FACTS:- Judge Cube was appointed Presiding Judge of MTC, Branch 22 of Manila. Information was received by the Judicial and Bar Council that he had previously been dismissed as Asst. Fiscal of Pasay City. It was bourne out of the records that an administrative case for gross misconduct and dereliction of duty was filed against Fiscal Cube by Sec of Justice Jose Abad Santos for failure to prosecute a criminal case which led to its dismissal with prejudice. Fiscal Cube was found guilty as charged.
- Cube applied for appointment to the Judiciary and in the Personal Data Sheet that he was required to accomplish he deliberately concealed the fact that he was dismissed. He contended that he didnt act dishonestly in not disclosing such fact because his removal from office was WITHOUT PREJUDICE which legally meant that he can still be recalled by the govt to render public service, and that he was in fact RECALLED AND APPOINTED to sensitive positions in the govt prior to the questioned appointment and that he was even allowed by the same govt to avail of the Optional Retirement under RA 1145.
ISSUE: WoN Judge Cube acted dishonestly?
HELD: YES1.Judge Cube did not disclose the relevant fact that he had been dismissed for gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties as ASst FIscal of Pasay. That fact was deliberately suppressed. Judge Cube could not equate his dismissal with retirement and give both modes of separation an innocent character. By such disclosure, the Council was led to believe, on the strength of his misrepresentations, that he had a clean record and was not disqualified from appointment to the Judiciary
2. The circumstance that the dismissal was without prejudice is not material, and neither is his subsequent appointment to a municipal position. The fact remains that he was REMOVED and that he DID NOT RETIRE. He was removed after
investigation and found guilty of gross misconduct and dereliction of duty in the prosecution of a smuggling case. He cannot now brush his removal aside as if it had never existed at all. It is a blot on his record that has spread even more because of his concealment of it.
3. Judge Cube committed an act of dishonesty that rendered him unfit to be appointed to, and to remain now in, the Judiciary he has tarnished with his falsehood.
182 ALFONSO v JUANSON FACTS:
Complainant a doctor of medicine by profession filed with this court a sworn complaint charging the respondent with immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. He accuses the respondent of maintaining illicit sexual relations with his wife Sol Alfonso.
Complainant received a phone call from the wife of the respondent, Mrs. Juanson who informed him that Sol and respondent judge have been carrying on an affair and that she has in her possession the love letters of Sol which she wants to show to the complainant. When he told this to Sol, she denied it.
Sol and complainant left for the USA. Sol returned ahead of complainant. Mrs. Juansosn called up father of complainant and divulged to the latter the illicit affair between respondent judge and Sol. The father of complainant engaged the services of a private investigator who discovered that Sol, after arrival from USA met with respondent judge at an apartment and stayed there for 3 hours.
Complainant upon knowing this, complainant confronted Sol. At first she denied it but later, however, admitted having an illicit sexual affair with the judge.
Respondent judge denied the allegations and claimed that they have been communicating with each other casually and innocently and not as lovers. He alleges that he came to know of Sol when Sol engaged his professional services prior to appointment to the office of RTC judge.
ISSUE:
Is the judge guilty of the charge of immorality?
HELD:
NO. It must be stressed that the respondent is not charged with immorality or misconduct committed before he was appointed to the judiciary. As to the post-appointment period, we find the evidence for the complainant insufficient to prove that the respondent and Sol continued their extramarital affair. In fact, no love notes were presented during trial that are dated after the appointment. Proof of prior immoral conduct cannot be a basis for his administrative discipline in this case. The respondent judge may have undergone moral reformation after his appointment.
The imputation of the sexual acts upon the incumbent must be proven by substantial evidence, which is required in admin cases. This the complainant failed to do.
However, judge should be held liable for becoming indiscreet. Such indiscretions indubitably cast upon his conduct an appearance of impropriety. Respondent and
Sol’s meetings could incite suspicion of either the relationship’s continuance or revival. He violated Canons 3 and 2 requiring judge’s official conduct to be free from appearance of impropriety.
Sentence to fine of P2,000.
183 MACALINTAL v TEH Facts:
• Atty. Romulo Macalintal filed a case against Judge Angelito Teh, the Executive Judge and the Presiding Judge of the RTC Branch 87 of Rosario Batangas.
• His case stemmed from Atty. Mac’s Election case. In that case, Atty. Mac received an adverse resolution from the Judge Teh. Mac then questioned the resolution, via a petition for Certiorari with the Comelec.
• While the case was pending with the Comelec, Judge Teh actively participated in the proceedings by filing his comment on the petition, and by also filing an urgent manifestation.
• Mac filed a motion for inhibition, but what Judge Teh did was to hire his own lawyer and files his answer before his OWN court.
• Teh ordered that Mac pay P100T in attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
Issue:
• W/N Judge Teh’s actions were correct.
Held:
• No.
• Judge Teh was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and he is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice for reemployment.
• The active participation of Teh being merely a NOMINAL or FORMAL party in the certiorari proceedings is not called for.
• Judges cannot also act as both party litigant and as a judge before his own court.
