0

Ethics (Ferrer) - Discipline Cases Reviewer (Round 2)
No. Case Name Facts Penalty and Charge Ground Reporter

Judge C, a relative of S, prepared a deed of
donation of parcels of land owned by S in favor
of the children of S. He later negotiated the sale
of the lands and deposited the proceeds in a
bank account. He then made withdrawals from
the account without the knowledge of the Gross misconduct (S3) —
Fine equivalent to 6 mons
143 Sarmiento v. Cruz owners. A judge should be irreproachable both violation of NCJC Ayson
salary
in his official as well as in his private conduct. [propriety]
Judge C has taken advantage of the trust of S
and his children in an unconscionable manner by
appropriating for his own personal ends the
money he had withdrawn from the latter’s
account without their consent.
Charges were filed by E against Judge H — (1)

Negligence and carelessness for unduly delaying
the resolution of a case involving E which has
been pending for ten years in the judge’s sala;
and (2) partiality. Impeachment proceedings Less Serious: Undue delay
before courts are highly penal in character and No penalty. Failure to in rendering decision/order,
76 In re Horilleno Baguyot
to be governed by the rules of law applicable to prove. or transmitting records of
criminal case. The charges must, therefore, be the case
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Serious
misconduct on the part of Judge H has not here
been proved by a preponderance of the
evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judge B hit the left side of A, a district engineer,

with a pistol and caused the latter’s temporary
unconsciousness. Prior to this incident, B fired
gunshots in the air before following A to a
restaurant where the pistol whipping happened.
The incident was highly publicized by the media
Dismissal, fine, and Gross misconduct (S3) —
14 Arban v. Borja and it was speculated that the motive was Calangi
forfeiture of benefits violation of NCJC
jealousy over a woman. After a public apology, A
withdrew from the case he filed against B.
However, the court still pushed through with the
case as it is an administrative matter. B was
found guilty of committing acts unbecoming of a
judge.
Robbery case led to the detention of a black and

white renegade jeep with the Court. Instead of Gross Misconduct
1. Dismissal;
Arcenio v. Pagorogon being turned over to the provincial fiscal, Judge
2. Forfeiture of
(1993) Pagorongon took the jeep, had it painted red, 1. Judge failed to observe
Retirement of Benefits;
15 and spent considerable amounts for its repair. Canon 2, CJC: "avoid Calayag
and
Beep, beep, beep, impropriety and the
3. No reinstatement to
pahamak na jeep. Court ruled that (1) Judge tampered with appearance of impropriety
any government office
evidence; (2) had no business with the jeep in in all activities."
the first place; and (3) manifested intent to gain.
Buenaventura filed a complaint against Judge

Benedicto. Upon investigation, Judge Benedicto
was found to have formed a committee to solicit
funds for office equipment. formed a committee
to solicit contributions for office equipment. Warning/Admonished
Alleged Serious
Buenaventura v. Imprudently received complainant in his (Since he only solicited
29 misconduct; Violation of Contreras
Benedicto chambers prior to the promulgation of his because of extreme
Sec. 24 CJE
decision. He was found not guilty of the charges. necessity)
He was admonished to exercise close and
unremitting supervision over his subordinates
and to adhere at all times to the full intendment
of each and all of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
This involves two cases filed against judge J.

The first case claimed he held close door
meetings with the plaintiff in order to extort
money under the guise of arbitrating an extra-
judicial settlement. The second case involved a
Mitsubushi Galant which he asked to be
34 Capuno v. Jaramillo surrendered to the court, but which he later Dismissal and fine Gross misconduct (S3) Corona
used for his personal purpose. The Court found
him guilty of using the car for personal means
when a parlor receipt belonging to his wife was
found inside the car. He was dismissed for
violating the Code of Judicial Conduct as well as
corrupt practices.
Judge B, was charged with this administrative

case for serious misconduct. This was in lieu of
his assaulting and attacking F. F was in his patrol
duty when he was kicked on the chest in the L1 (Vulgar and unbecoming
38 Castillo v. Barsana Suspension - 2 mons Cruz
house of one E, whom judge was paying a visit. of a judge)
Judge B was acquitted of direct assault upon an
agent of a person in authority but guilty of slight
physical injuries.
P charged Judge L with gross ignorance of the

law, partiality, serious misconduct and knowingly
rendering unjust orders and/or
decision in a civil case involving P. The charges
arose from several orders of Judge L, declaring P
in default then lifting it and only to reinstate it
Gross ignorance of the law;
Pilipinas Bank v. Tirona- again, awarding damages greater than that
58 None Serious misconduct; Dagdag
Liwag prayed for. The charges are unsubstantiated.
Rendering unjust orders
However, the Court finds that Judge L should
have acted in a more professionally competent
manner to obviate the appearance or suspicion
of misconduct in the issuance of orders awarding
huge sums of money against defaulting or
recalcitrant parties.
Dra. L was asked to sign a death certificate. She

refused to sign because the deceased was not
her patient. They came back saying “pirmahan
mo daw sabi ni Judge F” but she still refused. In
a party, Judge F, already drunk, told her angrily
“bakit hindi mo pinirmahan ang death
Gross misconduct and
85 Lachica v. Flordeliza certificate?” The court said that a judge is not Fine: P10,000 Dela Cruz
unbecoming conduct
supposed to be an active combatant in court
proceedings and must leave it to the parties light penalty
VULGAR
themselves to secure their evidences and argue
their respective positions on any matter without
his participation. It should be recognized that
the Judge’s role is to decide and not to litigate.”
Judge B failed to attend the hearing of a case

because he was planting mango and forgot
about the hearing. After resetting, Judge B again
failed to attend due to the same reason. On both
occasions, B failed to inform the parties. The Frequent and unjustified
92 Macabasa v. Banaag Court held that the absence of Judge B is not Fine: 2months salary absences, or habitual Dulay
justifiable. His failure demonstrates lack of tardiness.
diligence, care, and seriousness in performing
his duties. Between self-interest and duty, the
judge chose his own self-interest. A public office
is a public trust.
Judge B was charged of committing Direct

Bribery after asking for money from C, president
of M Corporation which had a pending case
before Judge B’s court. Judge B asked for money
from C to use it for the trip of the former’s wife
and daughter to the U.S. for which Judge B shall
107 OCA v. Barron render a decision favorable to M Corporation. C Dismissal Bribery, direct Estipona
informed the NBI about this. They planned an
entrapment to be executed on the day of the
next meeting of Judge B & C for the payment of
the money. Judge B was caught during the
entrapment. The court held him guilty of Direct
Bribery and ordered him dismissed from service.
Judge M failed to decide a case despite having

been submitted for more than 18 months. M
admitted that it was only after she received a
phone call from an alleged close relative of an
Bribery, gross misconduct,
associate of a national official that she looked Dismissal, fine, and
128 Ramirez v. Macandog dishonesty and violation of Gervacio
into the records of the case. Because “this is a forfeiture of benefits
Anti-Graft
revolutionary government,” she had no recourse
but to decide the case in favor of L. Her act is a
patent betrayal of the public trust and a
revelation of her weak moral character.
S, the court interpreter, went to Judge V’s

chamber to inform him that cases were ready for
trial. Judge V asked her to enter so she stood
beside his table when Judge V suddenly held her
hand and tried to kiss her on the lips. She was
able to evade the kiss so it landed on her cheek. Gross immorality; gross
165 Vedana v. Valencia Suspension - 1 year Godino
The judge also held her left breast. Judge V tried misconduct
to dissuade S from filing a case and stated that
it was only a fatherly kiss and that he only
kissed her because her hair smelled good. S
went on to file a case against the judge charging
gross misconduct and immoral acts.
In a case filed by Y, Judge N ordered F to pay

his debt to Y. F subsequently paid directly to N,
who issued a Receipt of Deposit. Y did not know
that the amount was already received by N, so Y
filed a Motion for Execution of the Judgment. Y,
after finding out that the amount was received
by N, asked N to deliver the amount to the Dishonest and violatiton of
proper accountable officer of the court. N never Anti-Graft; Gross
Dismissal, fine, and
174 Yuson v. Noel delivered the amount. The act of N in personally misconduct; Gross Hourani
forfeiture of benefits
receiving the money as payment of the ignorance of the law/
judgment debt was improper and contrary to procedure
procedure. This opened the door for him to
convert and eventually misappropriate the
amount received by him. A judge’s conduct in
the bench and in the discharge of official duty
should be free from the appearance of
impropriety.
Judge C was charged with gross ignorance of

law after acquitting a volleyball coach from
committing acts of lasciviousness. The coach
allegedly inspected his women volleyball players’
private parts to make sure that they satisfy the
maximum age limit of 13 years old. Judge C was
De La Cruz v.
48 not guilty of gross ignorance of law — For one to None Gross immorality Jose
Concepcion
be held guilty of such charge, it must be shown
that he had malice or bad faith in rendering the
judgment assailed. Mere error does not make a
judge guilty of such — Judge C acquitted the
coach because what he did was pursuant to a
DECS Circular setting such kind of procedure.
Judge F was charged of gross ignorance of the

law by the heirs of Y for granting the petition for
a writ of habeas corpus filed by S. S was
charged and arrested for killing Y. S claims he
was arrested illegally which is the
basis of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Judge F did not notify through writing the
67 Heirs of Yasin v. Felix Fine - P2,000 Gross ignorance of the law Lapuz
Provincial Prosecutor of the hearing for the
petition as required by law but only gave a mere
oral notice. The Court held that Judge F is not
guilty of gross ignorance of the law because
there was no malice or bad faith on his part. But
the Court held him guilty of negligence in the
management of his office.
Judge C was charged with gross malfeasance,

gross ignorance of the law and for knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment. There was a case
of Robbery in Band with Homicide. The robbery
(1) Gross Ignorance of the
happened at night. There were witnesses who
Law; (2) Gross Malfeasance
testified against one of the defendants pointing
71 In re Climaco None in Office/Gross misconduct Ledesma
him to committing one of the crimes. Judge
(3) Knowingly Rendering
Climaco was not convinced so he went to the
an Unjust Judgment
place where the crime was committed and found
that the area was dark and it would be
impossible for the witnesses to identify the
defendant.
Judge answered in his Data Sheet that his

