DIAZ V.

JUDGE GESTOPA

FACTS:

Diaz filed an unlawful detainer case before MTC of Naga, the case was scheduled for pretrial conference.
During the conference, Gestopa recommended barangay conciliation. Diaz’s counsel objected and
moved for mediation instead, but Gestopa insisted that he has authority to refer it back to barangay for
conciliation.

Gestopa concluded that since the subject land is in Naga, and the Diaz is a resident of Naga, it is proper
to refer the case for barangay conciliation. Diaz is no longer a resident of Naga so she moved for
reconsideration arguing that the referral of the case to the lupon is violation of Rules on Summary
Procedure and that she is now a resident in Dumlog, Talisay City and that the case had already beed
referred to the lupon. Gestopa denied the motion. Diaz filed an administrative case against Gestopa
alleging that he exhibited gross ignorance of the law in referring the case back to the lupon when she is
not anymore a resident of Naga. Gestopa is accused of unduly delaying for months the resolution of the
case and that he is biased so Diaz requested the case to be transferred to another court.

Gestopa argued that the referral of the case to the lupon was made in good faith. He admitted that
Lupong Tagapamayapa of Brangay North Poblacion declared that barangay conciliation failed to reach a
settlement and the case was directed to PMC but it was unsuccessful

OCA found Gestopa guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

ISSUE:

Whether Gestopa is liable

RULING:

YES. It is very clear that the period for rendition of judgments in cases faliing under summary procedure
is 30 days. There was no reason to refer the case back to the barangay for amicable settlement

Rule 140 of Rules of Court, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is a serious charge for which the
judge may be penalized with dismissal or suspension or a fine
MANSUETA RUBIN V. JUDGE JOSE AGUIRRE, JR.

FACTS:

Mansueta is the widow of the late Feliciano who was appointed as Judicial Admin of the estate of the
sps. Dioscoro Rubin and Emperatiz Rubin. Mansueta claims that during the Special Proceeding of the
intestate estate of the sps. Rubin, and an Annulment of Adoption pending before Judge Aguirre, that
Judge Aguirre extorted money from the estate; that the consolidated labor cases were decided and
became final and executory and the judgment was already satisfied and paid for personally by Dioscoro
Rubin in the amount of 44K; that he acted with grave abuse of discretion and grave abuse of authority
by ordering the estate to pay based on an non-existing final or executory decision which was illegal and
improper without notice or hearing; that Judge Aguirre threatened the Judicial Administrator if he will
not pay the labor claims and to sell the properties to pay such claims; that Feliciano was forced to pay
the amount ordered by Judge Aguirre, but was ordered released by Judge Aguirre because the money
claim had already been paid and satisfied; that the Judge was grossly ignorant of the law when he
ordered the change of administrator Feliciano when he refused to follow the orders of Judge Aguirre as
he ordered his Clerk of Court to act as Special Administrator; that the judge extended unwarranted
benefit, advantage and preference to the newly appointed Judicial Administratrix Aileen Rubin; that he
appointed adminstratrix ransacked the premises, took out records, personal belongings of Feliciano and
his wife.

Judge Aguirre claimed that Mansueta contained malicious and scurrilous allegations that smacked of
harassment, and it was filed by a disgruntled complainant who mistakenly believed that she should be
the appointed administratrix. His appointment of Aileen Rubin, the adopted child of the deceased
spouses was affirmed by CA and SC; that Mansueta confused two labor cases and that only the amount
of 44k was paid and Judge Aguirre required Feliciano to pay lawful and valid claims against the estate

Investigating Justice, found that except for the charge of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and violation
of Judicial Conduct, other charges against Judge Aguirre were bereft of legal basis. Judge Aguirre
committed impropriety when he sent a letter to Feliciano to discuss and expedite a possible extra-
judicial settlement of the estate and that he violated Canon2 of Code of Judicial Conduct.

ISSUE:

Whether Judge Aguirre is guilty for conduct unbecoming of a judge and violation of Judicial Court only.