• Teh’s gross deviation from the acceptable norm for judges is clearly manifest.
184 ZIGA v AREJOLA Facts:
• Nelia Ziga and Ramon Arejola are two of the heirs of Fabian Arejola. They inherited a land from Fabiana and became co-owners (with 8 others) of the property.
• Ramon Arejola was an attorney in the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). He filed in behalf of his co-heirs an application for registration of title of the land. The petition was granted.
•
A substantial portion of the lot was sold to the City of Naga. The unsold portion was subject to a dispute between the heirs and a 3rd party.• Meanwhile, Ramon Arejola was appointed judge of the MTC of Daet, Camarines Norte.
•
Notwithstanding such appointment, Judge Arejola continued to appear in the Land registration case (the dispute with the 3rd person). The court requested him to submit a written authority from the SC to appear as counsel. He did not comply. A second request was made but Judge Arejola insists that it is not needed.• Then Judge Arejola wrote the City of Naga for the terms of payment for the sale of the land and his claim for contingent atty fees.
• Now, Nelia Ziga filed a complaint praying that Judge Arejola be disciplined for appearing before the court without the SC’s permission and for asking contingent atty’s fees and commission.
• Judge Arejola’s defense was that there was no need for the SC’s permission, as he was appearing as
representative of the heirs and not as counsel. He argues that he was a party-in-interest being one of the heirs.
He also said that the complaint was filed merely to harass him and that complainant Ziga had a disturbed mind.
• The executive judge of the RTC found the charge of unauthorized legal practice to be without basis. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Arejola be found guilty.
Issue:
Was Judge Arejola guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law?
Held:
Yes and FINED 10,000. “Practice of law” is not confined to appearance in court as it also covers the preparation of
pleadings and giving of advice to clients. Based on the records, Ramon Arejola engaged in the practice of law after he was appointed MTC Judge (And even if the complaint was filed before he became judge, the fact that he continued to act as counsel after the appointment sustains his liability). It was shown that he: prepared and signed pleadings; appeared for applicants in the case; wrote a letter to the buyer asking for checks and atty’s fees; etc. The representation made by Arejola was not just isolated as there was a succession of acts. His argument that he appeared as co-heir was belied by the tenor of the pleadings and letters showing that he was acting in representation of the heirs.
Judge Arejola violated the Rules of Court and Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits members of the bench from engaging in the private practice of law. Note that the purpose of the prohibition is founded public policy—that is to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to judicial duties and prevent them from advancing private interests.
The Civil Service Rules require him to secure a written permission to appear as counsel from the SC. Judge Arejola was even requested by the RTC to procure this written authority. But he did not comply. It appeared from the records that he tried to get a written authority later on. But when he was told by the Court Administrator to provide the details of the case in which he is appearing, he failed to comply. Nevertheless, his act of trying to procure authority was an admission that he was appearing as counsel and that he was aware that he is required to present such before the court.
*side issue: Judge Arejola argues that he was not afforded due process as there was no hearing conducted by the Executive Judge. But due process does not require a hearing. Opportunity to be heard is sufficient. In this case, he was given ample opportunity to be heard when he was made to file oral arguments through pleadings.
185 OCA v SARDIDO FACTS
• In a Deed of Absolute Sale, MAGBANUA allegedly sold 2 parcels of land to DAVAO REALTY represented by ONG with PAGUNSAN as broker
• Judge HURTADO , who at that time was clerk of court and ex officio notary public but now an RTC judge, notarized the said deed
• However, MAGBANUA denies signing the Deed of Absolute Sale which states that the consideration for the sale was P600,000 and asserts that what she signed was a deed with a stated consideration of P16,000,000
• MABGUNUA filed a case of falsification against PAGUNSAN, ONG and Judge HURTADO
• The case was raffled to JUDGE SARDIDO then presiding MTC judge
• Judge HURTADO filed a motion praying that the criminal complaint against him be forwarded to the SC pursuant to Circular # 3-89 requiring all cases involving justices and judges of the lower courts, whether or not such complaints deal with acts apparently unrelated to the discharge of their duties, forwarded to the SC
• Provincial Prosecutor opposed arguing that Judge HURTADO is not within the scope of Circular # 3-89 because the offense charged was committed when he was still a clerk of court and ex officio notary public
• JUDGE SARDIDO issued an Order excluding Judge HURTADO from the criminal Information filed by MAGBANUA on the ground that Circular # 3-89 does not qualify whether the crime was committed before or during his tenure of office and since the law does not qualify, he must not qualify (“this Court cannot and shall not try this case against JUDGE HURTADO unless the Supreme Court shall order otherwise)
• Court Administrator BENIPAYO issued a Memorandum pointing out that Circular # 3-89 refers only to administrative complaints filed with the IBP against justices and judges of lower courts and does not apply to criminal cases before trial courts
• Court asked JUDGE SARDIDO to explain in writing why he should not be held liable for gross ignorance of the law for excluding Judge HURTADO from the Information filed by MAGBANUA
ISSUE W/N JUDGE SARDIDO COMMITTED GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW