Canon 6

Facts: Judge Ramos was charged with gross

misconduct, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the
law, arbitrary detention, incompetence, grave
abuse of discretion, and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service allegedly for
erroneously issuing a warrant of arrest against
Bayaca. It was alleged that Bayaca was convicted
by Judge Ramos in a criminal case for arson
through reckless imprudence and imposed upon
him the penalty of imprisonment, with all the
accessory penalties imposed by law in addition
to the payment of costs and damages. On appeal,
the RTC deleted the penalty of imprisonment.
However, Judge Ramos subsequently issued a
warrant of arrest and Commitment on Final
Sentence
which
led
to
complainants
incarceration at the Solano District Jail from
August 8 to 28, 2006. In his comment, the judge
clarified that his issuance of the warrant of
arrest against Bacaya was a mistake done in
good faith and that the same was just a simple
negligence. Should the judge be disciplined?

Held: Yes. The judge was inexcusably negligent

when he issued a Warrant of Arrest and
Commitment to Final Sentence despite the
deletion by the appellate court of that portion of
the judgment imposing the penalty of
imprisonment. In the performance of his duties,
Judge Ramos failed to observe that diligence,
prudence and circumspection which the law
requires in the rendition of any public service. If
only Judge Ramos had exercised the requisite
thoroughness and caution, he would have noted
not only the modification of the monetary
awards by the appellate court, but also the
deletion of the penalty of imprisonment upon
which the Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to
Final Sentence that he signed was based.
(Bayaca v. Judge Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ07-1676,
Jan.
29,
2009)

SEC. 1, CANON 6

Facts: The record shows that, as of

September 30, 2006, the respondent
had not resolved seventy-one (71)
motions for reconsideration within the
prescribed ninety-day period, and he
had resolved one hundred seventy-nine
motions for reconsideration beyond the
reglementary period. As of the same
date, eighty-two cases submitted for
decision were still undecided, even after
the lapse of the twelve-month period
prescribed by the Constitution. He had
also decided four hundred nine case
beyond the one-year period.
Held: As to respondents other
administrative assignments, including
organizing
special
events,
the
respondent should only be reminded
that decision-making is the primordial
and most important duty of a member
of the judiciary.
The delay incurred by responent justice
in deciding or resolving the numerous
cases and matters mentioned above is,
therefore, unjustified. Even in the caseof
PNB v. NLRC and Archinas alone, the
respondents failure to resolve PNBs
June
13,
2001
motion
for
reconsideration until after the lapse of
more than five years, despite Archinas
four
motions
urging
immediate
resolution of the same, truly smacks of
gross inefficiency and serious dereliction
of duty. Worse, it invites suspicion of
malice, and casts doubt on the justices
fairness andintegrity. (Atty. Roberto
C. Padilla vs Assoc. Justice
Asuncion, Court of appeals A.M.
NO. 06-44-CA-J)

Facts: Judge Limsiaco was charged with gross

ignorance of the law and procedure and
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct when
it was established by the records and by his own
admission that he decided an ejectment case
before his sala more than two (2) years after it

was declared submitted for resolution. Due to

his delay of rendering the decision, he was held
guilty of the said charge. He moved for an
extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration. Despite the extension of time
given however, Judge Limsiaco failed to file his
motion for reconsideration and the required
explanation thrice. In another complaint against
him for Delay in the Disposition of a Case, the
OCA issued an order for him to file a comment
for the administrative complaint. Is the
respondent judge administratively liable for
unethical conduct and gross inefficiency under
the provisions of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, specifically Section 5 of Canon 6?
Held: Yes. A judge is the visible representation
of the law, and more importantly of justice; he or
she must, therefore, be the first to follow the law
and weave an example for the others to follow.
For a judge to exhibit indifference to a resolution
requiring him to comment on the accusations in
the complaint thoroughly and substantially is
gross misconduct, and may even be considered
as outright disrespect for the Court. The office of
the judge requires him to obey all the lawful
orders of his superiors. After all, a resolution of
the Supreme Court is not a mere request and
should be complied with promptly and
completely. Such failure to comply accordingly
betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in
character, but has likewise been considered as
an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not
contempt of the judicial system. A resolution of
the Supreme Court requiring comment on an
administrative complaint against officials and
employees of the judiciary should not be
construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor
should it be complied with partially,
inadequately or selectively. Respondents in
administrative complaints should comment on
all accusations or allegations against them in the
administrative complaints because it is their
duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
(Inoturan, v. Limsiaco, Jr., A.M. No.
MTJ-01-1362, February. 22, 2011)