RULING:

YES. For liability to attach for ignorance of the law the assailed order, decision or actuation of
the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be erroneous but must
be established to have been motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some
other like motive. Although the appointment of Judge Aguirre of his clerk of court
as special administrator was erroneous, such appointment was made in good faith.
Such appointment was prompted by the continued refusal of Feliciano to settle the
money claims filed against the estate.
Further, on Judge Aguirre’s impropriety, it was held that employees of the court
have no business meeting with litigants or their representatives under any
circumstance

Judge Aguirre is also liable under Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of Judicial
Ethics Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that "[a] judge should
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities." Carrying the
same guiding principle is Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which states, "[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 every day life, should be beyond reproach."
PROSECUTOR HILARIO RONSON TILAN V. JUDGE ESTER FLOR

FACTS:

Prosecutor Tilan was handling a criminal case for falsification of public document and violation of RA
7610 pending promulgation and for libel pending arraignment before Judge Flor. Prosecutor Tilan
charged Judge Flor with gross inefficiency, gross negligence and dishonesty. In the first two cases, Judge
Flor resorted to the issuance of an order requiring the submission of the parties’ memoranda instead of
rendering a decision to circumvent the statutory period of the resolution of the cases. CHR even called
his attention on the matter. In the last case, the accused filed a petition for suspension of trial, despite
the parties submission of the matter for resolution, judge flor filed to resolve the petition within the
required period.

Judge Piscoso-Flor claimed that in the first case, because prosecutors tilan and lamase and the accused’s
coiunsel asked that the promulgation of the decision be deferred pending a possible settlement of the
case.OCA directed Judge Flor to conduct an inventory of the cases pending in her court and find out
whether there were cases to be submitted for decision that had not been decided within the required
period, and to decide the cases within 30 days.

Court Administrator found Judge Piscoso-Flor to have been remiss in her duty to decide
cases within the period required by law. He recommended that the judge be merely
admonished considering that this is her first infraction and that she inherited most
of the cases that gave rise to the complaint.
ISSUE:

Whether Judge Piscoso-Flor should be held administratively liable.

RULING:

YES. Although Judge Piscoso-Flor claimed that she had requested for an extension of
time to decide there was no showing that the request was ever granted. we find
Judge Piscoso-Flor guilty of undue delay in the disposition of other cases within the
required period, in violation of the law and the rules. No less than the Constitution
sets the limits on this all-important aspect in the administration of justice. It
mandates that lower courts have three (3) months or ninety (90) days within which
to decide cases or matters submitted to them for resolution.
ELADIO PERFECTO V. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA

FACTS:

Eladio filed charges against Judge Esidera of soliciting and receiving at the prosecutor’s office 1,000 from
Atty. Uruma and Prosecuroe Diaz to defray expenses for a religious celebration and barangay fiesta. This
was supported by an affidavit of prosecutor Ching who claimed to have witnessed the first incident and
heard that Judge Esidera also solicited from prosecutor Diaz. Eladio also questions the Judge’s conduct
in a special proceedings in which she issued an order directing the petitioner to publish the order in a
newspaper of general circulation, instead of Catarman Weekly Tribune of which Eladio is a publisher;
that the Judge scolded her staff in open court and treated them in an inhumane and hostile manner.

Judge Alma claims that she was merely received donation for a Sto. Nino image; that Prosecutor Cing is
of dubious personality and has narcissistic personality disorder; that Catarman Weekly Tribune is not in
circulation and that Catarman Weekly Tribune failed to publish her orders on time; that she had been
maintaining a professional relationship with her staff and lawyers in her court.

OCA found Judge Alma guilty of impropriety and unbecoming conduct

ISSUE:

Whether Judge Alma should be held administratively liable.

RULING:

YES. Judge alma is guilty of Impropriety, which was manifested in, among other things, her lack of
discretion and vicious attack on Prosecutor Ching by her use of uncalled for offensive language. Her
admission of receiving P1000 and her failure to disclaim such act only confirms her lack of
understanding of the notion of propriety under which judges must be measured. Her act of proceeding
to the Prosecutor’s Office under the guise of soliciting for a religious cause betrays not only her lack of
maturity as a judge but also a lack of understanding of her vital role as an impartial dispenser of justice,
held in high esteem and respect by the local community which must be preserved at all times. It spawns
the impression that she was using her office to unduly influence or pressure Atty Yruma, and Prosecutor
Diaz into donating money through her charismatic group of religious purposes.
ANTONIO MONTICALBO V. JUDGE CRESCENTE MARAYA JR.

FACTS:

Antionio charged Judg Maraya with gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence and grave abuse of
authority thru false representation. Antonio is a defendant in a case for collection of sum of money filed
by Fatima Credit Coopertive. The case was dismissed by MCTC did not rule on the counterclaim of
Antonio for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. He filed a motion of reconsideration but was denied,
he elevated the case to RTC and filed a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum on appeal
which was granted by Judge Jr. but the judge dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time.
Antonio imputes the following errors on the Judge: (1) that he erred in ruling that the case is covered by
Rules on Summary Procedure, considering that the total claim exceeds P10,000; (2) That he cited non-
existent case of Jaravata v. CA in his questioned order; (3) that he accepted brides in the form of food
from the cooperative, and that Antonio witnessed the Judge enjoying a drinking spree with Costelo,
then Sheriff of trial court presided over by the judge and chairman of the board and president of the
cooperative.

Judge Jr. refutes all accusations claiming that, his decision to dismiss the appeal was made in exercise of
the appellate jurisdiction of MCTC and of his sound discretion. That the accusations of bad faith and
corruption is baseless and that it was filed by Atty. Lacab, his counsel in an attempt to get even with the
judge; that his doctor prohibited him to drink alcoholic beverages.

Associate Justice Sorongon absolved the judge from the charge of grave misconduct and corruption, but
the citation of non-existent case is tantamount to a misrepresentation.

ISSUE:

Whether Judge Jr. should be held liable.

RULING:

YES. In order to merit disciplinary action, it must be established that the Judge’s actions were motivated
by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred or were attended by fraud, dishonesty or corruption. Absence of such
proof, the decision of order is presumed to have been issued in good faith. Bias or partiality cannot be
presumed, neither can bad faith or malice be inferred just because the judgment or order is adverse to
the complainant.

Judge Jr. can be liable for gross ignorance of the law if it can be shown that he committed an error so
gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith. Antonio is mistaken because under the Rules
of Court all other cases… where the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does not exceed P100,000… falls
within the scope of Rules on Summary Procedure. Moreover, even if the judge erred in issueing the
order, he cannot be held administratively liable for his official acts, no matter how erroneous, for as long
as he acted in good faith.

On the citation of non-existent case, the Code of Judicial Conduct demands a judge be faithful to the law
and maintain professional competence.
OFFICCE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. RODELIO MARCELO AND MA. CORAZON EPANOLA

FACTS:

OCA conducted a financial audit on MTCC books of accounts which covered terms of several clerks of
court. It showed that Marcelo incurred P792,213 shortage and Espanola incurred shortage of P11,647.
Espanola paid the shortages she incurred. Marcelo denied the charge of malversing/pocketing the
court’s collections but admitted that he failed to deposit the collections with Land Bank and instead
gave it to his mother who in turn gave it to Bernadette; that aroiund 2 years, his collections had
accumulated and when he decided to make the deposits, there was already change in the signatories
authorized to make such deposits.

Judge Capellan recommended Marcelo’s dimisal. OCA concurred the Judge’s findings.

ISSUE:

Whether

RULING:

Marcelo violated that trust several times over for a period covering more than two
years. He made collections for the court's several funds (JDF, Fiduciary Fund,
General Fund, Special Allowance for the Judiciary, between March 5, 2002 and
December 31, 2004) and never bothered to deposit these collections in the official
court depository bank, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), a violation of the rule
that all clerks of court are required to deposit all collections with the LBP within
twenty-four (24) hours upon receipt of the collections. Marcelo also held on to his
collections, thus committing another violation. Clerks of court may not keep funds
in their custody.

"[N]o amount of explanation can hide the fact that respondent Marcelo for so many
years had at his disposal the huge amount of money which if deposited in the bank
could have redounded to the benefit of the government.
JUDGE PHILBERT ITURALDE V. BABE RAMIREZ, VIOLETA FLORDELIZA CARLOS SALVADOR

FACTS:

Complainant were plaintiffs in a civil case against FBM Construction & Agro-Industrial Corporation for
specific performance. The case was decided based on a compromise agreement by the parties. On their
motion, the court issued an order directing the issuance of writ of execution but they did not receive a
copy of the order granting the motion, neither did Ramirez (OIC, branch clerk of court) issue the writ of
execution. When Judge Iturralde and Gumarang went to the court to inquire on the status of their
motion, they insisted that Flordeliza look for the records and found out that he court order with original
carbon copies was still attached to the records and claimed that at that point, FBM Corporation already
had a copy of the order. They also claim that when they confronted Ramirez, she appeared to be
uneasy, hesitant and apprehensive on what to do but she was compelled to issue the writ. Salvador, the
branch sheriff, unjustifiably and for unknown reasons, refused to implement the writ, after a few days.
Salvador informed the complainants that FB Corporation appealed to the CA, but upon inquiry to CA,
instead of an appeal, FBM Corp filed a petition for annulment of judgment, which the CA disissed
DANELLA SONIDO V. JOSEFINA ILOCOSO

FACTS:

Sonido filed a complaints against Kristel Ann Asebo for violatiokn of RA 9262. Sonido received a copy of
the resolution. She went to Branch 80 and Ilocso, Clerk III of RTC said that she would prepare the
warrant of arrest and advised Sonido to return the next day to get a copy. However, despite repeated
returns, Ilocso consistently failed to give her a copy and instead gave excuses. Ilocso assured Sonido that
copies of the warrant were already mailed to proper authorities. When Sonido finally got a copy of the
warrant with the remark, “sige ipahuli mo na yan”, she immediately went to a police investigator for
execution but found out that Kristel already went abroad to work as a caregiver. Ilocso denied Sonido’s
accusations and blamed her busy schedule for her inability to have the warrant of arrest released, she
denied receiving P100; she also claimed that the parties to the criminal case executed a compromise
agreement where the complainant executed an affidavit of desistance and asked for the dismissal of the
case, which the court granted.

OCA found ilocso guilty of simple neglect of duty as . Ilocso has been gravely remiss in the
performance of her duties resulting not only in the delay in the service of a copy of
the warrant to Sonido, but in the failure to arrest the accused
ISSUES:

Whether Ilocso should be administratively liable for simple neglect?

RULING:

No. Ilocso’s infraction is more serious than simple neglect of duty. The delay, to our
mind, was by design and was not an innocent lapse or mistake. Ilocso’s promises,
her excuses, the delay from the filing of the information to the release of the
warrant of arrest, the time of the release to Sonido of a copy of the warrant, and
the timing of the departure of the accused for Taiwan — all lead us to conclude that
the release of the warrant was delayed to favor the accused.

Ilocso had placed the court in a very negative light. It prejudiced the Court’s
standing in the community as it projected an image of a Court that is unable to
enforce its processes on time. For this reason, we find her liable not only for simple
neglect of duty, but for the more serious offense of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service.
SPS SUR AND RITA VILLA AND LETICIA GOREMBALEM VALENZUELA V. ROBERTO AYCO, VIRGINIA
BARTOLOME AND CRISPIN CALSENIA

FACTS:

Complainants allege that they are the legal heirs of Miguel Gorembalem in a civil case, Miguel was made
liable to pay the Villas and Leticia. Judge Ayco directed the issuance of a writ of execution, Sheriff
Calsenie issued a Notice of Levy on the property of Miguel and scheduled an execution sale since he
failed to settle the judgment obligation. Complainants then, filed a 3rd party claim on the property but
was denied by RTC, they moved for reconsideration but Judge Ayuco denied the same only 15 months
from filing and more than 8 months from the time such motion was submitted for resolution. The
complainants then filed a Notice of Appeal which was denied, their motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION V. JUDGE SANTOS ADIONG

FACTS: