Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. SISON-BARIAS VS RUBIA
Facts:
ISSUE:
Whether respondents Judge Rubia and Pecaa should be held
administratively liable.
HELD:
Yes. This court must set aside the ndings of fact and reject the
report of Justice Samuel Gaerlan. Respondents Judge Rubia and
Pecaa should be held administratively liable for their actions.
Pecaa took place on March 10, 2010 on the side street of Burgos
Circle in Bonifacio Global City, after the Rotary Club of Makati,
Southwest Chapter meeting and dinner at Numa Restaurant, on their
way to the parking lot. This means that the testimony of and the
evidence presented by Rodel do not disprove the occurrence of the
dinner meeting as alleged by complainant, since the meeting of the
Rotary Club and the dinner meeting alleged by complainant took
place on dierent dates.
The investigation report stated that the attendance sheet and the
program of meeting that Rodel submitted corroborated his testimony.
The date indicated on the attendance sheet and on the program of
meeting was March 10, 2010, not March 3, 2010. However, there was
nothing to indicate the time of arrival or departure of the attendees.
Neither was there an indication of the time when the meeting began
or ended. The attendance sheet and the program of meeting, by
themselves or taken as corroborative evidence of Rodel's testimony,
do not discount the distinct and tangible possibility that the dinner
meeting as narrated by complainant took place.
On the other hand, we nd the allegation that the dinner meeting took
place on March 3, 2010 more credible.
Bkt xa galit kng mkpg kta ka smin widout his knowledge. I cnt fathom
y wil it end up ling an admin case. (August 8, 2010, 4:29 p.m.)
Pls Emily do something 2 pacify ur lawyer, juj rubia will denitely get
mad wid us. (August 8, 2010, 4:30 p.m.) 130 (Emphasis supplied)
142
This is telling of a culture of tolerance that has led to the decay of the
exacting nature of judicial propriety. Instead of being outraged by
respondent Judge Rubia's meeting an opposing party, Atty. Zarate
defended respondent Judge Rubia's actions.
2. HURTADO VS JUDALENA
Facts:
Mayor Roger S. Padilla alleges that in Criminal Case Nos. 5935
and 5936 (People v. Ventura Calzada, et al.) for grave coercion and
grave threats; Criminal Case No. 5973 (People v. Efren Dalde, et al.)
for highgrading; Civil Case No. 610 (Vicente Enriquez v. Zaldy
Suarez) for trespassing (sic); Criminal Case No. 5908 (People v.
Rolando Racasa) for highgrading; and Criminal Case No. 5998
(People v. Job Riel) for alarms and scandals, the opposing counsel,
Atty. Augusto B. Schneider is always seen eatingand drinking in the
constant company of respondent Judge in public establishments in
the Municipality of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte. Respondent
Judge denies that he is fraternizing with lawyers with pending cases
in his sala, explaining that in the case of Atty. Schneider, he is the
only lawyer in the Municipality of Jose Panganiban and it is but
natural for respondent Judge to be friendly with him but maintains
that their friendship has never been a hindrance to the proper
disposition of the cases in his sala.
Issue:
WON the respondent violatedSection 4 Canon 1
Ruling:
Yes. Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy and
camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be asked from
respondent judge which he may find hard to resist. The actuation of
respondent Judge of eating and drinking in public places with a
lawyer who has pending cases in his sala may well arouse suspicion
in the public mind, thus tending to erode the trust of the litigants in the
impartiality of the judge. This eventuality may undermine the people's
faith in the administration of justice. It is of no moment that Atty.
Augusto Schneider is the only lawyer in the locality. Respondent is
admonished.
4. Tan vs Rosete
TAN V. ROSETE
Facts:
Before the cases were decided, respondent judge allegedly
sent a member of his staff to talk to complainant. The staff member
told complainant Tan that Judge Rosete was asking for P150,000.00
in exchange for the non-dismissal of the cases. She was shown
copies of respondent judges decision in the criminal cases, both still
unsigned, dismissing the complaints against the accused. She was
told that respondent judge would reverse the disposition of the cases
as soon as she remits the amount demanded. Complainant,
however, did not accede to respondents demand because she
believed that she had a very strong case, well supported by evidence.
The criminal cases were eventually dismissed by respondent judge.
Held:
We have repeatedly admonished our judges to adhere to the
highest tenets of judicial conduct. They must be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence. The exacting standards of
conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the
peoples confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the
magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of
the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral
uprightness they are expected to possess. When the judge himself
becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply, he
places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and
impairs public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount that a judges personal
behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be
free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.
Respondents act of sending a member of his staff to talk with
complainant and show copies of his draft decisions, and his act of
meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond office hours
violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by
members of the Bench. They constitute gross misconduct which is
punishable under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court.