Section 2 canon 6

Facts: On 4 November 2003, Judge Go

informed the OCA that during a physical
inventory of records in her court, she discovered
that there were records of cases which remained
in the possession of former Judge Carteciano
who had already compulsorily retired from the
service on 29 August 2000. Acting on her
inquiry, the OCA directed Judge Go to issue an
order directing Judge Carteciano to immediately
return to the court the case records in his
possession. A number of months passed and still
Judge Carteciano failed to comply with Judge
Go's order.
Should the judge return court records
upon retirement?
Held: Yes. Since the proper and efficient
management of the court is the responsibility of
the judge, he is the one directly responsible for
the proper discharge of official functions. Thus,
a judge is obliged to return to the court the
records of the cases filed in his sala upon his
retirement.
(Office
of
the
Court
Administrator
v.
Retired
Judge
Carteciano,A.M. No. MTJ-07-1664, Feb.
18, 2008)
Section 5 canon 6
Facts: The instant administrative case arose
when petitioner Imbang filed a sworn LetterComplaint charging
Judge
Del
Rosario,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, PatnonganBugasong-Valderama, Patnongan, Antique with
failure to decide a case within the 90-day
reglementary period relative to Civil Case No.
318 entitled Dolores Imbang v. Alice Guerra for
collection of sum of money with damages.
Why should delay be avoided in the
administration of justice?
Held: Delay results in undermining the people's
faith in the judiciary and from whom the prompt
hearing of their supplications is anticipated and
expected, and reinforces in the mind of the
litigants the impression that the wheels of justice
grind ever so slowly. Certainly, undue delay
cannot be countenanced at a time when the
clogging of the court dockets is still the bane of

the judiciary. Judges are expected to observe

utmost diligence and dedication in the
performance of their judicial functions and the
discharge of their duties. (Imbang v. Judge
del Rosario, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1515, Feb.
3, 2004)
SEC. 5, CANON 6
Facts: Judge Angeles filed an
administrative complaint for disbarment
and dismissal from judiciary service
against Judge Sempio Diy which
stemmed from a consolidated criminal
case. Judge Angeles alleged that she was
the private complainant in the abovementioned cases which by order of
respondent judge were submitted for
decision and set for promulgation.
However, said rendering of decision and
promulgation of judgment incur delay
after a lapse of 90 days and six (6)
months, respectively, from the time it
was submitted for resolution to the time
it was promulgated.
Respondent judge belies to the
accusations
hurled
at
her
by
complainant. The former counters that
she decided subject cases in due time
and within the extended period granted
by the Supreme Court.
Held: Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the NCJC
states that judges shall perform all
judicial duties including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and
with reasonable promptness. In the case
at bar, there is no evidence to show any
dubious reason or improper motive that
could have compelled respondent to
delay the resolution of the subject
motion. In fact, when respondent found
out about the unresolved subject motion
in
the
consolidated
cases,
she
immediately ordered its submission for
resolution. In the absence of malice, the
delay could only be due to inadvertence.

Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules

of Court, undue delay in rendering a
decision or order constitutes a less
serious charge punishable by either
suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for not less than one
month nor more than three months or a
fine of not more than P10,000.00 but
not
exceeding P20,000.00. However,
considering that it was her first
infraction due to inadvertence, the court
believed that admonition would suffice.
(Judge Adoracion G. Angeles v.
Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248 September
29,2010)
Facts: An administrative complaint was
filed against MCTC Judge Regencia. In
this case, the civil case was already
submitted for resolution. Being an
ejectment case, it is governed by the
Rules of Summary Procedure which
clearly sets a period of 30 days from the
submission of the last affidavit or
position paper within which a decision
must be issued. Despite this, Judge
Regencia rendered judgment only more
than 2 years later.
Held: The Supreme Court held that
prompt disposition of cases is attained
basically through the efficiency and
dedication to duty of judges. If judges do
not possess those traits, delay in the
disposition of cases is inevitable to the
prejudice of the litigants. While rules
prescribing the time within which
certain acts must be done are
indispensable to prevent needless delays
in the orderly and speedy disposition of
cases and, thus, should be regarded as
mandatory, the Court has nevertheless
been mindful of the plight of judges and
has
been
understanding
of
circumstances that may hinder them
from promptly disposing of their
businesses and, as such, has allowed
extensions of time due to justifiable
reasons. However, Judge Regencia

failed to proffer any acceptable reason in

delaying the disposition of the ejectment
case, thus, making her administratively
liable for undue delay in rendering a
decision. (Gershon N. Dulang v.
Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia,
MCTC, Asturias-Balamban, Cebu,
A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841, June 2,
2014)
Section 6 canon 6
Facts: Judge Belen was charged with conduct
unbecoming of a judge allegedly for humiliating,
demeaning and berating a young lawyer who
appeared in his sala. It was alleged that when the
judge learned that the lawyer was an alumnus of
MCQU and not of UP, the judge made the
following statement youre not from UP. Then
you cannot equate yourself to me because there
is a saying and I know this, not all law students
are created equal, not all law schools are created
equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite
what the Supreme Being stated that we all are

created equal in His form and substance.

Should the judge be disciplined?
Held: Yes. The judges sarcastic, humiliating,
threatening and boastful remarks to a young
lawyer are improper. A judge must be aware that
an alumnus of a particular law school has no
monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling
the Bar Examinations, taking of the Lawyers
oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a
lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge
his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer
of the court, irrespective of where he obtained
his law degree. For a judge to determine the
fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on
the basis of his alma mater is clearly an
engagement in an argumentumad hominem. As
a judge, he must address the merits of the case
and not on the person of the counsel. Judges
must be that even on the face of boorish
behavior from those they deal with, they ought
to conduct themselves in a manner befitting
gentlemen and high officers of the court. (Atty.
Mane v. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-082119, June 30, 2008)