April 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics

May 24, 2010Ramon G. Songco

Here are selected April 2010 rulings of the Supreme "udicial ethics#

ourt of the !hilippines on legal and

ourt personnel$ gra%e misconduct. &n gra%e misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to %iolate the la', or flagrant disregard of esta(lished rule must (e manifest. orruption as an element of gra%e misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee 'ho unla'fully or 'rongfully uses his station or character to procure some (enefit for himself or for another, contrary to the rights of others. Medrano )no'ingly and corruptly su(mitted spurious or irregular (ail (onds for the appro%al of the "udge. He categorically admitted his offense, gi%ing the simple e*planation of ha%ing there(y accommodated ill+intentioned people. His anomalies for a consideration appeared to (e not isolated, (ut repeated many times. He there(y con%erted his employment in the court into an income+generating acti%ity. His gra%e misconduct 'as, therefore, a gra%e offense that deser%ed the penalty of dismissal for the first offense pursuant to Sec. ,2+A of the -niform Rules on Administrati%e ases in the i%il Ser%ice. Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Hon. Marilou Runes-Tamang, Presiding Judge, MeTC Pateros, Manila and Presiding Judge, MeTC San Juan, Metro Manila, A.M. No. MTJ- !-"##$, April %, & " . ourt personnel$ gra%e misconduct. .o less than the onstitution mandates that /pu(lic office is a pu(lic trust.0 Ser%ice 'ith loyalty, integrity and efficiency is re1uired of all pu(lic officers and employees, 'ho must, at all times, (e accounta(le to the people. 2he outright admission of ler) &3 Aran4a4u 5alta4ar to committing mal%ersation of funds sho's her (latant disregard for these principles she had s'orn to uphold, there(y eroding pu(lic trust. 6hen as)ed to e*plain, Ms. 5alta4ar readily confessed her shortage and 'illingly e*ecuted an affida%it, dated April ,, 2004, 'herein she admitted that she had committed gra%e negligence and mal%ersation of funds 'hen she allo'ed other court employees to (orro' from the court funds in her custody, causing the shortage as disco%ered (y the audit team. Ms. 5alta4ar 'as grossly inefficient in handling the finances of the court. Her (are admission that she had indeed allo'ed other employees to (orro' from the court funds sho's her e*tensi%e participation in the irregularities reported (y the audit team. 2here is no dou(t that these acts constitute a gra%e offense. '((i)e o( t*e Court Administrator +s. Atty. ,ermin M. '(ilas, et al., A.M. No. P- #-"-.#, April &., & " . ourt personnel$ gross dishonesty. ontrary to the !400,000.00 assessment made (y respondent, the complainant should ha%e (een assessed legal fees only amounting to !7,,,2,.00, (ased on S Amended Administrati%e ircular .o. 8,+2004, 'hich 'as issued (y the ourt to ser%e as reference for ler)s of ourt in the assessment of the legal fees to a%oid any confusion. Respondent also %iolated S ircular .o. 29+:7 dated May ,, 1::7 for failing to issue the original receipts and merely furnishing complainant 'ith photocopies of receipts. Respondent;s case is not simply non+a(idance 'ith court circulars and directi%es. omplainant in good faith trusted respondent;s 'ord 'hen the latter made an assessment of the fees he must pay. -nfortunately, respondent a(used this trust and confidence reposed on her and used her position to e*tract e*or(itant amounts from complainant under the guise of legal fees for her personal gain. A %ery o(%ious indication of respondent;s dishonest moti%e is the huge difference in the amounts, !824,47,.00 to (e e*act, 'hich eliminates any possi(ility that respondent may ha%e only made the 'rong assessment in good faith. 6orse, respondent is no'here to (e found and thus the amounts collected are still unaccounted for.

-nder the circumstances, respondent is clearly guilty of gross dishonesty and gra%e misconduct 'hich the ourt cannot countenance. 2he ourt 'ill not tolerate any conduct, act or omission (y any court employee %iolating the norm of pu(lic accounta(ility and diminishing or tending to diminish the faith of the people in the <udiciary . Jonat*an A. Re/ong +s. 0li1a/et* R. Teng)o, et al., A.M. No. P- %-&..$, April %, & " . ourt personnel$ gross neglect of duty. 2he 2002 Re%ised Manual for ler)s of ourt re1uires that all applications for (ail and "udicial (onds shall (e coursed, (efore their appro%al (y the <udge concerned, through the ler) of ourt or his duly authori4ed personnel, 'ho shall see to it that the (onds are in order. As the 5ranch ler) of ourt of the Me2 in San <uan, Sorio 'as the administrati%e officer of the (ranch, 'ho had the control and super%ision of all court records, properties and supplies. 6ith her responsi(ilities as such, Sorio should ha%e ensured that all (ail (onds and their supporting documents 'ere in order (efore endorsing them to <udge 2amang for appro%al. Sorio should ha%e re"ected the (ail (onds of o%enant due to the latter;s (lac)listing and its lac) of clearance from the Supreme ourt to issue such (ail (onds. She cannot no' simply feign ignorance and escape lia(ility upon the implausi(le prete*t that some (ail (onds did not pass through her. =i)e'ise, Sorio did not e*plain the non+transmittal of some appro%ed (ail (onds and their supporting documents to the courts, (efore 'hich the criminal cases of the accused concerned had (een filed and pending. 5ased on the record, <udge 2amang had gi%en instructions to Sorio and Medrano to immediately release the (ail (onds upon her appro%al of them. Ho'e%er, during the hearing (efore the &n%estigating <udge, Sorio admitted her failure to see to their immediate release, although such 'as her primary responsi(ility as the 5ranch ler) of ourt. &t must (e remem(ered that her o(ligation does not end 'ith the initial %erification and signing of the documents, (ut e*tends until the (ail (onds and their supporting documents are transmitted to the courts concerned for appropriate action. 2hus, Sorio 'as remiss in the performance of her duties. She fell short of the tas) of effecti%e super%ision of the court staff. 2he recommendation of the > A that Sorio (e administrati%ely sanctioned for gross negligence of duty 'as, therefore, proper. Re: Anonymous LetterComplaint against Hon. Marilou Runes-Tamang, Presiding Judge, MeTC Pateros, Manila and Presiding Judge, MeTC San Juan, Metro Manila, A.M. No. MTJ- !-"##$, April %, & " . ourt personnel$ incompetence. &t is clear that 3elasco failed to e*ercise due diligence in the performance of his duties. 2he 'rit of demolition co%ered only =ot .os. ?0+A and ?1+A. He 'as informed (eforehand that complainant;s house 'as constructed on =ot .o. ?1+5. He relied on the representati%e of the plaintiff in Spl. i%il ase .o. 94, 'ho told him that complainant;s house should (e included in the demolition instead of conducting a relocation sur%ey on the areas in%ol%ed in the case. 6e reiterate that sheriffs, as pu(lic officers, are repositories of pu(lic trust and are under o(ligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully, and to the (est of their a(ilities. Sheriffs are (ound to use reasona(le s)ill and diligence in the performance of their official duties, particularly 'here the rights of indi%iduals might (e "eopardi4ed (y their neglect. &n this case, 3elasco failed to act 'ith caution in the implementation of the 'rit of demolition, 'hich resulted to damage to complainant. 2alama)io 3. Tom/o), et al. +s. S*eri(( Li/orio M. 4elas)o, Jr., et al., A.M. No. P- %-&.&&, April &., & " . ourt personnel$ misconduct. As a cler) of court, Sorio is specifically mandated to safeguard the integrity of the court and its proceedings, and to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records. @or the su(stantial alterations made on e*hi(its 12, 29, 27, 2?, 2:, 80, and 81$ and for the loss of the 17 @e(ruary 1::: 2S. in the records of riminal ase .o. 4478:, 'hich significantly affected the %ery integrity and authenticity of the court records, Sorio does not deser%e to remain cler) of court one day longer. 6e ha%e no choice (ut to dismiss her from the ser%ice. Her failure to o(ey this mandate constituted gra%e misconduct and conduct

highly pre"udicial to the (est interest of the ser%ice (ased on our ruling in Almario +. Resus A81? S RA 742 B1:::CD. Had Sorio performed her duty to properly super%ise the transmittal of all the records of riminal ase .o. 4478: E including the pagination, mar)ing, and inde*ing of the e*hi(its E the alterations in the e*hi(its and the loss of the 17 @e(ruary 1::: 2S. in the records of riminal ase .o. 4478: 'ould not ha%e ta)en place. Ru(ina C*ua +s. 0leanor A. Sorio, et al., A.M. No. P- %-&! -, April %, & " . ourt personnel$ usurpation of authority. A re%ie' of the records sho's that no e%idence 'as presented during the in%estigation to pro%e that the acts of respondents amounted to usurpation of authority. &t is apparent that the issuance of the 6rit of F*ecution 'as 'ithin the scope of duties of <amora as 5ranch ler) of ourt. &t 'as also pro%en that the 6rit of F*ecution 'as indeed issued on <une 2:, 200,. Significantly, Reyes failed to sho' proof that there 'as no 'rit of e*ecution yet at the time he filed his petition for relief from "udgment. As to the lia(ility of Ale"o in the alleged hasty implementation of the 'rit of e*ecution, 'e find the same to (e unmeritorious. 6hen a 'rit is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it (ecomes his ministerial duty to proceed 'ith reasona(le celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance 'ith its mandate. 2his duty, in the proper e*ecution of a %alid 'rit, is not "ust directory, (ut mandatory. He has no discretion 'hether to e*ecute the 'rit or not. He is mandated to uphold the ma"esty of the la' as em(odied in the decision. &n the instant case, respondent Sheriff 'as merely performing his ministerial duty 'hen he implemented the 'rit of e*ecution issued (y the court. Ale"o, ho'e%er, should (e reminded that it is re1uired of him to pay the re1uired fees (efore the implementation of the 'rit of e*ecution. Atty. Al/erto 555 6or/on Reyes +s. Cler7 o( Court 4 Ri)*ard C. Jamora, et al., A.M. No. P- 8-&&&!, April . , & " . <udges$ gross ignorance of the la'. Respondent <udge Arcaya+ hua is guilty of gross ignorance of the la' for issuing a 2emporary !rotection >rder B2!>C in fa%or of petitioner Al(ert hang 2an in S! ase .o. M+9878, since a 2!> cannot (e issued in fa%or of a man against his 'ife under R.A. .o. :292, the AntiE3iolence Against 6omen and 2heir hildren Act of 2004. &ndeed, as a family court "udge, <udge Arcaya+ hua is e*pected to )no' the correct implementation of R.A. .o. :292. ,ran)is)o P. ')ampo +s. Judge 0+elyn S. Ar)ayaC*ua9'((i)e o( t*e Court Administrator +s. Judge 0+elyn S. Ar)aya-C*ua9'((i)e o( t*e Court Administrator +s. Judge 0+elyn S. Ar)aya-C*ua, et al.9Syl+ia Santos +s. Judge 0+elyn S. Ar)aya-C*ua, A.M. 'CA 5P5 No. %-&8. -RTJ9A.M. No. RTJ- %-& !-9A.M. No. RTJ- $&"!"9A.M. No. RTJ-& -., April &., & " . <udges$ gross ignorance of the la'. 6hen the la' or procedure is so elementary, such as the pro%isions of the Rules of ourt, not to )no', or to act as if one does not )no' the same, constitutes gross ignorance of the la', e%en 'ithout the complainant ha%ing to pro%e malice or (ad faith. Section 7 of Rule 71 of the Rules of ourt is plain and simple# it limits the imposa(le penalty for contempt committed against a lo'er court to a fine not e*ceeding !,,000 or imprisonment of one month, or (oth. &n this case, respondent <udge issued an >rder finding complainants guilty of contempt committed against the Municipal 2rial ourt and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of four months to (e ser%ed in the Municipal <ail of Himamaylan, and issued on e%en date 'arrants for their arrest. Respondent is thus lia(le for gross ignorance of the la'. Maria Pan)o, et al. +s. Judge : Aguirre, et al., A.M. No. RTJ- --&"-8, April %, & " . <udges$ gross ignorance of the la'. 6hile a "udge may not (e held lia(le for gross ignorance of the la' for e%ery erroneous order that he renders, it is also a*iomatic that 'hen the legal principle in%ol%ed is sufficiently (asic, lac) of con%ersance 'ith it constitutes gross ignorance of the la'. &ndeed, e%en though a "udge may not al'ays (e su("ected to disciplinary action for e%ery erroneous order or decision he renders, that relati%e immunity is not a license to (e negligent or a(usi%e and ar(itrary in performing his ad"udicatory prerogati%es. &t does not

mean that a "udge need not o(ser%e propriety, discreetness and due care in the performance of his official functions. 2his is (ecause if "udges 'antonly misuse the po'ers %ested on them (y the la', there 'ill not only (e confusion in the administration of "ustice (ut also oppressi%e disregard of the (asic re1uirements of due process. 2he rule is %ery e*plicit as to 'hen admission to (ail is discretionary on the part of the respondent <udge. &n offenses punisha(le (y re)lusion perpetua or death, the accused has no right to (ail 'hen the e%idence of guilt is strong. 2hus, as the accused in riminal ase .o. 8920+01 had (een sentenced to re)lusion perpetua, the (ail should ha%e (een cancelled, instead of increasing it as respondent <udge did. learly, in the instant case, the act of Mangotara in increasing the (ail (ond of the accused instead of canceling it is not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and "udgment on the part of respondent <udge, (ut a patent disregard of 'ell+)no'n rules. 6hen an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of (ad faith, ma)ing the "udge lia(le for gross ignorance of the la'. &t is a pressing responsi(ility of "udges to )eep a(reast 'ith the la' and changes therein, as 'ell as 'ith the latest decisions of the Supreme ourt. >ne cannot see) refuge in a mere cursory ac1uaintance 'ith the statute and procedural rules. &gnorance of the la', 'hich e%eryone is (ound to )no', e*cuses no one E not e%en "udges. Had;a So*ura* 2ipatuan +s. Presiding Judge Mamindiara P. Mangotara, A.M. No. RTJ--&"- , April &., & " . <udges$ simple neglect of duty. <udge 2amang admittedly appro%ed not only the (ail (onds issued (y o%enant, a (lac)listed (onding company, (ut also the (ail (onds in some instances for accused persons charged in criminal cases pending outside her territorial "urisdiction. Get, she insisted that she did not there(y transgress the ode of <udicial onduct, (ecause she had relied on the representation of her duly authori4ed personnel that the (ail (onds 'ere in order. <udge 2amang;s e*cuse of simply relying on the representation of the court personnel 'ho unfortunately too) ad%antage of her leniency and )indness (etrayed a deficiency in that re1uisite degree of circumspection demanded of all those 'ho don the "udicial ro(e. She cannot no' there(y e*culpate herself, for, in fact, such reliance 'as actually her admission of (eing neglectful and of lac)ing the diligent care in paying attention to the "udicial matters (rought to her for signature. A carelessness of that )ind and degree ran contrary to the competence e*pected of her as a dispenser of "ustice and as a %isi(le representation of the la'. She 'as there(y guilty of a neglect of duty, for, according to Judi)ial Audit and P*ysi)al 5n+entory o( Con(is)ated Cas*, Surety and Property 6onds at RTC, Tarla) City, 6rs. 8., 8! < 8#BA.M. .o. 04+7+8,?+R2 , <uly 22, 200,, 494 S RA 21C, the "udge is still (ound to re%ie' the supporting documents (efore appro%ing the (ail (onds, e%en if it is the ler) of ourt 'ho has the duty to ascertain that the (ail (onds are in order, and that all re1uisites for appro%al ha%e (een complied 'ith. 6e thus find her guilty of simple neglect of duty, a light charge under Section 10, Rule 140, Rules of ourt, for 'e are all too a'are of the pitfalls that a "udge li)e her fre1uently stum(les into 'hen detailed in another station. She (ecame an un'itting %ictim of the continuing illegal acti%ities of Medrano, 'ho too) ad%antage of her (eing too (usy 'ith her "udicial and administrati%e duties and tas)s to ha%e noticed and pre%ented his illegal acti%ities. Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Hon. Marilou Runes-Tamang, Presiding Judge, MeTC Pateros, Manila and Presiding Judge, MeTC San Juan, Metro Manila, A.M. No. MTJ- !-"##$, April %, & " . <udges$ simple negligence. Rule 140 of the Rules of ourt, as amended (y A.M. .o. 01+?+10+ S , 'hich pertains to the Hiscipline of <ustices and <udges, does not pro%ide any penalty for simple negligence. 2he ourt, though, deems simple negligence as falling 'ithin the am(it of simple misconduct.

