CANDIA vs.

TAGABUCBA
[G.R. No. 528-MJ. September 12,
1977]
Facts:
Administrative complaint,
supported by affidavits of the
complainants, Crispina Maturan
Candia and Justiniano Maturan,
charging Municipal Judge Alonzo
J. Tagabucba of Mahayag,
Zamboanga del Sur, with
dishonesty, gross misconduct, false
representation and abuse of
authority. Upon referral to
respondent of said complaint, he
filed his comment thereon,
supporting the same with his own
affidavit, whereupon the Court
designated Honorable
Melquiades S. Sucaldito to
conduct the appropriate
investigation and submit his
recommendation.
Disregarding matters of less
pivotal importance, it appears that
respondent has violated on of
the fundamental principles
governing the performance of
judges of their judicial functions,
namely, never to use his office for
the promotion of his personal
interests. Moreover, while it is
true that during the times material
to this case, respondent was
allowed to engage in the practice
of his profession, it was obviously
improper for him, however, to act
as counsel for any party
whose case would eventually land
in his court. Worse, in the case of
the respondent, his
professional service was engaged
by one of the parties and he
subsequently agreed to act a
attorney-in-fact of the other party
in connection with the very subject
matter of their
controversy
Issue :
Whether or not judge tagabucba
violated the prohibition against a
judge to give legal advice and
to act as a counsel
Held:
Yes. The court dismissed the judge
from the service, effective upon
notice hereof, with total
forfeiture of all leave and
retirement privileges to which he
may otherwise be entitled.
FRANCES KAYE D. CERVEZA JD2-A
Legal Ethics and Judicial Conduct

CASE No. 1

In re Judge Caguioa
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2064, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2066 August 23, 2022

FACTS:

Former presiding Judge Ramon Caguioa of RTC Olongapo City Branch 74 filed a Petition for
Judicial Clemency, praying for his reinstatement as an RTC Judge; his dismissal be
considered as a suspension without pay, and his retirement and other relevant benefits as
Judge be fully restored.
Three administrative cases were filed against Judge Caguioa. In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063, the
Office of the Solicitor General alleged that the respondent committed gross ignorance of the
law, manifest partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service due to the
respondent's issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction which enjoined implementation
of Sec. 6 of RA 9334 that subjected applicants to pay sin tax and excise tax on tobacco and
alcohol products.

In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2064, the Customs Commissioner charged the respondent with gross
ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
service due to the respondent's issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction which enjoined
the implementation of a customs personnel order (CPO) issued by the Customs
Commissioner reassigning Subic Port District Collector Andres Salvacion to Cagayan de Oro
Port.

In A.M. No. RTC-07-2966, Charles T. Burns Jr. charged the respondent with grave
misconduct for the latter’s issuance of a writ of execution in favor of the adverse party in a
civil case for recovery of ownership and possession of several parcels of land. In 2009, the
Court found Judge Caguioa guilty of all three charges.

In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2066, he was found guilty of simple misconduct and was ordered
suspended without pay for three months. For the two other charges, he was found guilty of
gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and
was ordered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except leave
credits. Respondent Judge filed a motion for reconsideration on the said decision but the
Court denied the same with finality.

In a letter in 2010 which was later converted to a second motion for reconsideration
through an Omnibus Motion in 2011, the respondent pleaded for judicial clemency and
prayed to be reinstated to his office but the Court denied the same. On February 9, 2021,
the respondent wrote a letter request for judicial clemency. Attached with the letter were
the respective testimonials of Justice Calpatura of CA, Justice Quiroz of Sandiganbayan, and
Atty. Sta. Maria, Dean of FEU Institute of Law.

The letters attested to the respondent's humility, professional competence, and upright and
ethical conduct in all the years following his dismissal from the service. The Court treated
the respondent's letter request as a petition for judicial clemency.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petition for judicial clemency of Judge Ramon S. Caguioa be granted.

RULING:

Yes. The petition was partially granted.