retirement was Optional under RA1145. But, as
Assistant Fiscal, he was previously found guilty
in an administrative case for gross misconduct
In re Appointment of Dismissal, fine, and Dishonesty and violation of
72 and dereliction of duty for failure to prosecute a Leoncini
Judge Cube forfeiture of benefits anti-graft
criminal case. The comment of Judge C did not
satisfactorily explain why he did not disclose the
relevant fact that he had been dismissed before
as Assistant Fiscal.
Judge Abelia was charged with Forcible Entry

after he broke the lock of the bodega of Lao and
changed the same to a new lock in order to hold
his celebration because he was promoted to RTC Dismissal and forfeiture of
[13] Lao v. Abelia III Gross misconduct Leuterio
judge of Masbate. He was also charged with benefits
Frustrated Murder since he instructed his men to
shoot the
men of Lao.
For having illicit relations with a concubine under

scandalous circumstances, Judge X was charged
with immorality of public office. Judge X
contended that the case be dismissed since his
wife condoned his acts of concubinage and the
original complainant withdrew his complaint.
Court held that Judge X’s moral delinquency
86 Leynes v. Veloso Dismissal Gross immorality Leveriza
rendered him unfit for office. Since Judge X
admitted the commission of concubinage, the
charge is conclusively established. His admission
is considered a confession. The Court may motu
propio investigate a judge for his continuing,
grossly immoral conduct. Judge X was
dismissed.
Judge Lomeda conducted the preliminary

investigation of Morono, an accused in a murder
case. The judge (1) immediately signed the 1. Dismissal;
extra-judicial admission taken from Morono 2. Forfeiture of
Untruthful statements;
without reading its contents to the latter and Retirement of Benefits;
103 Morono v. Lomeda dishonesty; gross Lim
without conducting a searching inquiry (thus and
misconduct
violating consti rights of the accused who was 3. No reinstatement to
an illiterate). (2) The judge also falsely testified any government office
when he took the witness stand for purposes of
sustaining the validity of the extra-j admission.
Judge Cantero of MCTC Cebu was charged with

gross misconduct for bigamy and falsification of
public documents by his legal wife and his
children with her.
Cantero in this case, abandoned his first wife

and children, failed to give support, married for
the second time without having first obtained a
judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage,
10 Apiag v. Cantero and falsified public documents (indicating in his None; case dismissed Gross misconduct Lim
records that his wife is his second wife).
The Office of the Court Admin recommended

that the Judge be dismissed but after careful
review of all the documents on file the SC states
that dismissal is too harsh since the Judge's
records in line of service is commendable and
the judge died prior to the promulgation of the
decision, SC just dismissed the case.
Judge E issued an arrest warrant against G for

Grave Threats. G claimed that the arrest warrant
included her as one of the persons subject to [Original charge: Gross
arrest in the case for Grave Threats when she misconduct]
was not an accused in that case. Hence, G filed
this administrative case for grave misconduct. Simple Misconduct
Judge E explained that the issuance of the arrest Note: Rule 140, Sec. 9(7)
Fine = P10,000 (light
61 Galvez v. Eduardo warrant for Grave Threats was a clerical error. designates simple Lua
charge)
The caption of the case should have been for misconduct as a less
Grave Oral Defamation. The issuance of a serious charge. This is
warrant of arrest must not be taken lightly nor permissible as the
should it be considered as one of the usual categories are not
paperwork of the judge that just pass through "airtight."
his hands for his signature. Judge E cannot shift
the blame to his staff.
Abadilla v. Tabiliran
Judge was charged with misconduct for living Dismissal and fine
Dishonesty; Gross
2 "When the wife went out with a mistress. Wife was presumptively dead Magtajas
Immorality
away, the Judge went but she filed a case against the judge. Serious
out to play."
Ansa v. Musa
Shariah Court Judge. Ansa was a court Dimissal
[4] stenographer. Musa was a judge who made Gross Immorality Mendoza
"Kawawang Ansa,
amorous attempts on the the latter. Serious
pinaasa lang ni Musa"
Gross Immorality
Simple Misconduct
Note: Rule 140, Sec. 9(7)

Ilocano. Woman taking a bath. She put her bath Fine: PhP 10,000.00
designates simple
32 Cabulisan v. Pagaliluan robe. Bald Judge peeped. Several episodes of Millan
misconduct as a less
Judge peeping on the woman. Light
serious charge. This is
permissible as the
categories are not
"airtight."
Castillo v. Calanog Woman asked the Judge for help. They met in a
motel, instead of a restaurant, where the Judge
Gross Immorality; serious
39 "Di bale nang maging (married) offered help in exchange for sexual Dismissal Miranda
misconduct
kabit, basta't may relations. Woman got pregnant. Judge stopped
codong kapalit" support.
1. Dismissal;
2. Forfeiture of 1. Gross Immorality; and
Naval v. Panday Drunken teenage girl needed tuition money.
Retirement of Benefits; 2. Gross misconduct
105 Judge Panday gave her money in exchange for Molaer
and constituting violations of
"Bodega ni Panday" sex. Alleged rape.
3. No reinstatement to the NCJC
Judge was accused of nepotism for appointing 1. Gross ignorance of the

Sulu Islamic v. Malik his nephew. Civil Service Law prohibits Judges law and
Dismissal and forfeiture of
151 from recommending or appointing family 2. Gross misconduct Nigro
benefits
"Nephewtism" members to any position in Court. Judge also violating Code of Judicial
committed falsification. Conduct
Anguluan complained against Judge Taguba.

Qualified trespassing and failure to read Ignorance of the law and
8 Anguluan v. Taguba Suspension - 3 months Nilo
contents of the affidavit to the affiants. procedure
Connivance with the mayor.
MTC judge conducted preliminary investigation

in a libel case. In the nick of time, he realized
that he had no jurisdiction over libel cases.
While all judges should know the exact limits of
Arpon v. De La Paz their jurisdiction, there are instances wherein
the law may not appear readily comprehensible,
Ignorance of the law and
17 "Pag tumira ka ng particularly in a municipality where the means of None Pacamarra
procedure
huwes, dapat walang communication and the facilities for up-to-date
mintes" information are not very good. Fault in passing
over questions involving their own jurisdiction
may exist only when the error appears to be
deliberate or in bad faith. MTC judge was
acquitted.
Aurillo v. Francisco 2 criminal cases in the sala of Judge Francisco.

Judge issued a warrant of arrest after
"Aanuhin pa ang bail preliminary examination. He also set an amount Fine of P20,000.00 with
18 Gross Ignorance of the law Rivera
hearing, kung pwede for bail WITHOUT hearing (based his order Stern Warning
namang idaan sa granting bail merely on the supporting affidavits
feelings." attached to the information)
2 complaints were filed against a marshall.

Bacar v. De Guzman Judge convicted the marshall and condemned
1. Fine: PhP 5,000.00; Ignorance of the law and
him to 6 yrs flat. In an admin case against the
20 and procedure; knowingly Rovero
"Judge, wag laging Judge, it was alleged he failed to impose the
2. Warning / Admonition rendering unjust judgment
straight." proper penalty by not following the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL)
Judge O was charged with gross ignorance of

the law and grave misconduct grounded on 8
complaints. The 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th were all
dismissed. The 5th complaint alleges that Judge
O continuously notarized documents not
Balayon v. Ocampo connected with the exercise of his official 1. Warning /
functions. Judge O should avoid impropriety and Admonition(3 charges); Gross misconduct; gross
21 Rubinos
"Never issue a letter, to the appearance of impropriety in all his and ignorance of the law
the police commander" activities. CJC not only enjoins judges to 2. Fine - P10,000
regulate their extra judicial activities in order to
minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial
duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in
the
private practice of law.
Judge allowed a man with a pending criminal

case before him (whom he eventually acquitted) 1. Dismissal;
to receive, transport and pay for the fare of the 2. Forfeiture of
5,500 shingles of nipa ordered by him from Retirement of Benefits;
[1] Agpalasin v. Agcaoili Gross Misconduct (S3) Rubio
complainant and for allegedly constructing and
illegally a poultry within the compound of 3. No reinstatement to
Cagayan State University which is a government any government office
property Judge fraternized with litigants.
1. Dismissal;
Buenavista v. Garcia 11 year old girl was allegedly raped by Mr.
2. Forfeiture of Serious misconduct; gross
Ledesma. Her father filed complaint. One Judge
Retirement of Benefits; ignorance of the law, and
30 "Pag-ibig ay hindi issued warrant, no bail. Judge Garcia argued San Juan
and knowingly rendering an
depensa, pag bata ang that there should be no bail. Provisional
3. No reinstatement to unjust order or judgment
iyong ginahasa." dismissal.
C, a farmer-tenant, filed a complaint against

Judge F for finding C guilty of theft of 1 cavan of
palay on the basis of a groundless criminal
complaint filed against him by the landowner-
lessor, Mayor P. The 1 cavan of palay involved in
this case actually already belonged to C. The
Gross ignorance of law and
36 Carreon v. Flores charge against C thus amounted to an Dismissal Santos, D.
procedure
impossible crime since he could not steal what
was already his. F either did not comprehend
the facts as squarely stated before him in trial,
or he deliberately refrained from applying the
law, notwithstanding that he was in doubt as to
C’s guilt.
Castanos is a 1st asst. prosecutor who charged

