolution en banc to
@66* my oath%ta-in as an attorney pendin showin that Ihe has amended his
ways and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous, and ci"il lanuaeI is

a degradation of the administration of justice due to the fact that the same is bereft
of leal foundation due to the fact that the in"estiation conducted by Atty$ ictor 7$
Se"illa, whose supreme stupidity in the dischare of his official functions is
authenticated by his o"ert partiality to the complainant as authenticated by the
transcript of records of this case thus depri"in undersined respondent%mo"ant
of the ICold and neutral impartiality of a !udeI tantamount to lac- of due process
of lawJ /emphasis supplied0$

5e noted that the abo"e pararaph is a repetition of pararaph 3 in respondentKs pre"ious Brent
6.%Parte +otion dated September ', 199 which also states:

3$ )hat with all due respect to this Court, the aforestated resolution en banc to
@66* my oath%ta-in as an attorney pendin showin that Ihe has amended his
ways and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous and ci"il lanuaeI is a
degradation of the administration of justice due to the fact that same is bereft of leal
foundation due to the fact that the in"estiation conducted by Atty$ ictor 7$ Se"illa,
whose supreme stupidity in the dischare of his official functions is authenticated by
his o"ert partiality to the complainant as authenticated by the transcript of records of
this case thus depri"in undersined respondent%mo"ant of the Icold and neutral
impartiality of a !ude, I tantamount to lac- of due process of law: /emphasis
supplied0$

5e also too- note in respondentKs Brent +otion for Contempt of Court the lanuae used b y him
in prayin this Court Ito impose upon said 6milia 6$ Andres imprisonment commensurate to the
humiliation and vomitting injustice undersined respondent%mo"ant suffered and still sufferin from
this Court du e to complainant Atty$ 6milia 6$ AndresK wanton dishonesty$I

?t is ob"ious and self%e"ident that respondent has not amended his conduct despite the CourtKs
admonition$ *espondent persists and -eeps on usin a busi"e and "ituperati"e lanuae before the
Court$ Accordinly, 5e resol"ed in O ur resolution of October 11, 199 to reEuire respondent to
show cause why he should not be cited and punished for contempt of court$

*espondent filed an Brent +otion for *econsideration dated September =, 199 wherein he tried
to assure the Court that he has amended his ways and has conformed to the use of polite,
courteous and ci"il lanuae and prayed that he be allowed to ta-e the lawyerKs oath$ 5e denied it
on October
1&, 199$

)hereafter, respondent submitted a pleadin entitled ISubrosaI dated October ==, 199
and answered the citation for contempt aainst him in the followin wise and manner:

'$ )hat without pre!udice to my Brent +otion for *econsideration dated Sept$ =,
199, undersined respondent respectfully states to this Court that the respondent
chares that the CourtKs *esolution of 7une >, 199 is a I degradation of the
administration of justice, I was ne"er intended as a defiance of this CourtKs authority$
nor to scandaliHe the interity, dinity, and respect which this Court en!oys, but was
tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 21 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
an statement made with utmost good faith out of frustration out of respondentKs
inability to ta-e his lawyerKs oath since April, 19 and in justifiable indignation at
the illealities perpetrated by both complainant 6milia 6$ Andres and Leal ?
n"estiator
ictor Se"illa, both members of the <ar which are e"ident with a cursory perusal of
the typewritten transcript of the stenoraphic notes of the hearins conducted by
Leal ?n"estiator Se"illa which this Court adoptedJ /emphasis supplied0$

5e re!ect totally respondentKs supposed humble apoloy Ifor all his non%conformity to the use of
polite, courteous and ci"il lanuae in all his pleadins filed with the Court and on his solemn
word
of honor pledes not to commit the same hereinafterI and his disa"owal of intent of Idefiance of /the0
CourtKs authority nor to scandaliHe /its0 interity, dinity and respect which this Court en!oys$I Such
apoloy and disa"owal appear to be in sincere, sham and artful for respondent in the same breadth
contends that his statement callin the CourtKs resolution of 7une >, 199 as Ia deradation of the
administration of !usticeI was made Iwith utmost, ood faith out of frustration of respondentKs inability
to ta-e his lawyerKs oath since April, 19 and in !ustifiable indination of the illealities perpetrated
by both complainant 6milia 6$ Andres and Leal ?n"estiation ictor Se"illa$I

Althouh respondent is not yet admitted to the leal profession but now stands at the threshold
thereof, ha"in already passed the <ar e.aminations, it is as much his duty as e"ery attorney%at
%law already admitted to the practice of law to $$obser"e and maintain the respect due to the courts
of
!ustice and !udicial officers /Sec$ =(, /b0, *ule 1'8, *ules of Court0 and Ito abstain from all
offensi"e personality and to ad"ance no fact pre!udicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless reEuired by the !ustice of the cause with which he is charedI /Sec$ =(, /f0, *ule
1'80$ Accordin to
the Canons of Professional 6thics, it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a
respectful attitude not for the sa-e of the temporary incumbent of the 7udicial office, but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance$ 7udes, not bein wholly free to defend themsel"es, are
particularly entitled to recei"e the support of the <ar aainst un!ust criticism and clamor$ )his duty
is li-ewise incumbent upon one aspirin to be a lawyer such as the respondent for the attorneyKs
oath solemnly en!oins him to Iconduct myself as a lawyer accordin to to the best of my
-nowlede and discretion with all ood fidelity as well to the Courts as to my client$