The petition presented proof of remorse and reformation on the part of the respondent. He
emphasized that he should have been much more cautious and circumspect of the possible
ramifications and logical consequences of his actions, and sincerely regrets the lapses in his
judgment.

He also stated that after his dismissal from service, he went back to the practice of law to
earn a modest living, and claimed that he served his clients with utmost honesty, good faith,
and competence. He likewise had his fair share of pro bono cases for those who could not
afford the services of a lawyer.

The requisites laid down by the Supreme Court in re:

Diaz in resolving requests for judicial clemency were all present in the petition.
Respondent's remorse and repentance were attested to by the testimonials submitted
by Justice Calpatura, Justice Quiroz, and Atty. Sta. Maria. Justice Calpatura and Justice
Quiroz are members of the appellate court. Atty. Sta. Maria is also the Dean of a
reputable law school. Given their high standing in the legal community, the Court finds
 that their attestations were made pursuant to their duty of upholding the integrity of
the Judiciary and the legal profession; and that they would not put the integrity of the
Judiciary and the legal profession in jeopardy just to accommodate a friend or
classmate. Sufficient time has also lapsed given the period of 12 years since his
dismissal from the service. It was shown that he still has productive years ahead of him
for there are still 5 years in him before the age of mandatory retirement for the
judiciary. It was also shown that he has the intellectual aptitude potential for public
service.

The Court denied the respondent's first prayer that he be reinstated to his former
position as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 74, Olongapo City as this position is no longer
vacant and has already been filled-up by another member of the Bench. Thus, it would
inequitable to restore the respondent to his former position.

The Court also denied the respondent's second prayer that the whole period of his
dismissal be considered and treated as a suspension without pay and deems it fit to
exercise its sound discretion not to downgrade the original penalty imposed.

Finally, the Court partially granted the respondent's third prayer, particularly, that his
disqualification for reappointment to any public office be lifted.

CASE No. 3:

Re Letter of Pres. Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.

CA – GR SP No. 103692, Sept. 29, 2008

FACTS:

The present administrative matter arose from the Letter dated August 1, 2008 of Court of
Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (Presiding Justice Vasquez), referring to
this Court for appropriate action the much-publicized dispute and charges of impropriety
among the justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) involved in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 entitled
"Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al."
In his affidavit submitted to the Panel of Investigators, Mr. De Borja describes himself as a
businessman, a deal maker, and project packager. On July 1, 2008, he invited Justice Sabio
for dinner "to touch base" and for chismis about the MERALCO-GSIS case. As the latter
would have evening classes at the Ateneo Law School, and his wife and daughter would be
waiting in their car after his classes, they just agreed to meet at the lobby-lounge of the
School. What Mr. De Borja knew about the MERALCO case allegedly came from news
reports but he was interested in the news because he is a "confirmed free-enterpriser."
Moreover, De Borja thought that there was "nothing like hearing things directly from the
horse's mouth."

Mr. De Borja denied having offered P10 million to Justice Sabio. Instead, he claimed that
Justice Sabio informed him that the government has offered him (Justice Sabio) money and
a promotion to the Supreme Court to favor GSIS. When Mr. De Borja asked what would it
take for Justice Sabio to resist the government's offer, Justice Sabio allegedly replied: "Fifty
Million." He alleged that it was Justice Sabio who called up after that July 1, 2008 meeting to
"feel" his reaction to the "P50 million solicitation." Justice Sabio asked him: "O, ano,
kumusta, ano ang nangyayari."

On July 2, 2008, Justice Sabio that informed Presiding Justice Vasquez that he (Justice
Sabio) was offered a bribe (which he rejected) to have him ousted from the Meralco case.
The news allegedly shocked the Presiding Justice. Justice Sabio also went to Justice
Villarama who was both "shocked and amused."