It was verified that the salaries of Clerk of Court Rolando Saa had
been ordered withheld by the Fiscal Management since May 1999 for
failure to submit the Report on the Monthly Collection and Withdrawal
of Fiduciary Fund . Further verificat shows that nevertheless, Mr. Saa,
is not remiss in reporting regularly the general fund and JDF
collections. No charges have yet been filed against Mr. Saa for his
failure to submit the aforesaid report. The withholding of his salaries
was done only for the purpose of compliance or compelling Mr. Saa
to submit the required report. At present, the Fiscal Monitoring
Division, this ofBce, is conducting a financial audit on the collections
of Mr. Saa.
Based on the report of Acting Judge Herico, Mr. Saa is pointing the
blame to former Acting Judge, Edgar Alba .
In the Court's Circular No. 26-97, dated May 5, 1997, then Court
Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo directed the Judges and Clerks of
Courts of the Lower Courts to observe the procedures with regard to
monies received by the collecting officers of the courts: The Judiciary
Development Fund and the Fiduciary Fund partake of the nature of
trust funds. Facts show that Talento, who was appointed as the Court
Stenographer and designated as the Assistant Clerk of the MCTC of
Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte, initialed "PJP" on Official Receipt No.
2854940 dated July 7, 1994 with regard to the cash bond of P10,000
posted by one Jerry Duazo for the accused Mario Zamala y Dasco in
Criminal Case No. 750 for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Ma. Isabel Liwag, Court Interpreter I and designated as Acting Clerk
of Court of MCTC of Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte, afBxed her
counter-initial/signature in the same receipt. The aforesaid amount
had not been deposited either in the depository bank or in the OfBce
of the Municipal Treasurer.
HELD: Yes.
Facts:
Judge Agustin T. Sardido, who presided over the MTCC of
Koronadal City, assumed office sometime in May 1988; and Clerk of
Court Maxima Borja, on February 18, 2002. The latter, however, had
been employed therein since 1987, serving as clerk II and
stenographer until she was appointed clerk of court. Prior to Borja's
assumption, the clerk of court was Normandie A. Ines, who
compulsorily retired on October 9, 2001.
The audit team found that Judge Sardido usually arrived late for work.
On Mondays, he would report only in the afternoons. Due to his
habitual tardiness, court sessions were usually scheduled only in the
afternoons.
The audit team also found that Judge Sardido had allowed Rufino
Vargas, a non-employee of the court, to discharge the duties and
functions of a court interpreter without the prior approval of the OCA.
3. After Ines retired, three (3) cash bonds amounting to P15,000 were
posted but not officially receipted. The audit team, however, found
Borja's entries in the cashbook for the Clerk of Court Fiduciary Fund
(CCFF) to be in order.
7. For the period April 3, 1996 to September 20, 2001, Ines received
cash bonds amounting to P494,836, for which official receipts were
issued. On the other hand, he apparently received unreceipted cash
bonds amounting to P460,200 from September 21, 1993 to
September 30, 2001. As of the audit date, the total funds amounting
to P955,036 presumably collected remained unaccounted for.
On November 14, 2002, Ines filed his explanation, the cashbooks of
the MTCC of Koronadal City, as well as the acknowledgements and
vale receipts allegedly signed by Judge Sardido and other court
personnel who had accountabilities against court funds.
In his explanation, Ines denied using court funds for the benefit of his
colleagues. Allegedly, because the funds were not in his possession,
he could not possibly be guilty of the charges against him. He also
denied failing to issue receipts for cash bonds, claiming that, being on
leave at the time, he could not have received them. He justified his
failure to enforce collections for the JDF from July 1989 to January
1991 by saying that no such funds accrued during that period. As to
the alleged fund shortages and erroneous entries in the cashbook, he
also denied the charges, saying that the audit reports conducted by
the Commission on Audit in South Cotabato had proved the regularity
of the court finances.
The failure to issue official receipts for two cash bonds, she
explained, had been done before she assumed the position of clerk of
court. Lastly, she sought this Court's understanding of her over-
remittance of some amounts to the CCGF and the JDF. She averred
that she had no background in accounting and had to make do with
whatever books, records and documents her predecessor had turned
over to her.
"A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept
a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be
allowed by law."
Time and time again, this Court has emphasized that "the judge
is the visible representation of the law, and more importantly, of
justice. It is from him that the people draw their will and
awareness to obey the law. For the judge to return that regard,
he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example
for others to follow." 14
Sadly, the foregoing facts clearly show that Judge Sardido has not
only miserably failed to present himself as an example to his staff and
to others, but has also shown no compunction in violating the law, as
well as the rules and regulations. His dishonesty, gross misconduct,
and gross ignorance of the law tarnish the image of the judiciary and
would have warranted the maximum penalty of dismissal, were it not
for the fact that he had already been dismissed from the service in
another administrative case.