1

Johmwell W. Tinggangay vs. Judge Marcelo K. Wacas (A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3243-RTJ,
April 1, 2013)
Facts:
Complainant was a mayoral candidate in Tanudan, Kalinga during the 2007
elections. In said elections he lost to Rhustom L. Dagadag by a mere 158 votes.
Following his loss in the election he filed an electoral protest which was raffled to
the sala of Respondent judge. Respondent ruled in favor of Dagadag, reducing the
win margin to 97 votes. Complainant appealed to COMELEC to no avail.
Complainant then filed a case against Respondent charging him with Impropriety
and Partiality, alleging that Respondent is actually related by affinity to the winning
candidate Dagadag. Complainant complained that Respondent should have
inhibited himself from hearing said electoral case due to this. Complainant brought
forth witnesses to said allegation and witnesses stating that Respondent attended
the victory party of Dagadag during August 23, 2007 after ruling in favor of him in
the electoral case. Respondent on the other hand denied said allegations and
brought forth witnesses saying on said date of the victory party, he was actually at
a clan gathering close to his home and not at the victory party.
Issue:
Can Respondent be charged with Impropriety and Partiality for not inhibiting
himself from the electoral case?
Ruling:
No, Respondent cannot be charged with Impropriety and Partiality.
Firstly, there was no complain by the Complainant of such during the
pendency of the case, it appears to be only an afterthought of the Complainant
following the unfavorable decision of the electoral case.
Secondly, assuming arguendo that such complaint was filed at the correct
time, there is no actual relationship by affinity of Respondent to Dagadag. In which
case there would be no reason for Respondent judge to inhibit himself from the
electoral case. The burden of proof is with the one who alleges and Complainant
failed to give any substantial evidence to prove his allegations.

3
Sonia C. Decena and Rey C. Decena vs. Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon (A.M. No. RTJ-102217, April 8, 2013)
Facts:
Complainants, sister and nephew of Respondents wife, were the adverse
partly in an administrative case against Respondents wife. In said administrative
case, the counsel for Respondents wife was Respondents daughter who had just
recently passed the Bar. Respondent sat beside his daughter during the trial of the
case, now and then passing notes to his daughter which would cause her to act
upon the proceedings. Counsel for Complainant asked during the trial of the
personality of Respondent and as to why he was seated beside the counsel the
respondent of that case, his wife. Respondent made himself known and revealed
that he was a judge and that he was the counsel of respondents counsel, as well
as mildly lashing out at the counsel for inquiring of his identity. Respondent then
apologized for such and the trial continued.
In this case, Complainants lodged a complaint against Respondent for
conduct unbecoming of a judge, for the actions he did during the administrative
case against his wife, namely the aiding of his daughter during the trial. When
asked for an answer, Respondent admitted in counselling his daughter during said
trial and averred that it was his filial responsibility to do so as father of the counsel
and husband of the respondent. Respondent also said that it was basely ungracious
of Complainants to file against him such administrative complaint when he
counselled defendants before that instance and while he was already a judge.

Issue:
Can Respondent be charged with committing acts unbecoming of a judge?
Ruling:
Yes, Respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge both when he
counselled his daughter in the case against his wife and before that when he acted
as counsel for Complainants when he had already been appointed a judge.
Judges, during their incumbency, are not allowed to enter into the private
practice of law. The actions of Respondent in counselling his daughter and
Complainant, his sister-in-law and his wifes nephew, are tantamount to the private
practice of law. Judges are not allowed to enter into such private practice for several
reasons, one of which is so that they may not use their influence as judges to affect
the proceedings. Filial relationship cannot excuse such violations of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct. Such relationship may be used though as an indicator that

Respondent did not have any malice or intent to violate said Code and so may be
used to mitigate his liability