You are on page 1of 10

CANON 5

EQUALITY

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due
performance of the judicial office.

SEC. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and
differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race, color,
sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual
orientation, social and economic status and other like causes.

SEC. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or


conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant
grounds.

SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for
all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial
colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the
proper performance of such duties.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his or
her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons concerned, in
a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.

SEC. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain
from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant
grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in proceedings and may
be the subject of legitimate advocacy.

CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial


office.

SEC. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities.

SEC. 2. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which
include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in
court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial
office or the courts operations.

SEC. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their
knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of
judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the training and other
facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.
SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant developments of
international law, including international conventions and other instruments
establishing human rights norms.

SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

SEC. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the
court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses,
lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall
require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to
their influence, direction or control.

SEC. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent
discharge of judicial duties.

Cases:

Judge Divina Luz Aquino- Simbulan vs. Presiding Judge Nicasio Bartolome
588 PHL 259 June 5, 2009

Facts:

On April 27, 2004, a letter-complaint was filed by complainant Judge Divina Luz Aquino-
Simbulan with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), alleging that respondents Judge
Nicasio Bartolome, Romana Pascual, Milagros Lerey, and Amor dela Cruz, Acting Clerk of
Court, retired Clerk of Court and Docket Clerk, respectively for knowingly committing grave
errors and discrepancies in processing the surety bond in the case People vs. Rosalina
Mercado. The complainant alleged that the criminal case was originally raffled in RTC Branch
41, San Fernando Pampanga, that the accused Mercado voluntarily surrendered before the
MTC Sta. Maria, Bulacan where she posted her bail bond which was duly approved by the
respondent Judge Bartolome. However, the MTC Clerk of Court failed to transmit the bail bond
to the RTC and admitted that she had misplaced and overlooked the subject surety bond, which
resulted in the delay of its transmission to the RTC. Moreover, complainant Judge discovered
that the subject surety bond bore some erasures, and its attachments were highly anomalous.
There was also a manifest disregard for the applicable procedural law when the respondent
Judge did not require the accused to submit the supporting documents pertinent to the
application for a bond. The absence of Certificate of Detention does not legally justify the
issuance of the Order of Release and the bond due to lack of jurisdiction

Issue:

WON the respondents committed grave errors and discrepancies in processing the
surety bond?

Ruling:

YES. The Court concurred with the findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA. The
proper procedure, according to the above-cited rules, would have been to file her bail bond with
the RTC Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga where her case was pending. Had complainant
Judge been absent or was unavailable at that time, the accused could file for bail with another
branch of the RTC in Pampanga or in San Fernando City. However, the accused filed her surety
bond with the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, where it was approved by respondent Judge. The
Clerk of court has a vital function in the prompt and sound administration of justice since his or
her office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes, and concerns. Lereys
admission of negligence cannot excuse respondent Judge from liability in the irregular
processing of the bail bond. A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to
ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of
high standards of public service and finality. With regard to respondents Pascual and Dela Cruz,
the Court observes that there is no evidence to show that they have contributed to the
irregularities or delay in transmittal of the bail bond. Thus, the Court held that the acts of the
respondent Judge and Lerey constitutes gross neglect of duty.

In Re: Order of Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda 604 SCRA 652 October 29, 2009

Facts:

An Inter-Office Memorandum dated 20 November 2006 was issued by Atty. Jonna M.


Escabarte against Loida Genabe, legal researcher, neglect of duty by leaving for Baguio City
without finishing her assigned task. The assigned task required Genabe to summarize the
statement of facts in Criminal Case Nos. 03-0059 to 03-0063. It was also alleged that Genabe
behaved in a disrespectful manner towards other court employees including Judge Maceda.
However, Genabe denied the allegations. In her answer, Genabe stated that she was not able to
complete the summary due to lack of transcript of stenographic notes. She also stated Atty.
Escabarte did not give her an opportunity to finish the five consolidated informations of the
criminal case assigned to her and that the lack of stenographers was already beyond her
control. She further claimed that Judge Maceda disciplines his staff on a selective basis.

On 21 December 2006, Judge Maceda issued the Suspension Order for a period f 30
days against Genabe for neglect of duty. Judge Maceda then requested that her salary be
withheld for the period 21 December 2006 to 20 January 2007.In OCAs report and
recommendation, it was held that Judge Maceda had no authority to directly penalize a court
employee. As an Executive Judge, he only had the right to act upon and investigate
administrative complaints involving light offenses. The power to decide and impose a penalty,
even for light offenses, rests with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

WON the Judge Maceda violated the Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of
Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties?
Ruling:

YES. Under A.M. No. P-07-2320, the Court held Genabe guilty for simple neglect of
duty. Simple neglect of duty has been defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to
a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or
indifference. Despite the pending tasks, Genabe showed a manifest disregard when it could
only take hours oof her time in completing such task. The Court also held udge Maceda failed to
observe due process in ordering the suspension of Genabe and withholding her salary. The
guidelines clearly provide that the authority of judges to discipline erring court personnel, under
their supervision and charged with light offenses, is limited to conducting an inquiry only. After
such inquiry, the executive judge is required to submit to the OCA the results of the investigation
and give a recommendation as to what action should be taken. An executive judge does not
have the authority to act upon the results of the inquiry and thereafter, if the court employee is
found guilty, unilaterally impose a penalty, as in this case. It is only the Supreme Court which
has the power to find the court personnel guilty or not for the offense charged and then impose
a penalty. Thus, the Supreme Court held that both Genabe and Judge Maceda should be
administratively liable.

GENARO SANTIAGO III v. JUSTICE JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR.


579 SCRA 1 (February 13, 2009)

Facts:

On December 27, 2007, filed a verified complaint against the respondent Court of
Appeals Justice Juan Enriquez for gross ignorance of the law and jurisprudence and
incompetence. It was alleged that the respondent rendered an unjust judgment in the Petition
for Reconstitution of Lost/ Destroyed Original Certificate of Title filed by the complainant. Justice
Juan Enriquez expressed his dissent, strong enough to be ignored by plain technicality, from
the report made by Justice Gonzales-Sison which will be used as a basis for the
Divisions consultation and deliberation which upholds the decision made by the RTC of Quezon
City. The respondent Enriquez requested for another two Justices to form a Special Division,
namely Justice Edgardo Cruz and Justice Lucas Bersamin. Eventually, the dissenting opinion of
Justice Enriquez became the majority opinion. The decision of the RTC of Quezon City was
reversed by the decision made by the Special Division. Thus, an administrative complaint was
filed against Justice Enriquez. In his comment, Justice Enriquez branded the complainant as
nuisance on the purpose of harassing him and contends that the administrative complaint was
filed prematurely considering that complainants motion for reconsideration of the Decision was
pending.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is a valid ground for the filing of an administrative case against
Justice Enriquez
HELD:

The Supreme Court held that although the cases cited to support a Decision are not
applicable and the appreciation of evidence and facts are erroneous do not necessarily warrant
the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge, unless the Decision is tainted with
fraud, malice or dishonesty or with deliberate intent to cause injustice. There must be sufficient
evidence proving that the acts or conduct of the judge is clearly indicative of the arbitrariness or
prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.

The principle of judicial immunity insulates judges, and even Justices of superior
courts, from being held to account criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision
rendered in good faith. No one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of
administering justice could be infallible in his judgment. It bears particular stress in the present
case that the filing of charges against a single member of a division of the appellate court is
inappropriate. The Decision was not rendered by respondent in his individual capacity but rather
was a product of the consultations and deliberations by the Special Division.

3-D Industries, Inc. vs. Justice Vicente Roxas 632 SCRA 117 October 5, 2010

Facts:

Gilbert Guy, the son of spouse Francisco and Simny Guy. The spouses organized
Northern Islands Co., Inc. (NICI) which is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of
various home appliances bearing the 3-D trademark and Lincoln Continental as a holding
company. Upon discovering that Gilbert had been dissipating the assets of Lincoln
Continental, the spouses Guy caused the registration of 50% of the 20,160 shares of stock of
NICI in the names of their three daughters, thus enabling the latter to assume an active role in
the management of NICI. Lincoln Continental filed a complaint at the against NICI and the Guy
family, for the annulment of the transfer of the 50% NICI shares of stock to Gilberts sisters. The
complaint prayed for the restoration of the management of NICI to Gilbert and the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to prohibit Gilberts
sisters from exercising any right of ownership over the questioned shares. Gilbert later filed
a complaint for replevin on behalf of 3-D, prompting the NICI and the Guy family to file two
Supplemental Petition for Certiorari, to which resolutions were issued admitting both, impleading
3-D and Smartnet as additional respondents and restraining them from disturbing the December
22, 2004 writ of preliminary injunction.

In the present administrative complaint, complainants allege that in issuing such


resolutions, herein respondents caused undue injury to them by giving them unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence in the discharge of their judicial functions. Thus, a verified complaint
was filed for violating Section 3(e) of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Issue:

WON respondents acted within their duties

Ruling:

There are two ways by which Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 may be violated: 1) by giving
undue injury to any party, including the Government, 2) by causing any private party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Manifest partiality has been defined as a clear,
notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other. Bad faith
connotes not only bad judgment or negligence, but also a dishonest purpose, a conscious
wrongdoing, or a breach of duty amounting to fraud. Gross negligence is the want of even slight
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences as far as other persons
are concerned.