)he power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt is inherent and e.tends to suits at law
as well as to administrati"e proceedins as in the case at bar for it is as necessary to maintain
respect for the courts, in administrati"e cases as it is in any other class of !u dicial proceedins$
Bnder *ule
1 of the *ules of Court, a person uilty of any improper conduct tendin, directly or indirectly,
to impede, obstruct or derade the administration of !ustice may be punished for contempt, and
the reason is that respect for the courts uarantees their stability and permanence 5ithout
such
uaranty, the institution of the courts would be restin on a "ery loose a nd flimsy foundation, such
power is essential to the proper e.ecution and effecti"e maintenance of !udicial authority$

*espondentKs use of "ile rude and repulsi"e lanuae is patent and palpable from the "ery
words, phrases and sentences he has written and which are Euoted herein$ K)hey spea- for
themsel"es in their "ularity, insolence and calumny$ Specifically, respondentKs direct reference to
the Court on
the $$sadistic resolution en banc, I Ithe cruel and inhuman punishment the Court has speedily
bestowedI upon him, that Ithe Court does not honor its own resolution,I that he is Ia "ictim of the
CourtKs inhuman and cruel punishment throuh its supreme inaction,I and that he is sufferin
Ihumiliation and "omittin in !usticeI from this Court is not only disrespectful but his chares are
false, sham and unfounded$

K)here is no e.cuse, much less plea or prete.t to brand ultimately the CourtKs resolution
deferrin oath%ta-in of the respondent as a new lawyer issued 7une >, 199 as Ia deradation
h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 22 24
of the administration of !ustice$I <y his improper conduct in the use of hihly disrespectful
 insolent lanuae, respondent has tended to derade the administration of !usticeJ he has
disparaed the

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
dinity and brouht to disrepute the interity and authority of the Court$ e has committed
contempt of this Court$

56*6O*6 respondent Stanley Cabrera is found uilty of contempt and he is hereby

sentenced to pay this Court within ten days from notice hereof a fine of i"e undred Pesos
/P>(($((0 or imprisonment of fifty />(0 days$

Let a copy of this resolution be attached to respondentKs personal record in the Office of the <ar
Confidant$

G.R. N(. L=42 Ja)ar , 12>3

MELECIO DOREGO a)/ FELICIDAD DOREGO, petitioners,

"s$
ARISTON PERE$, THE HONORABLE RAMON BLANCO, as Pr!s&/&)* J/*!, C(r (9 F&rs I)sa)c! (9 I%(&%(
a)/ THE PRO#INCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, respondents$

S. Palma and . Defensor for respondents.

Sixto P. Demaisip for petitioners.

BENG$ON, J.P., J.:

*espondent Ariston PereH was plaintiff in Ci"il Case #o$ >>&8, an action for foreclosure of real estate mortae,
before the Court of irst ?nstance of ?loilo$ On +arch ==, 19&1, !udment was rendered aainst defendants N now
petitioners N @oreo spouses to pay respondent PereH the sum of P1,((($((, plus 1= interest from +ay =>,
19>9, and => of the total sum as attorneyKs fees within 9( days from notification thereof or else the mortaed
1
properties would be sold at public auction$

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals$

On September =', 19&1, petitionersK counsel filed a manifestation in the Court of Appeals withdrawin their appeal
=
on the alleation that the parties ha"e already amicably settled the case for P1,'(($(($ )he Court of Appeals on
September =9, 19&1, issued a resolution reEuirin petitionersK counsel to present the written conformity of petitioners
themsel"es to the withdrawal of the appeal, and for them to pay the appeal doc-et fees first before their
'
manifestation would be acted upon$ Apparently, the resolution was not complied with for on 7anuary =&, 19&=, the
3
Court of Appeals resol"ed to dismiss the appeal for appellantsK failure to pay the doc-et fees$

Bpon the remand of the records to the court a !uo, respondent PereH mo"ed for e.ecution of its !udment$ )his
was opposed by petitioners$ On +arch '1, 19&=, the lower court IdisreardedI the opposition filed since the Court
of AppealsK resolution dismissin the appeal did not mention any amicable settlement and forthwith issued the writ
>
of e.ecution$