Justice Sabio. did not tell them who the "offeror" was. However, a day or two later, Justice
Sabio found out that Mr. De Borja had called their mutual friend, Mrs. Evelyn Clavano, who
was also shocked that Mr. De Borja had "the gall to ask her" to convince Justice Sabio to
accept the bribe.

ISSUE:

WON the act of Justice Sabio discussing the Meralco case with De Borja was a violation of
integrity under Judicial Ethics.

RULING:

Yes. Instead of telling off De Borja that he could not, and would not, talk about the Meralco
case, Justice Sabio, Jr. agreed to meet De Borja in the lobby-lounge of the Ateneo Law School
after his evening class in Legal Ethics in said school.

Justice Sabio Jr.'s action of discussing the Meralco case with De Borja was highly
inappropriate and indiscreet. First, in talks with his brother; the second time in
conversation with De Borja, Justice Sabio, Jr. broke the shield of confidentiality that covers
the disposition of cases in the Court in order to preserve and protect the integrity and
independence of the Court itself.

He ignored the injunction in Canon 1, Section 8 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary that: "Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial
conduct (and discretion) in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence."

Be that as it may, the Investigating Panel finds more credible Justice Sabio, Jr.'s story about
De Borja's P10 million-bribe-offer on behalf of Meralco, than De Borja's denial that he made
such an offer.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES as follows:

(1) Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas is found guilty of multiple violations of the
canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and is DISMISSED from the
service, with FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with
 prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service of the government including
government-owned and controlled corporations;

(2) Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. is found guilty of simple misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a justice of the Court of Appeals and is SUSPENDED for
two (2) months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty;

(3) Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. is SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for his
failure to act promptly and decisively in order to avert the incidents that damaged the
image of the Court of Appeals, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty;

(4) Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is found guilty of simple misconduct with
mitigating circumstance and is REPRIMANDED, with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty;

(5) Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a

Justice of the Court of Appeals and is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the
discharge of her judicial duties.

(6) PCGG Chairman Camilo L. Sabio's act to influence the judgment of a member of the
Judiciary in a pending case is hereby referred to the Bar Confidant for appropriate
action;

(7) Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.'s charge against Mr. Francis R. De Borja for attempted
bribery of a member of the Judiciary is hereby referred to the Department of Justice for
appropriate action.

Case No. 4:

CANDIA vs. TAGABUCBA

G.R. No. 528-MJ || September 12, 1977

FACTS:

Administrative complaint, supported by affidavits of the complainants, Crispina Maturan

Candia and Justiniano Maturan, charging Municipal Judge Alonzo J. Tagabucba of Mahayag,
Zamboanga del Sur, with dishonesty, gross misconduct, false representation and abuse of
authority. Upon referral to respondent of said complaint, he filed his comment thereon,
supporting the same with his own affidavit, whereupon the Court designated Honorable
Melquiades S. Sucaldito to conduct the appropriate investigation and submit his
recommendation.

Disregarding matters of less pivotal importance, it appears that respondent has violated on
of the fundamental principles governing the performance of judges of their judicial
functions, namely, never to use his office for the promotion of his personal interests.
Moreover, while it is true that during the times material to this case, respondent was
allowed to engage in the practice of his profession, it was obviously improper for him,
however, to act as counsel for any party whose case would eventually land in his court.
Worse, in the case of the respondent, his professional service was engaged by one of the
parties and he subsequently agreed to act a attorney-in-fact of the other party in
connection with the very subject matter of their controversy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Tagabucba violated the prohibition against a judge to give legal
advice and to act as a counsel.

HELD:

Yes.

The court dismissed the judge from the service, effective upon notice hereof, with total
forfeiture of all leave and retirement privileges to which he may otherwise be entitled.

CASE No. 5:

MARIA APIAG v. JUDGE ESMERALDO G. CANTERO

AM No. MTJ-95-1070 || 1997-02-12

FACTS:

Maria Apiag Cantero with her daughter Teresita A. Cantero Sacurom and son Glicerio A.
Cantero charged the respondent, Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Pinamungajan-Aloquinsan, Cebu, with gross misconduct for allegedly having
committed bigamy and falsification of public documents dated November 10, 1993.
According to the complainants:
 "Sometime in August 11, 1947, defendant and plaintiff Maria Apiag, joined together in
holy matrimony in marriage after having lived together as husband and wife wherein
they begot a daughter who was born on June 19,1947, whom they named: Teresita A.
Cantero; and then on October 29, 1953, Glicerio A. Cantero was born. Thereafter,
defendant left the conjugal home without any apparent cause, and leaving the plaintiff
Maria Apiag to raise the two children with her meager income as a public-school
teacher at Hinundayan, Southern Leyte. Plaintiffs suffered a lot after defendant
abandoned them for no reason whatsoever. For several years, defendant was never
heard of and his whereabout unknown”.

But, few years ago, defendant surfaced at Hinundayan, Southern Leyte, whereupon, the
plaintiffs begged for support, however, they were ignored by defendant.

On September 21, 1993, complainants, through Atty. Redentor Guyala, wrote a letter to
respondent. Subsequently, complainants learned that respondent had another family.

The respondent, in his Comment, explained his side that the marriage is true, but denied
the validity of its due execution, for the truth of the matter that such alleged marriage was
only dramatized by their parents and shot their wishes and proposes without the consent
given.

"As a matter of fact, I was only called by my parents to go home to our town at
Hinundayan, Southern Leyte to attend party celebration of my sister's birthday from
Iligan City, without patently knowing I was made to appear in a certain drama
marriage and we were forced to acknowledge our signatures appearing in the duly
prepared marriage contract. That was 46 years ago when I was yet 20 years of age,
and at my second-year high school days."

ISSUES:

1. That the first marriage with Maria Apiag on August 11, 1947 is void;
2. The charge of Grave Misconduct is not applicable to him because assuming that he
committed the offense, he was not yet a member of the judiciary
3. The charges have no basis in fact and in law.

RULING:

For the 1st issue: (to be specific- PFR)

It is not disputed that respondent did not obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his
marriage to Maria Apiag prior to marrying Nieves C. Ygay.

Now, per current jurisprudence, "a marriage though void still need a judicial
declaration of such fact" before any party thereto "can marry again; otherwise, the
second marriage will also be void." This was provided under Article 40 of the Family
Code.

However, the marriage of Judge Cantero to Nieves Ygay took place and all their children
were born before the effectivity of the Family Code. Hence, the doctrine in Odayat vs.
Amante applies in favor of respondent.

In spite of his death, this Court decided to resolve this case on the merits which, if affirmed
by this Court, would mean forfeiture of the death and retirement of the respondent.

For the 2nd issue: (to be specific- JUDICIAL CONDUCT)

The misconduct imputed by the complainants against the judge comprises the following:
abandonment, failing to give support to the first family, marrying for the second time
without having first obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage, and
falsification of public documents. Misconduct, as a ground for administrative action, has a
specific meaning in law.
Misconduct in office by uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct that affects his
performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a
private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the
character of man from the character of an officer.

It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from

office of an officer, must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance
of official duties.

The conduct of the respondent in his personal life falls short of this standard because the
record reveals he had two families. The record also shows that he did not attend to the
needs, support and education of his children of his first marriage. Such is conduct
unbecoming a trial magistrate.

Thus, the late Judge Cantero "violated Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which
mandates that 'a judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of
impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the...
performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
reproach,' and Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that 'a judge
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

A Penalty of Suspension is Warranted.

Finally, the Court also scrutinized the whole of respondent's record. Other than this case,
we found no trace of wrongdoing in the discharge of his judicial functions from the time of
his appointment up to the filing of this administrative case, and has to all appearances lived
up to the stringent standards embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Considering his
otherwise untarnished 32 years in government service, this Court is inclined to treat him
with leniency.

But in view of his death prior to the promulgation of this Decision, the case was dismissed.