In the present case, the assailed Resolutions issued by respondents favouring NICI and
the Guy family does not necessarily render respondents guilty of violation of of the said act,
absent proven particular acts of manifest, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence,
good faith and regularity being generally presumed in the performance of official duties by public
officers. In order for this administrative offense to prosper, the subject order or actuation of the
judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and
jurisprudence but, more importantly, must be attended by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or
corruption. Thus, the administrative complaint was dismissed.

FRANCISCO OCAMPO VS. JUDGE EVELYN ARCAYA-CHUA April 23, 2010 619 SCRA 59

Facts:

Petitioner Francisco Ocampo charged the respondent Judge Evelyn Arcaya-Chua with
harassment, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, manifest
partiality and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On November 27, 2006,
Francisco Ocampo's wife, Milan Arceo Ocampo, filed a petition claiming the sole custody of
their minor daughters. respondent Judge issued an Order enjoining Francisco Ocampo from
taking their minor daughters out of the country without the court's permission and directing him
to allow his wife, Milan, visitation rights over their minor daughters in their residence in
Meycauayan, Bulacan. Francisco Ocampo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, alleging , by presenting testimonial and documentary evidence, that his wife was not
really a resident of Makati City. However, the respondent Judge denied his motion to dismiss
and reconsideration despite the fact that Milan did not adduced evidence refuting the evidence
presented by the complainant.

Respondent Judge issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO), requiring complainant


Ocampo to turn over the custody of their minor daughters to his wife, to stay away from his
wife's residence in Makati, and to provide monthly support of P50,000.00 to their minor
daughters and his wife, exclusive of expenses for medication and education. The complainant
faulted the respondent judge in the issuance of the said order and the manifest irregularities
which includes: 1) the denial of the motion to dismiss despite overwhelming evidence submitted
that his wife was not a resident of Makati City, 2) conducting a hearing immediately a day after
the summons was served, 3) issuance of TPO despite the fact that the period to file has not yet
lapsed, 4) ordering of support is without sufficient cause and; 5) an overzealous implantation of
the TPO.

Issue:

WON the respondent Judge has committed a breach of judicial code of conduct?

Ruling:

NO. The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the Investigating Justice Salazar-
Fernando. It is a well-entrenched rule that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof
required to establish malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but substantial
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In the
present case, there no substantial evidence adduced that the respondent judge has committed
such actions. Justice Salazar-Fernando believed that respondent Judge's disposition thereof fell
within the ambit of discretion vested upon her as a judge when the latter denied the motion.
Also, the respondent Judge cannot be faulted as to the alleged suddenness of the said hearing,
because a prayer for TPO requires to be acted upon with dispatch. Pertinent to the provisions
provided by the Family Code, the exercise of parental authority over illegitimate children is
vested upon the mother and has the right to keep them in her company. With regards to the
alleged over-zealousness in causing the immediate implementation of the TPO, the respondent
Judge considered it without solid basis as it is what the law itself mandates. Thus, it was
recommended that administrative complaint be dismissed.

ATTY. NORLINDA R. AMANTE-DESCALLAR vs. HON. REINERIO (ABRAHAM) B. RAMAS,

582 SCRA 22 December 15, 2010


Facts:

The cases was stemmed from the administrative complaint filed by Judge Ramas
against Atty. Amante- Descallar for allegedly showing the ballot boxes inside Judge Ramas
chambers to a certain Allan Singedas. The ballot boxes were in Judge Ramas custody in
relation to Election Protest Case pending before his court. Thus, verified comment/ counter-
complaint was filed by Atty. Amante-Descallar where she denied the allegation and counter
charged Judge Ramas of bringing home a complete set of computer,constituting to a crime of
Theft. She also accused Judge Ramas of dishonesty when the latter did not reflect in his
Certificates of Service. She also accused Judge Ramas of dishonesty for falsification of his
Certificates of Service and absenteeism.

Judge Ramas refuted the charges against him by contending that he was late in coming
to the office because he has to make the draft a lengthy case about the election protest. With
regards to his alleged absenteeism, the presented evidence were not sufficient as they have no
knowledge has no knowledge whether or not he reported to office after he left. He further
claimed that the complainant was only motivated with the desire to get even with your
respondent after the filing of the administrative case against her. He also issued an Omnibus
Order expressing his intention to momentarily cease hearing cases until after the threat on his
life is resolved stemming from the promulgation of the election protest case. However, despite of
his defense, the CA finds the respondent judge guilty as charged.

Issue:
WON the respondent judge should be held administratively liable?