Judge Escano for acquitting someone for PhP
50,000.00. In response, Judge issued order
Castanos v. Escano
against Castanos to show cause as to why he
Dismissal; Forfeiture of Gross ignorance of law and
should not be held in contempt. Castanos was
37 "Kapag si Judge naging benefits; prejudice to procedure; Gross Santos, R.
imprisoned for 6 mos. The bribery charge
bitter, expect a contempt reemployment misconduct
against Escano was not proven (allegations and
charge sooner or later"
evidence were inconsistent). But Escano was still
found to have violated the law and thus
dismissed.
Brgy. Capt. Mahirang was charged with abuse of

authority, etc. for appointing sister-in-law to a
government position. Atty. Monzon failed to
distinguish between administrative and criminal
cases.
1. Fine: PhP 5,000.00;
• Judge claims that re-election of the chairman Ignorance of law and
41 Conducto v. Monzon and So Chan
meant that the people already forgave the procedure
2. Warning
chairman of his previous criminal charges – thus,
he refused to suspend. He supports his decision
by citing cases.
• Supreme Court disagreed with him and
pointed out how he misread the cases.
Judge C rendered judgment by default in favor

of K. Declared C on default when in fact a 1. Dismissal;
motion had been filed, Received evidence of K 2. Forfeiture of
Consolidated Bank v. ex parte though C’s answer was already before Retirement of Benefits;
42 procedure; Gross Sorongon
Capistrano him, Rendered judgment by default premised on and
misconduct (partiality)
unjustified assumptions. These questioned and 3. No reinstatement to
highly questionable actuations show gross any government office
ignorance of the law and partiality .
Judge was bombarded with numerous

allegations – irregular attendance, anomalous
dismissal of cases, soliciting lechon and jumbo
shrimps, paint and free bus passes. Judge was 1.Gross ignorance of the
convicted of gross ignorance of the law for law;
releasing seized timber to an unauthorized Reprimand; Fine - 20,000; 2. Fraternizing with
43 Cortez v. Agcaoili Sy Cao Yao
person; and for improper grant of bail, by not Suspension - 10 days lawyersand litigants with
substantiating his grounds for granting bail to a pending case(s) in his
murder suspect. He was also held liable for court
fraternizing with litigants for eating at a canteen
with persons who had pending cases in the
judge’s sala.
A murder case with no recommendation for bail

was filed in the sala of Judge X. Upon
amendment of the information to homicide with
recommended bail, the pertinent papers were
Cuaresma v. Aguilar
sent to the sala of Judge A who granted the bail
Admonished; Fine - 2,000
on the same day without studying the records. Ignorance of the law and
44 "Nangialam sa kasong Tamondong
According to the Rules of Court, Judge A could procedure
hindi kanya, nagbigay pa Light
have granted the bail if and only if Judge X was
ng piyansa"
unavailable. There was no proof of such
unavailability. His lack of familiarity with our
laws, rules and regulations undermine the public
confidence in the integrity of our courts.
Judge Teh actively participated in a case. He 1. Dismissal;

Macalintal v. Teh
hired a lawyer to file pleadings and ruled on the 2. Forfeiture of
petition. Retirement of Benefits; Gross ignorance of law and
93 "Judge pakialamero, Torcuator
and procedure
pinagbawal na sa
Judge should have been impleaded as a public 3. No reinstatement to
gobyerno."
respondent only. any government office
Judge P imposed subsidiary imprisonment for

civil liability against S, in addition to the principal
penalty. Thus, S suffered incarceration for 2 days
and 4 hours more than the legal period of time
Monsanto v. Palarca he should have served. This judgment was in
violation of R.A. No. 5465. Judges are required 1. Fine; and Ignorance of the law and
101 Uy
"Judge, wag to adhere to rules prescribed for the imposition 2. Reprimand procedure
magpakabobo..." of penalty for violation of the law. If because of
gross ignorance, serious misconduct or grave
abuse of discretion he runs counter to the law
and tries to justify his action, he thereby
exposes himself to disciplinary action.
Dismissing a complaint involving real property or

any interest therein because resort to barangay
conciliation was not done, notwithstanding the
Verciles [Vercide] v. Gross ignorance of law and
[21] fact that the judge’s attention had been called to Fine - P2,000 and warning Velena
Hernandez procedure
the law that conciliation is not required as the
parties were not actual residents of the same
city or municipality or of adjoining barangay.
Marcos-Manotoc v. Extending a temporary restraining order, without

Agcaoili conducting a hearing, in violation of Supreme 1. Fine: PhP 20,000.00;
[16] Court Circular No. 20-85 on the issuance of a and Yogue
procedure
"Hindi ka pa nadala sa… temporary restraining order is violated as the 2. Warning
nagkasala" judge is presumed to know the circular.
Ethics (Ferrer) - Discipline Cases Reviewer(Round 3)
M and N were married before Judge B. M

avers that Judge B assured her that the
marriage contract will be released 10 days
after the marriage ceremony. M then visited
the office 11 days after and found out that
she could not get the marriage contract Gross ignorance of
102 Moreno v. Bernabe Fine - P10,000 Ayson
because the Local Civil Registrar failed to the law
issue a marriage license. M claims that B
connived with the relatives of Marcelo
Moreno to deceive her. Marrying the parties
without marriage license is gross ignorance
of the law.
Complainants from a parent-teacher

association sent a letter to the Dept. of
Public Information about abuses and
harassment done by a barrio captain and
his officials. Said officials filed libel case
against complainants in the MTC presided
by Judge B. Judge B was without
jurisdiction. Libel may only be filed in the Gross ignorance of
127 Quizon v. Baltazar Suspension Baguyot
CFI and PI conducted by the city or the law
municipal court of the provincial capital.
The letter was a privileged communication
so inoffensively worded with no mention of
the officials’ names. He acted with
unjustified haste in denying the motion to
postpone the PI filed due to non-
appearance of complainants’ lawyer.
R charged Judge R with gross ignorance of

the law for dismissing the grave slander
case she filed against V. Judge R held that
words uttered by V are not defamatory but
expressed anger and displeasure. Affidavits
by R and her witness which formed part of
the record contained a translation of
Gross ignorance of
131 Revita v. Rimando “Garampang ka nga babae” as “You flirt Admonished Calangi
the law
and fool around with men.” These words
are defamatory and not mere cussword or
profanity. However, there is no proof of
conscious and deliberate intent to do
injustice. Judge R was admonished to
exercise more prudence and
circumspection.
R et al. filed with the RTC of Q.C. a

complaint for injunction, with TRO, to
enjoin defendants’ B et al. from summarily
demolishing R et al. houses. Judge L issued
an Order denying the preliminary injunction
and dismissing the case, so complainant
filed their Notice of Appeal to the CA. CA
Riego v. Leachon (1997)
gave due course however R et al. counsel
received a copy of B et al. motion for
Si Judge Leachon kahit Knowingly
execution and filed an Opposition. L had 1. Administrative
133 nag pa-demolition, sa rendering unjust Calayag
lost jurisdiction to entertain the motion for sanction only
kulang na evidence hatol judgment
execution after the perfection of the appeal
lang ay administrative
and after the lower court had been ordered
sanction.
to transmit the records of the case to the
CA.
Court held that although judge abused his

discretion, it was not satisfactorily shown
that he acted in bad faith, with malice, or in
wilful disregard of a litigant's right.
Election protest was filed against R. R then

filed his Answer with Counter-Protest. The
judge ordered the complainant and
protestant to make cash deposits to defray
the expenses incidental to the protest and
counter- protest. Court held that the
Answer with Counter- Protest filed by R is Fine (P1,000) and
Alleged Gross
not a counter-protest as contemplated by warning (Court found
134 Roa v. Imbing Ignorance of the Contreras
the COMELEC Rules and Procedure. that Judge was only
Law
Complaint was filed against Judge I. Judge negligent)
I cannot be found guilty of gross ignorance
of the law since the law requires that the
error or mistake of a judge must be gross,
patent, malicious, deliberate, or in bad
faith. Respondent judge is only guilty of
negligence.
While the motion for immediate execution

was pending in the MTCC, SM filed a
"Notice of Appeal and Approval of Cash/
Supersede as Bond" to stay the execution
of the June 3, 1993 Decision which were
approved by Judge T. Judge T issued a
special order, granting P's motion to move
San Manuel Wood v. Gross ignorance of
138 for execution of the judgment appealed Fine - P5,000 Corona
Tupas the law
from upon SM’s failure to make periodic
deposit of rentals due or the reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of
the property pending appeal as prescribed
by the Rules of Court. The order of
execution, however, has to be issued by the
appellate court.
Judge L issued an order for arrest without

bail. S was detained in the municipal jail.
Judge L issued an order transmitting the
case to the RTC but A was not transferred
to the provincial jail. S filed a motion to fix
bail with Judge L. Judge L granted the bail Gross ignorance of
142 Santos v. Lumang Suspension - 6 months Cruz
on the same day the motion was filed and the law
set it at Php 20,000 without informing S.
The SC held that he had already lost
jurisdiction and that he was wrong for
fixing the bail at P20,000 despite the
gravity of the offense.
Judge M was charged for gross inefficiency.