Misconduct means intentional 'rongdoing or deli(erate %iolation of a rule of la' or standard of (eha%ior, especially (y a go%ernment official. 2o constitute an administrati%e offense, misconduct should relate to or (e connected 'ith the performance of the official functions and duties of a pu(lic officer. &n this case, there 'as ostensi(le legal (asis for <udge !aderanga to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to attend the mediation conference. Ho'e%er, <udge !aderanga;s >rder dated .o%em(er :, 200,, dismissing i%il ase .o. 200,+190, 'as improperly and prematurely issued. <udge !aderanga failed to ta)e into consideration that 5acal4o, the plaintiff, could not ha%e attended the mediation conference scheduled on .o%em(er 4, 200, (ecause the said date had (een declared a regular holiday under !residential !roclamation .o. :88. 2he declaration of .o%em(er 4, 200, as a holiday 'as a de%elopment totally outside 5acal4o;s control for 'hich she should not (e sanctioned 'ith the dismissal of the case. F%idently, <udge !aderanga failed to e*ercise the necessary diligence (efore issuing the >rder dismissing the case, to the pre"udice of 5acal4o. 2his, ho'e%er, ma)es <udge !aderanga lia(le for simple negligence, and not gross ignorance of the la' and gra%e a(use of authority, as charged (y Senarlo. Ce)ilia =adrina/ Senarlo +s. Judge Ma>imo =.?. Paderanga, et al., A.M. No. RTJ- 8-& &#, April #, & " . <udges$ %iolation of ode of <udicial onduct$ penalty. 5efore this ourt is the Motion @or Reconsideration, filed (y respondent <udge, of the Hecision finding him guilty of %iolating Rule 2.08 of the ode of <udicial onduct and ordering him to pay a fine of !,,000.00. &n his Motion, respondent <udge alleged that the penalty of fine of !,,000.00 'as too se%ere, considering that he is a first+time offender. 6hile this ourt is duty+(ound to sternly 'ield a correcti%e hand to discipline its errant employees and to 'eed out those 'ho are undesira(le, this ourt also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its "udgment 'ith mercy. 2hus, in the interest of fair play and compassionate "ustice, considering that this 'as respondent <udge;s first offense, 'e resol%e to grant the instant motion for reconsideration. &n lieu of fine, <udge esar >. -ntalan of the Regional 2rial ourt, 5ranch 14:, Ma)ati ity, is AHM>.&SHFH to (e more circumspect in his official and personal deportment, 'ith a 6AR.&.G that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall (e dealt 'ith more se%erely. Al(redo ,a+or +s. Judge Cesar '. @ntalan, et al,A.M. No. RTJ- $-&"#$, April "., & " . =a'yers$ gross misconduct. A la'yer 'ho o(tains possession of the funds and properties of his client in the course of his professional employment shall deli%er the same to his client BaC 'hen they (ecome due, or B(C upon demand. &n the instant case, respondent failed to account for and return the !800,000.00 despite complainant;s repeated demands. Atty. Al%ero cannot ta)e refuge in his claim that there e*isted no attorney+client relationship (et'een him and 5arcenas. F%en if it 'ere true that no attorney+client relationship e*isted (et'een them, case la' has it that an attorney may (e remo%ed, or other'ise disciplined, not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession, (ut also for gross misconduct not connected 'ith his professional duties, ma)ing him unfit for the office and un'orthy of the pri%ileges 'hich his license and the la' confer upon him. Atty. Al%ero;s failure to immediately account for and return the money 'hen due and upon demand %iolated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lac) of integrity and moral soundness, and 'arranted the imposition of disciplinary action. &t ga%e rise to the presumption that he con%erted the money for his o'n use, and this act constituted a gross %iolation of professional ethics and a (etrayal of pu(lic confidence in the legal profession. 2hey constitute gross misconduct and gross unethical (eha%ior for 'hich he may (e suspended. Reynaria 6ar)enas +s. Atty. Anorlito A. Al+ero, A.C. No. $"#-, April &., & " . =a'yers$ misconduct. Rule 1.01, anon 1 of the ode of !rofessional Responsi(ility pro%ides, /A la'yer shall not engage in unla'ful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.0 onduct, as

used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a la'yer;s professional duties. A la'yer may (e disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or pri%ate capacity. 2he test is 'hether his conduct sho's him to (e 'anting in moral character, honesty, pro(ity, and good demeanor, or 'hether it renders him un'orthy to continue as an officer of the court. &n the present case, respondent acted in his pri%ate capacity. He misrepresented that he o'ned the lot he sold to complainant. He refused to return the amount paid (y complainant. His refusal to return the money paid for the lot is un(ecoming a mem(er of the (ar and an officer of the court. 5y his conduct, respondent failed to li%e up to the strict standard of professionalism re1uired (y the ode of !rofessional Responsi(ility. Respondent;s acts %iolated the trust and respect complainant reposed in him as a mem(er of the 5ar and an officer of the court. As a final (lo', he denied ha%ing any transaction 'ith complainant. &t is crystal+clear in the mind of the ourt that he fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, anon 1 of the ode of !rofessional Responsi(ility. 6e cannot, and 'e should not, let respondent;s dishonest and deceitful conduct go unpunished. 6e consider a penalty of t'o+year suspension more appropriate considering the circumstances of this case. Al(redo Roa +s. Atty. Juan Moreno, A.C. No. $.$&, April &", & " . AMon t*an7s Joy)e Mel)ar T.Tan (or *er *elp in preparing t*is post.B