Ruling:
YES. The Court agreed with the resolution issued by CA. Records have shown that
There were no evidence adduced by the respondent judge to prove that he had rendered
services for the said period in compliance with his Certification of Service for the months of May
and June. Judge Ramas cannot escape liability by raising the defense of threat to his life to
justify his absence n the days he is required to be present. But the most prudent thing that
respondent judge should have done was to secure protection from local police force or from the
Supreme Court or otherwise had requested from the Supreme Court to hold office elsewhere.
There may be alleged threats to his life but such threats do not justify his cessation from
performing judicial functions. Threats are concomitant peril in public office especially in the
judiciary, where magistrates decide and determine sensitive issues that normally generate or
provoke reprisals from losing litigants, which is a consequence that judges should be prepared
of. One who occupies an exalted position in the administration of justice entails a great
responsibility unyielding to ones personal convenience. Thus, the respondent irrefragably failed
to observe judicial standards by making untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service to
cover up his absences.
TIERRA FIRMA ESTATE vs. JUDGE EDISON F. QUINTIN
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1434. July 2, 2002

Facts:
A complaint was filed against Judge Edison Quintin for failing to render judgment a civil
case, entitled Tierra Firma Estate & Development Corporation v. Consumer Commodities
International within 30 days after it was submitted for decision, as required by Rule 70 of
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The respondent judge considered the case submitted for
decision since the defendant did not appear. However, notwithstanding the motions for the early
resolution of the case, judgment was not rendered in the case until July 10, 2001. Respondent
judge claims as reasons for his delay in rendering a decision in the case:
1) that he has a heavy caseload resulting from the expanded jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts;
2) that he also had to preside over the Metropolitan Trial Court of Navotas, Branch 54,
as acting judge thereof since March 15, 1999; and
3) that, as a result of a fire which destroyed the courthouse in July 2000, he had to hold
proceedings in his original station in a single cramped room with no partitions and with the
barest of facilities.

Issue:
WON the respondent s guilty of violating Rule 70 of Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ruling:
YES. When the respondent judge rendered his decision nly on July 10, 2001, it was
already way beyond the 30-day period provided in Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The
respondents reasons for delay were also considered insufficient to justify delay in deciding a
case. What respondent judge appears to overlook is that the delay in the disposition of the case
is due in part to the fact that he entertained motions,[5] some of which are prohibited by the Rule
on Summary Procedure, filed by the defendant which further protracted the resolution of the
case. The continuing delay in the resolution of the case has already caused grave damage to
the complainant of the said case. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the peoples faith
and confidence in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their
failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative
sanctions on them.

Atty. Perseveranda Ricon vs. Judge Placido Marquez 637 SCRA 491 December 8, 2010

Facts:
When Judge Leticia Sablan, the presiding judge of Branch 39 RTC Manila, retired from
judicial office, he was replaced by respondent Judge Marquez. In the first week of March 2002,
the respondent judge set a meeting together with the staff of the said branch. In the said
meeting, Judge Marquez made unsavoury remarks to those who had already rendered five
years of service in the government. He also instructed the herein complainant, Atty. Ricon, to
schedule the courts cases for hearing, but Judge Marquez have commenced hearing the cases
only in June 2002. Atty. Ricon further alleged that Judge Marquez laid down so many rules and
regulations in the court, and one such rule required the changing of the covers of case records,
which she found unreasonable. And everytime the respondent discovers things not in
accordance to his specifications, he would get mad and voice out offensive remarks. Moreover,
Atty. Ricon claimed that she received the biggest blow in her life when Judge Marquez gave her
an unsatisfactory rating, together with other members of the staff without giving proper warning
and confrontation. Finally, Atty. Ricon alleged that there were reports that Judge Marquez was
using his chambers as living quarters. In his comment, the respondent denied the material
allegations and contended that the present complaint is Atty. Ricons countercharge against him
for the unsatisfactory rating she received.

Issue:
WON the respondent judge is guilty as charged?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court agreed with the report and recommendation submitted by the
Justice Carandang. The unsavory, insulting and unpleasant utterances of Judge Marquez, was
considered as vulgar, foul and insulting, and short of what was expected in the conduct and
demeanor of a judge. When he called unnecessary negative attention to himself and his office
by his use of unprofessional and unethical language in his dealings with his staff and with
litigants which deviated from the proper and accepted decorum of a magistrate. However, The
judge cannot be made liable for grave abuse of discretion/authority or for grave misconduct for
the unsatisfactory ratings he gave to Atty. Ricon and the other members of the staff, and for
laying down many rules and regulations in Branch 39 to improve record keeping and case
management, when the purpose is only to improve the filing system in the court. Furthermore, it
was Judge Marquezs prerogative, given a pre-determined set of standards, to give his staff
ratings which, in his honest assessment, are commensurate to their performance in the office,
ratings which were subsequently upheld by the OCA PERC.

On the other hand, Atty. Ricon cannot be sanctioned and be held liable as there was no
evidence adduced showing the she grossly mismanaged record keeping in Branch 39 and have
falsified the document subject of the charge. Thus, the Court held that all the charges for both
the complainant and the respondent be dismissed for lack of merit. However, a fine was
imposed to the respondent for making vulgar, inappropriate and improper language

You might also like