Petitioners souht an urent reconsideration of the order of +arch '1, 19&=, anne.in to their motion a copy of the
areement between the attorneys for the parties mentionin the amicable settlement between the latter$
&
*espondent PereH opposed and was sustained by the lower court which, on 7uly &, 19&', denied petitionersK
motion, rulin that the areement between the counsels was ineffecti"e to constitute a no"ation of the rihts and
obliations of the parties themsel"es$ ?t also directed the pro"incial sheriff to proceed with the sale of the mortaed

properties$

?nstead of appealin, petitioners instituted Ci"il Case #o$ &'&9 before another branch of the Court of irst ?nstance of
?loilo to annul the decision in Ci"il Case #o$ >>&8 and en!oin its e.ecution$ On September =3, 19&3, the case was
dismissed$ Also dismissed subseEuently was the attempted appeal by petitioners in Ci"il Case #o$ &'&9, for their
8 9
failure to duly perfect the same$

tt :// li f. /r r/f ll/ i t - -j i i l- t /

h p s depd com eade u d ges ed cases ud c a conduc 23 24

7/ 17/ 2019 Digested Cases Judi ci al Conduct
On 7uly 8, 19&>, the lower court issued an alias writ of e.ecution in Ci"il Case #o$ >>&8$ Accordinly, the
mortaed properties were ad"ertised by the pro"incial sheriff for public sale to be held on Auust '1, 19&>$

On Auust =8, 19&>, petitioners instituted the instant petition for certiorari with preliminary in!unction$ 5e a"e
due course to it$

On Auust '1, 19&>, the mortaed properties were sold at public auction to respondent PereH for P=,((($(($ )
he latter then souht to confirm the sale$ )he petitioners counter%mo"ed to postpone the confirmation of the
sale up to September =(, 19&> since they were Ife"erishly loo-in for money with which to redeem the property$I
1(
)he lower court postponed the confirmation of the sale up to October 11, 19&>$

On October 1=, 19&>, respondent PereH filed his answer to the petition$

)he only issue here is whether the lower court ra"ely abused its discretion or e.ceeded its !urisdiction in
denyin petitionersK opposition to the motion for e.ecution by its order of +arch '1, 19&=J in also denyin the
motion to reconsider by its order of 7uly &, 19&', and in allowin, thereafter, the e.ecution of the decision
rendered in respondentKs fa"or$

Petitioners submit that since the decision of +arch ==, 19&1 had already been no"ated b y the amicable
settlement between the parties effected sometime in the second wee- of September, 19&1, the same could no
loner be e.ecuted$ )he N only but fatal N flaw in the arument is that petitioners ha"e assumed what precisely
they had to establish in the first place, i$e$, the fact of amicable settlement$ or, respondent denies it$

Petitioners could only fall bac- on the followin documents anne.ed in their motion to r econsider: /10 the
manifestation their counsel filed in the Court of Appeals on September =', 19&1J /=0 the receipt sined by their
counsel and one of respondentKs counselsJ and /'0 the self%ser"in affida"its of petitioner +elecio @oreo and
11
his counsel$ Of the three, the stronest e"idence would be the receipt, which is of the followin tenor:

1$ ?n "iew of the fact that the case of Ariston PereH "s$ +elecio @oreo, et al$, has been notified 2sic4 in
the sum of P1,'(($(( includin attorneyKs fees, +elecio @oreo has caused to be withdrawn his appeal in
the Court of Appeals by a manifestation dated September =', 19&1J

=$ )hat the attorneys or counsels for Ariston PereH ha"e mananimously foreone their attorneyKs fees
as stated in the decision and in its place reEuest for only P1>($(($

'$ *eceipt of P1(($(( is ac-nowleded today, the remainder shall be payable at the end of this month$
Atty$ Si.to @emaisip holds himself liable for the pa yment thereof in the e"ent of non%payment of +elecio
@oreo$

September =&, 19&1$

/Sd0 S?M)O P$ @6 +A?S?P /Sd0 AL*6@O LA@*?

@O

<ut as the lower court noted, the abo"e receipt could only pro"e personal areement between the counsels$
And respondent correctly points out that this could not pro"e the oral amicable settlement between the parties
1=
since without special authoriHation, counsels cannot compromise their clientKs litiation$ )he special
authoriHation of respondentKs counsel has not been shown$

Considerin that there was no satisfactory proof of the alleed amicable settlement between the parties and since
the resolution of the Court of Appeals plainly shows that the appeal was bein dismissed for failure of petitioners N
who were the ones supposed to be interested in maintainin the appeal N to pay the appeal doc-et fees, 5e
cannot say that the lower court e"en erred in rantin respondentKs motion to e.ecute the !udment which had
become final and e.ecutory$ Bnder the *ules of Court, the effect of dismissal or withdrawal of an appeal is for the
1'
Euestioned !udment to stand as if no appeal had been instituted. 6.ecution, therefore, was proper$

56*6O*6, the petition for certiorari is, as it is hereby, dismissed$ Costs aainst petitioners$ So ordered$

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-cases-judicial-conduct
24/24