Although he particularly described the thing
and place to be searched and personally
examined the witnesses under oath; the
search warrant was for two offenses.
Certain individuals were in possession of a
Golden Buddha and was selling the same. A
145 Sec. of Justice v. Marcos None Simple misconduct Dagdag
judge should not be held accountable for
every erroneous ruling he renders. To hold
a judge administratively accountable for
every erroneous ruling or decision he
renders would be nothing short of
harassment and would make his position
unbearable.
It is self-evident from the very face of the

“criminal complaint” for estafa, the
supporting sworn statements, and
preliminary examination taken that the
charge against the S showed no vestige of
essential elements of estafa but failure to
pay a simple indebtedness. S filed with the
Gross ignorance of
146 Serafin v. Lindayag Secretary of Justice an administrative Dismissal Dela Cruz
the law
complaint against Judge L for capricious
and malicious admission of a criminal
complaint for estafa against her. Judge L
attempted to submit spurious evidence
to cover up his liability. It is elementary that
no one should be subjected to involuntary
servitude for civil indebtedness.
I was charged with the murder of P. Judge

M originally issued a P12,000 bail bond.
After I was arrested, he filed a motion to
reduce bail to P6,000, which the judge
granted on the same day. He ordered the
release of I. Pursuant to JC No. 47 and 48,
the recommended bail bond for provisional Gross ignorance of
148 Soriano v. Mabbayad Dismissal Dulay
release is at least P2,000 for every year of the law
the medium period of the imposable
penalty. The granting of the ridiculously low
bail of P6,000 constituted grave abuse of
discretion, gross incompetence and
palpable inefficiency bordering on malicious
misfeasance and nonfeasance.
Judge M dismissed 11 cases against Mrs. I

for violation of Central Bank Foreign
Exchange restrictions on the basis of
newspaper reports. Judge M did not even
ask the prosecutors to comment on the
said Circular or wait for the filing of a
Dismissal (appeal
State Prosecutors v. motion to quash from the counsel of the Gross ignorance of
150 granted; suspension for Estipona
Muro accused. Judge M, in dismissing the case, the law
1 year)
acted with lightning speed. Judges should
show their full understanding of the case,
avoid the suspicion of arbitrary conclusion,
promote confidence in their intellectual
integrity and contribute useful precedents
to the growth of law.
In a probate proceeding and in disregard of

the CA and SC’s orders, Judge D resolved
the issue of ownership over a property of
the decedent being claimed by another
party. D exhibited open defiance of higher
judicial authority. The SC held D guilty of
gross ignorance of the law and grave Gross ignorance of
162 Uy v. Dizon-Capulong misconduct prejudicial to public interest Dismissal the law; Violation of Gervacio
and dismissed her from service. Judges SC rules
should keep abreast of the law, the rulings,
and doctrines of the Supreme Court. If
already aware, a judge should not
deliberately refrain from applying them,
otherwise, such omission can never be
excused.
Court of Agrarian Relations Judge V was

accused of approving a Compromise
Agreement in violation of the Agrarian
Reform Law. The SC acquitted V. The
provisions of the Compromise Agreement
are “not per se illegal but only
unenforceable under the law.” The judge Gross ignorance of
163 Valdez v. Valera None Godino
merely committed an “error in judgment” the law
for which he cannot be punished.
Malfeasance in office cannot be charged
except for breach of a positive statutory
duty or for the performance of a
discretionary act with an improper or
corrupt motive.
Prosecutor V charged Judge A for grave

misconduct and/or gross negligence
regarding bail bonds as follows: (1)
Allowing accused in 2 different cases to
secure bail bonds despite conviction for
167 Villa v. Amonoy Dismissal Gross misconduct Hourani
drug pushing, a non-bailable crime, (2)
Approving bail bonds issued by blacklisted
insurance companies, (3) Approving bail
bonds without coursing them through the
Clerk of Court.
Issuing an order of demolition of the

improvement in the property subject of
execution without conducting a hearing and Gross ignorance of
[17] Morta v. Sanez Fine - P5,000; warning Jose
without giving the judgment obligor the law
reasonable time to remove the
improvement.
Issuing a search warrant without observing

the rule governing determination of
Gross ignorance of
[8] Dizon v. Veneracion probable cause as basis thereof, such as Fine - P15,000 Lapuz
the law
asking searching questions to the applicant
and his witnesses before issuing the same.
Z, counsel for the accused, failed to appear

on time at the Pre-Trial Conference. Judge
B immediately issued an order for Z’s arrest
and charged him with direct contempt. Z
claims that for his failure to appear, he
should only be charged with indirect
contempt. B issued the arrest order without Gross ignorance of
175 Zarate v. Balderian Suspension and fine Ledesma
giving Z the opportunity to explain his the law
failure to appear in court despite due
notice. The twin requisites in indirect
contempt charges of proper charge and
opportunity to be heard before one can be
held for indirect contempt has not been
met.
Granting bail to an accused charged with

murder, a capital offense, without hearing,
even if the prosecutor interposed no
objection to the grant of bail because it is Fine - P20,000; Gross ignorance of
[14] Loyola v. Gabo Leoncini
the duty of the judge to conduct a warning the law
summary proceeding to determine the
strength of the evidence against the
accused before granting bail.
Judge D acquitted 4 defendants in 4

criminal cases involving possession of
firearms. He relied the ruling of People v.
Asuncion. The Asuncion ruling held that
“intent to possess or use the firearm is a
necessary element” in illegal possession of
firearms. But Z, the State Prosecutor, Gross ignorance of
176 Zuño v. Dizon Dismissal Leuterio
maintained that the Asuncion ruling no the law
longer applied because a PD had made
“possession” a malum prohibitum. D
nevertheless maintained his ruling. The
Court found him grossly ignorant, since the
Judge had been a fiscal for 20 years and
should be familiar with criminal law.
Deliberately disregarding the procedure laid

Gross ignorance of
[3] Angcong v. Tan down in the Rules of Court for the issuance Fine - P10,000 Leveriza
the law
of a warrant of arrest.
Manantan, a justice of peace, was charged

with violation of the Revised Election Code
which provides that "No justice, judge,
fiscal, treasurer, or assessor...shall aid any
candidate or influence the election.."
Manantan argues that the Revised Election
Code does not mention the "justice of
peace" in its provision. Lower court
dismissed the information against the No penalty yet; case
122 People vs. Manantan Lim
accused. SC held that based on legislative remanded.
history, the term "justice of peace" was
omitted because it is already covered by
the term "judge". The term "judge"
comprehends all kinds of judges, like
judges of CFI, of courts of agrarian
relations, of industrial relations and justices
of peace. Case remanded to trial court for
trial on the merits.
Judge Astih of Shari'a Court Tawi-Tawi is

charged with Gross Misconduct and Gross
Ignorance of the law.
Gross Misconduct
1. Dismiss from service
Because of the Judge's failure to resolve and Gross
6 Alonto vs. Astih 2. Forfeiture of his Lim
the cases in his sala on time, the OCA and Ignorance of the
retirement benfeits
SC sent resolutions to him for his comment/ Law
defenses. Unfortunately after several
resolutions the Judge never responded to
the Court.
D has a motion pending before Judge S’

sala and wasn’t resolved within ninety days.
Salas received his salary and this triggered
Dionisio to file a case charging S of
falsification. For a judge to receive his
salary, he must submit a certificate stating,
Untruthful
in part, that all motions submitted for
53 Dionisio v. Salas None statements in Lua
decision have been resolved. Before S died,
certificate of service
he was able to explain that his failure to
resolve said motion was due to the fact that
he was enjoined by the CA to desist
from proceeding with the hearing. Given S’
explanation and death, the case was
dismissed.
M was handling an unlawful detainer case

between E and B regarding the lease
contract on the land owned by T. The case
was only passed to M upon the death of R.
However, the case was decided only after 5
months to which M attributed to the Undue delay in
voluminous records that were passed to rendering decision/
54 Escabillos v. Martinez him. That “voluminous records” is no Reprimand order, or in Magtajas
defense. A judge should be prompt in the transmitting the
performance of his judicial duties. Inaction records of the case
by judges would defeat the purpose and
spirit of the law, which provides for a
speedy administration of justice. Judges are
enjoined to strictly comply with the
reglementary period of 90 days.
Judge Tagabuca used his office for the

promotion of his personal interests,
specifically being the beneficial vendee of
the disputed property. Moreover, while it is
true that respondent was allowed to
engage in the practice of his profession, it
was obviously improper for him, to act as
Dishonesty and
33 Candia v. Tagabucba counsel for any party whose case would Dismissal Mendoza
Gross Misconduct
eventually land in his court. Worse, in the
case of the respondent, his professional
service were 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.
A judge who appeared in an isolated

criminal case, pro bono, as defense counsel
for his cousin does not practice law, but he Unauthorized
[18] OCA v. Ladaga Reprimand Millan
may be disciplined for not securing the practice of law
prior written permission of the Supreme
Court to do so.
A judge who did not inhibit himself from
trying case, where he is disqualified from Gross Misconduct
doing so by law, such as a case involving Fine - P20,000; and Gross
[20] Siawan v. Inopiquez Miranda
his uncle or his grandson, is guilty of abuse Suspension - 3 months Ignorance of the
of authority warranting imposition of Law
administrative sanction.
Petitioners charged the Judge for acting

without or in excess of jurisdiction declaring
the defendants in default, in receiving
plaintiff's evidence ex parte and in
rendering judgment thereon. Private
respondent had sufficient notice of the
place, time and date when the motion to
dismiss was to be heard. It is, therefore, Gross ignorance of
111 Omico Mining v. Vallejos Reprimand Molaer
evident from the foregoing that the the law
respondent Judge acted with grave abuse
of discretion when he declared the
petitioners in default. Thus, while he was
unduly strict regarding the requirements of
notice of hearing to the defendants, he
was, at the same time, unduly liberal with
respect to the plaintiff.
A judge who replied to the letter of

Sangguniang Bayan as to whether the
latter can remove squatters in its property
pursuant to council resolution that it can
immediately do so is guilty of unauthorized
practice of law, as a judge must know that
rendering legal opinions is not the function
Dismissal and forfeiture
[10] Gozun v. Liangco of a judge. “The function of the court is Gross misconduct Nigro
of benefits
limited to adjudication of actual
controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable or enforceable. Unlike
lawyers, judges cannot render legal advice.
Judges are expressly prohibited from
engaging in the private practice of law or
from giving professional advice to clients.”
X was the cultivator of Judge R’s land. X got

involved in a case and underwent
preliminary investigation. Judge R, was
present during the investigation and also
notarized X’s affidavit. For this, he was
charged with misconduct. Though R
resigned, he was still made to present
124 Pesole v. Rodriguez None Simple misconduct Nilo
evidence and he established his innocence.
He was present during investigation as an
“amicus curiae” and with the fiscal’s
permission. He notarized the affidavit only
as ex-officio notary public. Allegations
against R were not proven by clear and
convincing evidence.
MTCC judge is charged with violation of SC

circulars and conduct unbecoming of a
judge — notarized a special power of
authority in the spirit of “christian charity”
and “brotherly love.” Municipal judges can
administer oaths or execute certificates
Violation of SC
only on matters related to their official
Rules; Vulgar and
152 Tabao v. Asis functions — cannot notarize private Fine - P10,000 Pacamarra
unbecoming
documents. That the judge acted in the
conduct
spirit of “christian charity” and “brotherly
love” is not a valid excuse for acting as
private counsel and notary public. He is
fined with a warning that the commission of
the same or similar act will warrant a more
severe sanction.
Judge Escano used court facilities (bulletin

