GUTIERREZ VS. JUDGE SANTOS G.R. No. L-15824, MAY 30, 1961 DIZON, J. CANON 3, SEC. 1 Recit Facts: Barrio San Esteban, Macabebe Facts: A complaint against Ricardo M. Gutierrez was filed with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications alleging that the former had illegally constructed dams, dikes and other obstructions across navigable waters, waterways, rivers and communal fishing grounds located in Pampanga. Gutierrez moved for the dismissal of said complaint but was denied. He went to the CFI and filed a petition for prohibition against said secretary. The case was assigned to Judge Arsenio Santos. Thereafter, one of the respondents in said case moved for the disqualification of Judge Santos on the ground that the latter had acted as counsel for fishpond owners, like Gutierrez, in an administrative investigation in involving the same or at least similar issues and properties, and had expressed views in the course of said investigation prejudicial or adverse to the contention of the respondents. r espondents. It was granted. Gutierrez went to the SC. Issue: Whether or not Judge Santos should inhibit himself. Ruling: The SC ruled in affirmative. Due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Moreover, second only to the duty of rendering a just decision, is the duty of doing it in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and the integrity of the Judge. No judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. In this case, the opinion expressed by Judge Santos in a letter addressed by him as counsel for Manuel Borja and others to the then Secretary of the Interior might, some way or another, influence his decision
Print document in the case at bar. Therefore, the SC dismissed the petition and upheld the disqualification of Judge Santos. In order to print this document from Scribd, you'll first need to download it.
IN RE: JUDGE FLORDELIZA 44 PHIL. 608, MARCH 12, 1923 Cancel MALCOLM, J. CANON 3, SEC. 1
Download And Print
Facts: Six lawyers from Sorsogon filed a petition before the SC for the removal from office of the Judge Tomas Flordeliza, Judge of First Instance of the 16th Judicial District. According to the complainants, respondent judge is allegedly guilty of delay and lack of diligence in the disposition of the cases pending before him. They also averred that he falsely certified the status of the cases pending decision before him in order to secure payment of his salary. On his answer, respondent judge said that the time taken by stenographers in transcribing their notes should not be counted in the computation of the ninety-day period. He also contended that the vacation period should be excluded and that the period should begin to run from the date the clerk reported the case for decision. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is liable administratively. Ruling: The SC ruled in affirmative. The law requires that before leave shall be granted or salary shall be paid to any judge, he shall make a certificate that all cases and proceedings which have been under submission for determination or decision for a period of ninety days or more have been determined and decided on or before the date of making the certificate. Based from this proviso, vacation months should not be excluded in the computation of the ninety-day period prescribed by law and that the time should begin to run from the submission of the case, without awaiting notification from the clerk of court. The judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decision. Habits of indecision must be sedulously overcome. He must not deny by slothfulness of mind or body the judgment to which a party is entitled. Therefore, the SC admonished respondent judge.
Print document KILAT VS. JUDGE MACIAS A.M. No. RTJ-05-1960, OCTOBER 25, 2000 In order to print this document from Scribd, you'll TINGA, J. first need to download it. CANON 3, SEC. 5 Cancel
Download And Print
Facts: Complainant, a 16 year-old working high school student, charged respondent Judge Mariano S. Macias of rape, immorality and violation of Anti-Child Abuse Law. Respondent, on other hand, denied the claims of complainant. According to him, complaint was merely used by his ex-wife and several other personalities who he believed had “selfish and personal axes to grind” against him. Respondent said that complainant was kidnapped and merely forced to sign the documents used in the instant administrative complaint. Meanwhile, complainant filed criminal charges against those accused of kidnapping her. The Provincial Prosecutor filed the corresponding information and the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. L-00727 and was raffled to the RTC branch presided by respondent judge. Respondent then issued a warrant of arrest. The next day, accused moved for the inhibition of respondent from the criminal case on the ground that respondent is directly involved in the said case. Respondent thus issued an order inhibiting himself from said case. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is liable administratively. Ruling: The SC rule in affirmative. The SC dismissed the rape charge against respondent judge since there was no sufficient evidence to prove the same. However, respondent judge was found guilty of abuse of authority when he issued the warrant of arrest. Rule 137 of the Rules of Court mandatorily disqualifies a judge or judicial officer to sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise. There is no dispute that Mrs. Margie Corpus- Macias, accused in Criminal Case No. L00727, is the estranged wife of respondent judge. Respondent’s swift issuance of the arrest warrant suspiciously smells of vengeance and vindication.