Gross misconduct in SUSPENSION from
board) in advertising for their restaurant
[7] Dionisio v. Escano violation of the Code of service for six (6) Rivera
business [involvement in private business
Judicial Ethics months
and improper use of office facilities]
Respondent judge is being charged for

abuse of discretion in hearing the motion to
recall the warrant of arrest on the same
day the motion was filed. Although a
motion may be heard on short notice (i.e., Gross ignorance of
16 Ardosa v. Gal-lang Reprimand Rovero
less than three days after it is filed) it must the law
be for "good cause" shown. Indeed the
failure to observe the three-day notice rule
is not excused by the fact that parties
happen to be present.
Reasons why Judge Cartagena went to the

US without asking permission first from SC
(and he only notified his superior judge
when he was already at the airport): 1) to
attend to his gravely ill mother and his own Dismissed from
Frequent and
health consultations 2) he figured in a service. Forfeiture of all
In re: Request of Judge unjustified
70 vehicular accident there. SC RULED: benefits, prejudice to Rubinos
Cartagena absences; gross
Judge's travels caused great disservice to re-employment in any
misconduct
numerous litigants and denial of speedy other branch.
justice. He also violated SC Memorandum
Order wherein member of the judiciary
must ask permission first from the SC
before travelling abroad.
N complained that Judge A on several

occasions asked for money and food from N
who had a pending case in the sala of
Judge A. N acceded to his demands and yet
Judge A continued to act in a biased
manner against N. The conduct of Judge A
Dishonesty and
106 Nazareno v. Almario undoubtedly is unbecoming a member of Fine Rubio
Gross Misconduct
the bench. A public official whose duty is to
apply the law and dispense justice should
not only be impartial, independent and
honest but should be believed and
perceived to be impartial, independent and
honest.
The Ombudsman conducted an

investigation against Judge M regarding
statements made by the latter in his
certificate of service. Judge M certified that
he had no more pending cases in his sala
when he knew that there were several civil
and criminal cases not yet decided. Judge Untruthful
94 Maceda v. Vasquez M contends that the investigation Dismissal statements in San Juan
constitutes an encroachment into the SC’s certificate of service
duty of supervision of all courts. The Court
agreed with Judge M’s contention. Where a
criminal complaint against a judge arises
from their administrative duties, the
Ombusdman must defer action and refer
the same to the SC.
An administrative case was filed against

Judge P who held in her own custody a
jeepney involved in a criminal case before
her court. The jeepney was being held in
custodia legis. The Court did not have
enough funds for the towing of the jeep
and bring it under the custody of the
[15] Arcenio v. Pagorogon Provincial Prosecutor. Judge P had the Dismissal Gross misconduct Santos
jeepney repainted and had it registered
under the name of her brother. She was
held guilty of gross misconduct because
she obviously showed undue interest over
the jeepney. She was also held guilty of
tampering evidence because of the
repainting of the jeepney.
Judge Luntok issued TRO against

petitioners to enjoin them from seizing the
papers and documents of private
respondent Peralta. Luntok extended the
said TRO thrice. Petitioners questioned the
Gross Misconduct;
validity of said extension, but CA declared
11 Aquino v. Luntok Reprimand gross ignorance of Santos, R.
the case moot for Luntok already issued a
the law
preliminary injunction. SC said that Luntok
validly issued the TRO but only as to the
first one. TROs are non-extendible; the
propriety of granting injunction should be
determined within the 20-day period.
Judge M has been observed to be

frequently out of town. Hence, many cases
couldn’t be filed. So a case was filed
against him for neglect of duty. Although
Judge M was able to justify his absences,
he failed to file the proper application for
LOA, or at least notify the District Judge so
Gross misconduct;
Municipal Council of that another municipal judge could have
104 Dismissal frequent and So Chan
Casiguran v. Morales been assigned to his station to prevent
unjustified absences
disruption of public service. The municipal
courts afford the first and most often the
last legal remedy to poor litigants. These
judges should always be imbued with a
high sense of duty and responsibility in the
discharge of their obligation to promptly
and properly administer justice.
gross ignorance of
A judge who amended a final decision and
the law, knowingly
who acted contrary to the ruling of the
Suspension – 10 days rendering unjust
higher court may not be held liable for
[2] Almendras v. Asis Fine - P40,000 judgment, and Sorongon
rendering an unjust judgment, absent any
violation of the Anti-
showing of bad faith on his part. But he is
Graft and Corrupt
liable for serious inefficiency.
Practices Act.
Judge took 5 years to decide a simple BP

22 case. In his defense, he claimed that he
was overburdened, that he has already
decided the case, and in fact, the original
149 Soyangco v. Maglalang complainant has already stopped pursuing Fine - P11,000 Gross misconduct Sy Cao Yao
the case. The Court still found him liable for
Gross Negligence. Overburdening merely
mitigates his liability. The Court can punish
a judge even independent of a complaint.
Affair with complainant’s wife

Was not proven though that affair
continued when he was a judge already –
could have changed his ways
Gross Immorality
And not proven that sexual intercourse took Fine - P2,000 and Stern
5 Alfonso v. Juanson Violation of CJE Tamondong
place when he was appointed already as a Warning
Neglect of duty
judge
Neglect of duty – met up with

complainant’s wife even during office hours
In a sworn letter complaint, S charged

Judge J with partiality and conduct
unbecoming a judge for having intervened
Vulgar and
with and/or prevented him from filing cases
141 Santos v. Cruz Fine - 1 month salary unbecoming Torcuator
in court. While cross-examining a witness,
conduct
Judge J lost his temper and said “You can
go to hell I don’t care or where do you
want to go Mr. Cano.”
Judge A granted a Motion to Quash the

arrest warrants she earlier issued. She
considered the motion as a motion to
amend and recalled the warrant of arrest
earlier issued. A’s statement in her motion
to postpone the investigation of her
administrative case to the effect that
proceeding with the hearing of the Gross ignorance of
46 Daplas v. Arquiza Fine - 1 month salary Uy
administrative case” is appalling. Her the law
attitude in comparing the degree of her
work in the administration of justice with
that of this Court in this case is indeed
deplorable.“justice could be dispensed to a
greater number by proceeding with the trial
of the criminal cases in the MTC of Kawit
than
Judge I cocked his revolver causing panic,

poked his gun on R and threatened to kill
him, and held the arm of complainant C
who is the Vice Governor of Davao del
Norte. Judge subsequently sent a letter of
apology to the C for the unpleasant
incident. C filed a complaint against Judge I Gross immorality;
49 Dela Paz v. Inutan for (1) Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, Dismissal Alcoholism and/or Velena
(2) Drunkeness, (3) Conduct Prejudicial to vicious habit
the Judiciary. When he yielded to the
strength of the "spirit", losing judicial
composure and acting like an uninhibited
drunkard in public places, he not only
stripped himself of his dignity but disrobed
the court of the respect of the people.
RTC Judge A was alledged to be dictatorial,

tyrannical, erratic, incompetent and
ignorant. For no reason, she shouts at
clerks, witnesses, prosecutors, defense
lawyers and the accused in some cases. In
a case, she considered as unlawful
aggression as a mitigating circumstance;
Gross Misconduct
ordered the acquittal and release of an
Estoya v. Abraham- Dismissal, fine, and and Gross
55 accused without rendering or typing a Yogue
Singson forfeiture of benefits Ignorance of the
decision; misapplied the indeterminate
Law
sentence law. A judge should be studious
of the principles of law; administer his
office with a due regard to the integrity of
the system of law; and create an
atmosphere of cordiality conducive to
industry, dedication, and commitment to
excellence.
Judge M refuses to hold office in the municipal building but

chooses to hold it at his residence. He conducts his hearings Bribery; gross
clad in sando and slippers while everyone else is in business misconduct;
attire. He also fills up his daily time records as if he rendered knowingly
full service but in truth he is always absent because of his rendering unjust
68 Impao v. Makilala Dismissal and fine Ayson
sickness. M scolds his employees in public with derogatory judgment;
words. He also asks visiting soldiers to choose from his female violation of SC
staff whom they want to rape. He was alleged to also have Rules; untruthful
been bribed to dismiss a criminal case. He is dismissed from statements
service and his benefits are forfeited.
Hon. P failed to appraise complainant of the status of a civil

case. L had sent 5 registered letters inquiring about the status
of the case and no reply was ever given. The OCA sent 3
tracers to P, and still no reply. It was only on June 1, 1989 1. Dismissal
when P’s side was heard and prayed for the lifting of his 2. Forfeiture of retirement gross misconduct
88 Longboan v. Polig suspension and reinstatement. P reasoned that his transfer to benefits in the discharge Baguyot
Lagawe, Ifugao mixed up his records with the disposed and 3. no reinstatement to of his functions.
archived cases. He also explained that the he could not ask any gov office
for extension because of “awful shock and anxiety at the
thought that the record of the said case may have been lost
beyond recovery.”
De Guia has shown sheer vindictiveness and outright

oppressive behavior. She was filed with 5 different cases from
100 Medina v. De Guia her employees, counsel and colleague — Held hearings only 3 Dismissal Gross misconduct Calangi
1⁄2 days a week; Could not decided cases within the 90
day reglementary period
1. Dismissal;
Gross
Sps. Sabado had Judge Cajigal as trial judge in a previous 2. Forfeiture of
Misconduct;
Sabado v. Cajigal case. After repeated urgings from the Sps. Sabado and the Retirement of Benefits;
[19] undue delay in Calayag
(1993) Court, Judge Cajigal refused to both issue a Decision on a and
rendering
case and defend his actions. Court found him guilty. 3. No reinstatement to
judgment
Gross
Administrative complaint against Judge Lansang for having Considered retired, but
misconduct;
109 OCA v. Lansang 182 pending cases. He also declared and certified a report without benefits and Contreras
Unbecoming of a
which says that no cases are pending before his sala. gratuities
judicial officer
Non-observance of the time limitation to decide cases

constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against the
defaulting judge and a serious violation of the constitutional
right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. Dismissal and forfeiture of
[12] In re Juliano Gross misconduct Corona
Thus, a judge has been dismissed for failure to decide more benefits
than one hundred cases within the required ninety-day period
from their submissions and executing certifications falsely
asserting the contrary, enabling him to receive his salary
A judge who refused to pay the amount of rental of the leased

premises, which amount was fixed by the court, and who
delayed the ejectment case filed against him for ten (10) Willful failure to
Gaspar de Julio v.
[9] years from the municipal trial court to the Court of Appeals Fine - P20,000; Warning pay a just debt is Cruz
Vega
and who, after the judgment had become final, delayed a serious offense
payment thereof for two more years, is guilty of the serious
offense of willful failure to pay a just debt.
Dishonesty and
While a case was pending in Judge O’s sala, he instructed the
violation of anti-
defendant to install a brand new airconditioner in his Hi-Ace
graft; gross
Van, which was installed but was not paid for. As the case
misconduct;
continued, judge asked for several loans from the defendant Dismissal, fine, and
112 Ompoc v. Torres Willful failure to Dagdag
who gave him a total of P25, 0000 in checks received by the forefeiture of benefits
pay debt;
janitor who encashed them. Judge is guilty of serious
Borrowing money
misconduct in office and of acts unbecoming a member of the
or property from
judiciary.
lawyers/litigants
It appears that the complainant is the defendant in a Civil

Case which the respondent judge was trying. The case was
filed for the annulment of the sale made to the complainant of
about 28 hectares of land in Camarines Sur. Cabrera said he
had been advised by his counsel, Atty. Roberto Verdadero, to
accommodate any request for money from the respondent so
that he would not be unduly hard on the complainant.
According to the complainant, Judge Pajares intimated to him
that he needed money. Following his counsel's advice, Cabrera
said he expressed willingness to help the judge financially
and, the following day after their meeting, gave him
Borrowing money
P1,000.00. However, according to Cabrera, after two months,
[5] Cabrera v. Pajares Dismissal from lawyers/ Dela Cruz
Judge Pajares again told him that he needed money. Cabrera
litigants
said the judge saw him in front of the Han of Justice in Naga
City and called him. It was then, according to him, that he
decided to denounce the judge to the authorities. Cabrera
asked the assistance of the NBI in entrapping Judge Pajares.
The Court dismissed respondent Judge from the service,
having found him guilty of accepting money from a party
litigant in a case before his sala knowing that the amount was
given to him by reason of his office, stressed: ‘Members of the
judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must
at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to be
beyond reproach and suspicion.'
The Court, in holding a judge guilty of serious misconduct in

office and his dismissal warranted (had his resignation not
already been accepted by the President), upon finding that he
had demanded and received money from a party litigant said: Gross ignorance
‘It is this kind of gross and flouting misconduct on the part of of the law;
[11] Haw Tay v. Singayao Dismissal Dulay
those who are charged with the responsibility of administering Violation of Anti-
the law and rendering justice that so quickly and surely Graft
corrodes the respect for law and the courts without which
government cannot continue and that tears apart the very
bonds of our society.’
Six administrative complaints were filed against Judge F. F was

eventually suspended from service. He was ordered to cease
discharging his functions. Respondent reasoned that from the
time his wife left him, he felt so depressed and emotionally
132 Reyes v. Faderan disturbed that he was not in the proper position to answer the Dismissal Gross misconduct Estipona
charges against him. The Court ruled that depression is never
a reason for a public officer’s non-compliance with simple
duties. If he cannot do his work, he should go on leave or
resign.
S was charged with absenteeism, extortion & misappropriation

due to the following: Unexplained absences, Holding office at
his residence, Asked numerous bribes from clients, Sold the
147 Siasco v. Sales Dismissal Bribery Gervacio
corn given to him for safekeeping for own benefit. The judge’s
home cannot be used as an office substitute. He must
perform his duties at the courthouse and not at his home.
V charged N: For gross immorality for living openly with his

paramour and siring a child with her; For violation of election
Gross immorality;
laws for circulating political handbills making known his
gross ignorance
170 Vistan v. Nicolas intention to run for Congressman while still a judge; For gross Dismissal and fine Godino
of law; partisan
ignorance of the law. The court found Judge N guilty of all the
political activity
charges. His personal behavior in the performance of official
duty, as well as in everyday life, should be beyond reproach.
A filed a complaint against Judge R for allegedly committing

misconducts. Only one case was found to have merit: alleged
delays in a civil case for Forcible entry. The delay in the
disposition of the civil case was due to the repeated motions
Gross misconduct
for postponement of the parties, which Reyes in turn granted.
13 Araza v. Reyes Reprimand and warning and ignorance of Hourani
The SC reiterated that the nature of the civil case of Forcible
the law.
entry is to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual
possession of property. The respondent’s laxity frustrated the
very purpose of the law. The judge was reprimanded for the
civil case and warned that he should act reasonably.
SC received an anonymous complaint which alleged that

Judge A did not put his Frustrated Homicide Case in his
personal data sheet submitted to the SC. Judge A claims that
it was through mere oversight. SC dismissed the case. SC Dishonesty and
69 In re Araula takes exception to this anonymous complaint because it was Admonished violation of anti- Jose
based on public documents annexed to the complaint. The graft
omission was not made with malice, bad faith, or intent to
mislead anyone.
An anonymous complaint was filed against Judge E for

allegedly refusing to hold sessions on Wednesdays. Judge E
claims that he needed Wednesday as a time to rest in order to
74 In re Echiverri be able to perform his duties more efficiently. The Court Admonished Gross misconduct Lapuz
admonished Judge E and held that the 5-hour office hours in
the Rules of Court is sufficient time for a judge to attend to all
his duties in and out of court.
Judge is charged with dishonorable conduct. He loaned money

to complainants at usurious interest and took advantage of his
position as RTC judge of Makati by filing a collection case
against the complainants before the same court. He's found Vulgar and
81 Javier v. De Guzman guilty on 3 counts of irresponsible, Severe Censure unbecoming Ledesma
improper and dishonorable conduct in disregard of the Code conduct
of Judicial Ethics. He is severely censured, with a starn
warning that a repetition of said acts or similar acts in the
future shall receive greater sanctions.
A case was filed against a judge for disbarment for

unauthorized practice of law, Perjury, and unauthorized
notarization of private documents. He was found innocent of
Fine - P10,000 and stern Unauthorized
95 Macias v. Pacana the first two since the laws at that time actually permitted Leoncini
warning practice of law
him. However he was found guilty of the last, since judges
may only notarize as a Notary Public Ex-officio, and that his
notarial commission was already cancelled.
Judge G is the presiding judge of Branch 26 of an RTC. Cases

were directly assigned to Branch 26 without passing through
mandatory raffling procedure of cases. G was alleged to have
applied pressures so that the cases of his choice may no Dishonesty and
longer be forwarded to the proper Officer-in-Charge. G must violation of anti-
know, at a simple glance on the cover of the rollo and the 1st Dismissal, fine, and graft; gross
108 OCA v. Gines Leuterio
page of every such record, whether a case assigned to him forefeiture of benefits ignorance of the
went through the raffle or not. Despite not being raffled, he law; violation of
still received the cases. He must have received undue benefits SC rules
in securing this load of cases and at the same time, granted
the parties involved undue benefits. He ignored procedural
rules and the SC Circular on mandatory raffling.
Deputy sheriff got P3,600 as incidental expense from

judgment creditor X and used it to pay for meals with other
sheriffs. He also bought construction materials on credit. He
Gross
was unable to explain the incidental expense and did not pay
misconduct;
156 Tan v. Herras for the construction materials. He was adjudged to have taken Dismissal and fine Leveriza
Willful failure to
advantage of a litigant whose case was assigned to him. His
pay debt
only duty was to register the sale in favor of X and late
registration extends the time for redemption. This was an
undue disregard of his duties and functions.
O appeared as counsel before Judge E to oppose a petition for

inclusion filed in behalf of N. Judge E granted the petition. O
moved for reconsideration. Judge E’s temper rose and shouted
at O, who was ousted from the courtroom. O filed an
Vulgar and
administrative complaint against Judge E. O however,
113 Otero v. Esguerra Admonished unbecoming Lim
subsequently filed a “Manifestation” withdrawing the
conduct
complaint. The SC nevertheless admonished Judge E and told
him to refrain, at all times, from any official conduct that may
well be regarded as not entirely free from the appearance of
impropriety or intemperateness.
2 cases against Judge Estonina. 1st: A filed an admin. case

against the judge for uttering words allegedly against tenant
farmers which is prohibited by law. Court finds that the words
are not prohibited but he was warned that Judges should be Ignorance of the
1 month suspension
3 Abibuag v. Estonina more discreet with their words to avoid this kind of incident. law; unbecoming Lim
censured and admonished
He was censured and admonished. 2nd case is for ruling a conduct
straight penalty in a criminal case without considering the
indeterminate sentence law. He was suspended for 1 month,
censured and admonished for ignorance of the law.
Judge S, after a motion for reconsideration was filed, issued a

Special Order granting execution pending appeal without
citing any good reason and without requiring a bond. Court
held that Judge S is faulted for his failure to state good
reasons to justify his Special Order, a violation of the Rules of Gross misconduct
50 Del Callar v. Salvador Court. The defective or erroneous decision is presumed to Admonished and ignorance of Lua
have been issued in good faith. To merit a disciplinary the law.
sanction, the error or mistake must be gross or patent,
malicious, deliberate, or in bad faith. Complainant failed to
show that the act of the judge was attended by bad faith, bias
or gross ignorance of the law.
Judge F modified the judgment of conviction he rendered in a

criminal case by increasing the penalty allegedly after the
accused has perfected his appeal. Judge F insisted that he
retained jurisdiction to modify the judgment even after the
complainant had filed the notice of appeal. The ignorance of a Gross ignorance
89 Lopez v. Fernandez Reprimand Magtajas
basic rule deserves at least a reprimand. There is hardly any of the law
excuse for him to disregard the basic rule that “appeal in
criminal cases is deemed perfected upon filing of a notice of
appeal in court and by serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse party or his attorney.
Judge Dizon acquitted Lo Chi Fai of violation of CB Circular No.

Suspension without pay.
960 in spite of the accused having been apprehended with
(The appealed decision
$355,349 worth of foreign currencies while boarding a plane
ordered dismissal but due
for Hongkong, erroneously ruling that the State must first Gross
In re Petition for to several reasons, the
prove the criminal intent to violate the law and benefit from incompetence
73 Dismissal of Judge Court resolved to merely Mendoza
the illegal act (in other words, he requires proof of intent for and ignorance of
Dizon suspend — reasons:
mala prohibita). He also ordered the return of $3,000 out of the law.
humble repentance, years
the US$355,349 on the grossly wrong interpretation that CB
of service, rendering of
Circular No. 960 exempts this amount from seizure and
the decision in good faith)
forfeiture proceedings.
K is charging Judge F of oppression because he was detained

after he got caught taking pictures without the judge’s
permission. Mayor G is charging the judge with: (1) Physical
incapacity to discharge the functions of his office because of Frequent and
his tardiness;(2) Partiality and intemperance because he failed unjustified
84 Kalalang v. Fernandez None Millan
to protect an attorney from an insulting Chinese witness; and absences; gross
(3) Abuse of authority, partiality, ignorance of the law, serious misconduct
misconduct and maladministration of justice because he heard
petition before service of amended complaint. SC dismissed
the cases.
An argument ensued between Judge G and Fiscal D when the

latter objected to the translation of the testimony of a witness
from Cebuano to English. The statement was translated in
court as “I called their names and they answered Nang” but
52 Delgra v. Gonzales the Fiscal argued that the correct translation was “I called None Gross misconduct Miranda
Angel and they answered Nang.” Judge G ordered that the
Fiscal be put in jail because of defying the authority of the
court and for contempt. SC held that the order of contempt
was null and void.
A SC judgment ordered Judge F to issue a writ of preliminary

mandatory injunction so that a husband could regain control
of a Hacienda under the control of the wife and son. Judge F
issued the writ but later dissolved it upon the posting of a
172 Ysasi v. Fernandez Warning Gross misconduct Molaer
bond by the wife. SC held that there was grave abuse of
discretion. A becoming modesty of inferior courts demands
realization of the position that they occupy in the interrelation
and operation of the judicial system.
R, a widow, was awarded a sum of money by the Workmen’s

Compensation Unit for the death of her husband. Atty. G, her
lawyer, claims that he was not paid his fees. In the estafa case
Unbecoming of a
130 Retuya v. Equipilag filed by Atty. G against R, presiding Judge E, in a Admonished Nigro
judicial officer
contemptuous and harsh demeanor and in a loud and
thunderous voice asked R in a sarcastic tone in the presence
of Atty. G “Are you going to pay or not?”
Atty. F was counsel in a guardianship proceeding. His client

paid him his fees from the proceeds of the sale of a nipa land
of which his client was co-owner. Such payment was not Unbecoming of a
57 Fernandez v. Bello Reprimand Nilo
authorized by the court. Judge B said that Atty. R was “below judicial officer
average” of a lawyer. Atty. R abused his relationship with the
guardian. He was charged with contempt of court.
In the automatic review of C’s case with the SC, the defense
contends that C, et al. were deprived of due process because
the trial judge took an active part in the examination of the
witnesses “for the purpose of helping the prosecution.” The
Court said that whatever bias exhibited by the trial judge in
119 P. v. Catindihan None None Pacamarra
favor of the prosecution did not preclude the defense from
making an adequate presentation of its side of the case. A
judge may intervene in a trial of a case to promote expedition
and prevent unnecessary waste of time or to clear up some
obscurity.
The lower courts sentenced J to imprisonment for murder and

frustrated murder. He appealed his case and claimed that
during the trial in the CFI, the trial judge showed impatience
in the conduct of proceedings, and had active participation in
interrogating the witnesses. The SC said that there are rights
inherent to a trier of facts. One of which is to question the
witness to satisfy himself of the credibility of such witness
with respect to a material point in the case and testimony.
The important point is that the accused was still given ample
118 P. v. Ancheta None None Rivera
opportunity to present his case. As long as the same is
exercised within reasonable bounds and does not amount to a
denial of the fundamental rights of the accused to a fair and
impartial trial, such conduct of the trial judge is not a cause
that would affect the validity of the judgment. As to the
impatience of the trial judge in the conduct of the
proceedings, it is apparent from the record that he was
understandably concerned with the clogged docket of his
court as a result of delays in the trial of pending cases.
J was given the “run- around” by Judge C. As it turns out, the

judge was doing so because the person J was filing a
complaint against was the niece of his cowboy. C, in his
defense, argued that he merely instructed J to first proceed to
Gross ignorance
79 Jakosalem v. Cordovez the chief of police to have the complaint blottered. The SC Censure and warning Rovero
of the law
found C guilty of violating Canon 2 of the CJE proscribing
delay in the administration of justice as they knew of no rule
that required the investigation of the complaint by the chief of
police first before judges are to act on it.
F is being tried for various causes; the most serious charge

being related to his alleged false certification saying all
pending cases are already dealt with, in order to secure his
salary. The SC reiterated the purpose of the law: to spur
judges to greater activity. The Court also corrected F’s wrong Violation of admin
75 In re Flordeliza Admonished Rubinos
construction of the law: vacation months should not be code
excluded in the computation of the 90 day period to dispose
of cases. The time should also begin to run from the
submission of the case, without notification from the clerk of
court.
S charged B with serious inefficiency for failing to decide cases

within the required 90-day period. B claimed that the records
of the civil case were lost in the transfer of his court from
Undue delay in
Davao City to Mati. After the records were found, B
rendering
Sec. of Justice v. immediately decided on it. The docket clerk had already filed
144 Admonished decision; Rubio
Bullecer his certificate stating that he has disposed of all pending
untruthful
cases. For serious misconduct to exist, reliable evidence must
statements
show that the judicial acts were corrupt or were intended to
violate the law. Judge B honestly believed that the certificate
was correct as prepared by the docket clerk.
Pres. M issued general orders which punished with life

imprisonment the illegal possession of firearms with the
intention to use for specified crimes. E was frisked and an
Gross
unregistered gun was recovered. The trial was concluded in
misconduct;
one sitting and the judge dictated his decision in open court.
120 P. v. Elesterio None knowingly San Juan
Although the Court ruled that no irregularity was committed,
rendering unjust
Judge A was exceptionally careless when he immediately
judgment
dictated in open court the decision, leading to suspicions of
prejudgment and a prepared decision even before trial. He
actually made the wrong decision.
A sued UPC; J is president and counsel of UPC. U’s corporate

documents were destroyed. J had copies of such but did not
reconstitute them. The SC ruled that J was the real party
defendant. A files a motion for execution but Judge C denied
A’s motion. Judge C acted with grave abuse of discretion as
4 Albert v. CFI None None Santos
the liability of J was already decided by them. Trial judges
must take cognizance of the rulings of the SC. Even if their
decision is contrary to the beliefs/conscience of a trial judge,
he can state his opinion but he must adhere to his duty of
applying the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Judge C sent notices to 37 naturalized citizens saying their

proceedings lacked notice to the SG. C set dates for the cases
and in one, he referred to CT as: “balasubas, ingrate, a
dishonor to the Filipino People.” A petition for prohibition was
126 Queto v. Catolico filed against C. C committed 2 errors: First, he arrogated unto None None Santos
himself the authority of the Sol Gen. Second, since the
allegations came from C, there was pre-judgment or
prejudice, against the petitioners. The writ of prohibition was
granted and the injunction was made permanent.
An administrative complaint against Judge G was filed by B,

mother of alleged rape victim, N. B claimed that G did not
appreciate the facts. The SC found that G had appreciated the
facts of the case properly. N was 12 when she was raped by
Knowingly
her uncle, whose legs were paralyzed. The instances she was None. Complaint
27 Bondoc v. De Guzman rendering unjust So Chan
raped could have been avoided if she resisted more, and she Dismissed.
judgment
had delayed in telling someone. G found that the sexual act
was indeed committed but there was no crime as there was
lack of convincing proof of violence or intimidation. The
administrative complaint was dismissed.
There are 2 cases against Judge T. T granted bail for a non-

bailable offense. The SC found that there was no irregularity
as the evidence of guilt needed in a petition for bail is a
matter of judicial discretion. The record shows that T had
doubts as to the guilt of the accused, thus his granting of bail
None. Complaint Gross ignorance
78 In re Judge Tayao with stringent conditions. In a civil dispute, T compelled M to Sorongon
Dismissed. of the law
uphold a verbal lease contract with A. M claimed T was
biased. The SC ruled that T was not biased as his decision
was based on current jurisprudence. Parties should not result
to administrative complaints to redress what they think is
wrong judgment, but should appeal to a higher tribunal.
Judge E is charged in this administrative case filed by V, when

he acquitted C without a statement of facts upon which the
acquittal was based. No records of the case were found, not
even stenographic notes. All the decision contained was that
Gross immorality
Judge E was of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to
and knowingly
164 Valle v. Esguerra prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Admonished Sy Cao Yao
rendering unjust
Although the complaint is dismissed since there was no
judgment
material basis to hold Judge E liable, he is however
admonished for rendering a decision that failed to comply with
the requirements of the Judiciary Act, as amended by RA No.
6031.
On appeal by the accused to the CFI presided by Judge R,

trial de novo was set. L filed a motion praying that the case be
decided on the basis of the evidence and records, contending
that the case should not be tried de novo. The accused
Did not follow
contends that trial de novo is proper since the records of the
91 Luzano v. Romero None prescribed form Tamondong
case were inaccurate. The SC ruled that the decision
and content
promulgated by the R is valid, since it complied with all the
requirements of the law as to form and content. Inaccuracies
and mistakes in the stenographic record will not impair the
character of the court as one of record.
At the scheduled hearing against O, his counsel failed to

appear. O asked for the postponement, but respondent Judge
S denied the request, compelling O to cross-examine the
prosecution witnesses, even if O had informed Judge S that
Gross misconduct
he is not a lawyer and would be helpless without counsel. In
110 Olaivar v. Singco Censure and warning and ignorance of Torcuator
compelling the accused to cross-examine the prosecution
the law.
witnesses, the judge transformed his court from a court of
justice to a despot’s forum. Judge S’s motive to dispose of the
cases as early as possible does not license judges to abuse
judicial power and discretion.
1st case: judge is charged with serious misconduct — violated

a SC circular pertaining to the raffling of cases. Was found
guilty: executive judge has no authority to act on any
Unauthorized
interlocutory matter in any case not yet assigned to any
practice of law;
28 Borre v. Maya branch by raffle. He is censured and fined. 2nd case — city Censure and fine Uy
violation of SC
judge notarized a deed of sale Notary ex-officio should
Rules
notarize only documents connected with the exercise of his
official duties. He cannot engage in private business without
the permission of the SC.
A judge was appointed by the Governor of Ilocos as one of

the members of a provincial committee. The judge
respectfully asked authorization from the Supreme Court.
77 In re R. Manzano None None Velena
However, this was denied because the Constitution prohibits
members of the courts to be designated in agencies
performing quasi- judicial or administrative functions.
An administrative charge was filed against a judge for delay in

deciding a case. The SC however found that he was the 5th
judge to have inherited the case, and the reason for the delay
was that certain records of the proceedings from the past Undue delay in
63 Gaspar v. Bayhon judges were no longer available. The court also found that it None rendering Yogue
was this judge who actually expedited the proceedings, but decision
because of the lack of records was unable to decide the case
until he finally retired. The Court praised him and finally
released his withheld retirement benefits.
Dr. B filed an ejectment case against the spouses

F. Judgment was rendered in Dr. B’s favor. Spouses
F refused to vacate the land claiming that the
same was still under litigation in the DARAB in
view of the claim of R that the land belonged to
Konwingly
him. Judge A held in abeyance the resolution of B’s
rendering
24 Bengzon v. Adaoag motion for demolition. B filed the present case None Ayson
unjust
against Judge A. B's remedy is really judicial, not
judgment
administrative, and since he has already filed a
petition in court for the annulment of the order
which he questions in this case. There is no basis
for finding Judge A guilty of the administrative
charges leveled against him.
C, a Chinese national filed a suit against F, the

Governor-General of the Philippines, H, the chief of
police, and T, the chief of secret service for
deporting him to China. He was able to return to
Manila. He filed suit against F, H and T. The Court
held that the power to deport or expel obnoxious
60 Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco None Baguyot
aliens being invested in the political department of
the Government, the judicial department will not,
in the absence of express legislative authority,
intervene for the purpose of controlling such
power, nor the purpose of inquiring whether or not
he is liable in damages for the exercise thereof.
A filed a complaint for damages against Judge J for

willfully and maliciously perverting and misstating
the facts in a civil case where A was part of. The
Court held that a judge is not personally liable to
Dishonesty and
one injured in consequence of an act performed
7 Alzua v. Johnson None violations of Calangi
within the scope of judicial functions. A judge is
Anti-Graft
immune from civil liability. Under Article 32 of the
Civil Code, in order to hold a judge responsible for
his actions as such, he must be criminally liable
first.
S was charged with violation of the Anti-graft and

Corrupt Practices Act. S filed a petition for
disqualification of Justice G because of the latter’s
public statements in reply to a column in a
newspaper criticizing the Sandiganbayan for
issuing a hold-departure order against S. S was Voluntary - Gross
140 Santiago v. Garchitorena Calayag
claiming that Justice G has prejudged the merits of Prejudgment misconduct
the case. The SC held that the statement of Justice
G was written in defense of the dignity and
integrity of the Sandiganbayan. Nowhere in the
letter is the merit of the charge against S ever
touched.
M, Clerk IV, was charged with concealing the

records of a case for grave oral defamation and
was found guilty of intriguing against honor. The
records, then remanded to the Clerk of Court of
the RTC, were received by M from an employee of
Dishonesty and
the Post Office. This was attested to by the Dismissal, fine, and
26 Betguen v. Masangcay violations of Contreras
Postmaster and her signature on the registry book. forfeiture of benefits
Anti-Graft
M’s acts amount to dishonesty and gross
misconduct warranting her dismissal from service.
She abused her position to carry out her intention
to thwart the promulgation of the decision
convicting her.
Judge X prevented the cross-examination made by

plaintiff’s counsel on a witness. Plaintiff charged
Judge X with knowingly rendered an unjust
Gross ignorance
judgment and/or with ignorance of the law. For a
of law;
judge to be held liable for knowingly rendering an
Knowingly
114 Pabalan v. Guevarra unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond None Corona
rendering
reasonable doubt that the same was rendered with
unjust
a conscious and deliberate attempt to do an
judgment
injustice. A witness cannot be cross-examined on
the testimony of another especially in another
proceeding.
C assessed FT of deficiency tax and filed a

complaint with the Dept. of Justice for fraudulent
tax evasion or willfully attempting to evade or
defeat payment of income taxes. The fraudulent
scheme adopted consisted in simulated sales of
their cigarettes to non- existing individuals and to
31 CIR v. CA entities existing only for the purpose of such sale None None Cruz
and then declaring it as the manufacturer’s
registered wholesale prices to BIR. Ghost buyers
will sell to others later on. “Willful” means
premeditated, malicious, done with intent, or with
bad motive or purpose or with indifference to the
natural consequence.
Spouses R was found guilty by Judge Q for altering

boundaries and landmarks. Spouses R filed a
complaint against Judge Q for gross dishonesty
and patent partiality in the evaluation and
appreciation of facts. Judge J claimed that his
Dishonesty and
decision was made in good faith and is sufficiently
135 Rodrigo v. Quijano None violations of Dagdag
supported by ample evidence of record. Not every
Anti-Graft
error or mistake of a judge in the performance of
his duties makes him liable therefore. To hold a
judge administratively accountable for every
erroneous ruling or decision he renders is to make
his position unbearable.
Judge M rendered a decision in cases of homicide

and double frustrated homicide against marine
soldiers in Basilan. They were to suffer 12 years, 5
months and 11 days as minimum to 14 years, 10
months and 20 days as maximum. He described it
Gross ignorance
25 Bernabe v. Memoracion as the “medium of prision mayor.” Upon Fine - P40,000 Dela Cruz
of the law
reconsideration, Judge M reduced the penalty to 6
years straight only. It is two degrees lower than
reclusion temporal, the prescribed penalty for the
crime. He later admitted that he changed his
decision out of fear for his own life.

0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics (Ferrer) - Discipline Cases Reviewer (Round 2)

No. Case Name Facts Penalty and Charge Ground Reporter

Charges were filed by E against Judge H — (1)

Judge B hit the left side of A, a district engineer,

Robbery case led to the detention of a black and

Buenaventura filed a complaint against Judge

This involves two cases filed against judge J.

Judge B, was charged with this administrative

P charged Judge L with gross ignorance of the

Dra. L was asked to sign a death certificate. She

Judge B failed to attend the hearing of a case

Judge B was charged of committing Direct

Judge M failed to decide a case despite having

S, the court interpreter, went to Judge V’s

In a case filed by Y, Judge N ordered F to pay

Judge C was charged with gross ignorance of

Judge F was charged of gross ignorance of the

Judge C was charged with gross malfeasance,

Judge answered in his Data Sheet that his

Judge Abelia was charged with Forcible Entry

For having illicit relations with a concubine under

Judge Lomeda conducted the preliminary

Judge Cantero of MCTC Cebu was charged with

Cantero in this case, abandoned his first wife

The Office of the Court Admin recommended

Judge E issued an arrest warrant against G for

Note: Rule 140, Sec. 9(7)

Judge was accused of nepotism for appointing 1. Gross ignorance of the

Anguluan complained against Judge Taguba.

MTC judge conducted preliminary investigation

Aurillo v. Francisco 2 criminal cases in the sala of Judge Francisco.

2 complaints were filed against a marshall.

Judge O was charged with gross ignorance of

Judge allowed a man with a pending criminal

C, a farmer-tenant, filed a complaint against

Castanos is a 1st asst. prosecutor who charged

Brgy. Capt. Mahirang was charged with abuse of

Judge C rendered judgment by default in favor

Judge was bombarded with numerous

A murder case with no recommendation for bail

Judge Teh actively participated in a case. He 1. Dismissal;

Judge P imposed subsidiary imprisonment for

Dismissing a complaint involving real property or

Marcos-Manotoc v. Extending a temporary restraining order, without

M and N were married before Judge B. M

Complainants from a parent-teacher

R charged Judge R with gross ignorance of

R et al. filed with the RTC of Q.C. a

Court held that although judge abused his

Election protest was filed against R. R then

While the motion for immediate execution

Judge L issued an order for arrest without

Judge M was charged for gross inefficiency.

It is self-evident from the very face of the

I was charged with the murder of P. Judge

Judge M dismissed 11 cases against Mrs. I

In a probate proceeding and in disregard of

Court of Agrarian Relations Judge V was

Prosecutor V charged Judge A for grave

Issuing an order of demolition of the

Issuing a search warrant without observing

Z, counsel for the accused, failed to appear

Granting bail to an accused charged with