Print document A judge should administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the judicial system. He must not be perceived as being a repository of In order to print this document from Scribd, you'll arbitrary power but as one dispensing first need to download it. justice under the sanction of the rule of law. That he inhibited himself after they moved for his inhibition cannot extenuate his culpability. AtCancel the outset, heAndshould have inhibited himself Download Print from the case. Therefore, the SC imposed a P20,000.00 fined against respondent judge.
SALCEDO VS JUDGE BOLLOZOS A.M. NO. RTJ-10-2236, JULY 5, 2010 BRION, J. CANON 3, SEC. 5 Facts: Complainant Ruben Salcedo was supervising a construction over a property, when Jose Tanmalack and heavily armed men arrived and forced themselves inside the property. The complainant averred that Tanmalack and his companions harassed and threatened to kill and to harm him and his workers. This prompted complainant to go to the nearest police station to report the matter. The police promptly responded and arrested Tanmalack and brought him in for questioning. Tanmalack, represented by his sister, then filed a verified handwritten petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Writ of Amparo. Respondent Judge Gil Bollozos issued the Writ of Amparo which caused the release of Tanmalack. Complainant claims that the writ was unusually issued with haste and that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, bias, and obvious partiality. The complainant also alleges that the respondent judge accommodated the issuance of the writ because he and Tanmalack’s counsel, Atty. Francis Ku, are members of the Masonic fraternity. Issue: Whether or not respondent judges is guilty of impartiality. Ruling: The SC ruled in negative. The fact that the respondent judge and Atty. Francis Ku are members of the Masonic fraternity does not justify or prove that the former acted with bias and partiality. Bias and partiality can never
document be presumed and must Print be proved with clear and convincing evidence. While palpable error may be inferred from respondent judge’s issuance of the Writ In order to print this document from Scribd, you'll of Amparo, there is nofirstevidence onit. record that would justify a finding of need to download partiality or bias. The complainant’s allegation of partiality will not suffice in the absence of a clear and convincing proof Cancel Download And Print that will overcome the presumption that the respondent judge dispensed justice according to law and evidence, without fear or favor. Therefore, the SC dismissed the complaint against respondent judge.
BELEN VS. JUDGE BELEN A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139, August 9, 2010 CARPIO, J. CANON 4, SEC. 1 Facts: Respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen filed a case for Estafa against complainant’s father but the same was dismissed for lack of probable cause. Thereafter, respondent judge allegedly started harassing and threatening complainant with the filing of several cases against the latter. Respondent judge also wrote several letters addressed to certain local government authorities and employees, requesting information on complainant’s piggery and poultry business; advising them of the alleged violations by the complainant of the National Building Code and certain environmental laws; and reminding the local government authorities of their duty to forestall the issuance of municipal clearance and license to complainant’s business establishment. All of the letters enumerated above bore a letterhead indicating respondent judge’s official government position, viz : From the Chamber of: Medel Arnaldo B. Belen Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 36 4th Judicial region, Calamba City
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of impropriety. Ruling: The SC ruled in affirmative. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
Printindocument appearance of impropriety all of their activities. Members of the Judiciary should be beyond reproach and suspicion in their conduct, and should be In order to print this document from Scribd, you'll free from any appearance ofto download impropriety in the discharge of their official first need it. duties as well as in their personal behavior and everyday life. Cancel
Download And Print
In writing the said letters, respondent judge’s use of his personal stationery with letterhead indicating that he is the Presiding Judge of RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36, and stating that the letter was “from his chambers,” clearly manifests that respondent judge was trying to use the prestige of his office to influence said government officials and employees, and to achieve with prompt and ease the purpose for which those letters were written. In other words, respondent judge used said letterhead to promote his personal interest. Mercado CANON 4, SEC. 1 Macias CANON 4, SEC. 1 Burias CANON 4, SEC. 8
