JUDICIAL ETHICS

CANON 1
ABRAHAM L. RAMIREZ, petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIA CORPUZMACANDOG, respondent
ADMINISTRATIVES U P E RVI S I ON O V E R C O U R T PERSONNEL;JUDGE;
RENDERING AN ERRONEOUS DECISION OR RULING; NOT AGROUP FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY. The complaint in Administrative Matter No. R687-RTJ is anchored primarily on respondent on having given credence to the
exempting circumstance of self-defense offered by the accused in Criminal
Case No. C-23527. In Villa v. Llamas, 84 SCRA 277, where the complainant
placed in issue the wisdom of the having believed the testimony of the
plaintiff, an alleged operator and maintainer of houses of ill-repute, this Court
ruled that said circumstance was not an indubitable ground for penalizing a
judge administratively. The reason, as previously stated in the case of Dizon
vs. deBorja, 37 SCRA 46, is that "to hold a judge administratively
accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that
he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his
position unbearable." Similarly, in the case of Vda. de Zabal vs. Pamaran, 39
SCRA 430, this Court had the occasion to pronounce that "mere errors in the
appreciation of evidence, unless so gross and patent as to produce an
influence of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an
unjust decision [which circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar], are
irrelevant and immaterial in an administrative proceeding against him." We
further stated: If in the mind of the respondent the evidence for the defense
was entitled to more weight and credence, he cannot be held to account
administratively for the result of ratiocination.
ROAN I. LIBARIOS VS JUDGE ROSARITO F. DABALOS A.M. NO. RTJ-89286 July 11, 1991Topic:
CANON 1 SECTION 4FACTS: An administrative complaint was filed by Roan I.
Libarios for and on behalf of his client Mariano Corvera, Jr. against
respondent Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos, for grave ignorance of the law, grave
abuse of discretion, gross misconduct and partiality, relative to the issuance
of a warrant of arrest of the respondent judge against the accused
Tranquilino Calo Jr.and Belarmino Alloco for the crime of murder fixing their
bail without any prior hearing.
ISSUE: W/N Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos violated the New Code of Judicial
Conduct.

RULING:Yes. A judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan or personal interests, public opinion or
fear of criticism. He should not have allowed himself to be swayed into
issuing an order fixing bail for the temporary release of the accused charged
with murder, without a hearing, which is contrary to established principles of
law. It has been an established legal principle or rule that in cases where a
person is accused of a capital offense, the trial court must conduct a hearing
in a summary proceeding, to allow the prosecution an opportunity to present,
within a reasonable time, all evidence it may desire to produce to prove that
the evidence of guilt against theaccused is strong, before resolving the issue
of bail for the temporary release of the accused. A judge should not only
render a just, correct and impartial decision but should do so in a manner as
to be free from anysuspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.The
respondent judge is imposed of a FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P20,000.00) and WARNED to exercisemore care and diligence in the
performance of his duties as a judge, and that the same or similar offense in
the future willbe dealt with more severally

CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR., complainant vs. JUDGE ADRIANO R.

VILLAMOR, RTC, BRANCH 16, NAVAL, LEYTE, respondent.
FACTS:
Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr., a practicing lawyer in Naval, Biliran
Subprovince, Leyte, charged respondent, Judge Adriano R. Villamor of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Naval, Leyte, with falsification of his monthly
Certificates of Service by making it appear that he had resolved all cases
submitted for decision within the ninety day period required by the Judiciary
Act of 1948. Complainant further furnished the Court with an Affidavit of
Judge Dulcisimo Pitao of the Municipal Trial Court of Maripipi, Leyte, stating
that Respondent had intervened for the accused in Criminal Case No.959
then pending with the said Municipal Court. In his Comment filed on 20
December 1990, Respondent claimed that the Complaint was more for
harassment and vengeance. That there were other cases not decided within
the 90day rule, including those listed in the Complaint allegedly because the
transcripts were incomplete.
Issue: WON the respondent violated Section 3 Canon 1 of the New Code of
JUdical Conduct
Ruling: Yes

From the Investigative Report of Justce Fermin Martn, the imputation that
respondent intervened in Criminal Case No. 959 is sufficiently substantiated.
That a letter was sent to judge Pitao by the wife of the accused and that the
respondent mentioned the case during their conversation.
Cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities. The Canons mince no words in
mandating that a Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another Court (Canon 2, Rule
2.04).Interference by members of the bench in
pending suits with the end in view of influencing the course or the result of
litigation does not only subvert the independence of the judiciary but also
undermines thepeople's faith in its integrity and impartiality (Commentaries
on the Code of Judicial Conduct).
Respondent is dismissed from service.
- Alfonso v. Alonzo-Legasto (2002)
Facts:
On 16 August 1993 respondent Judge Rose Marie Alonzo-Legasto wrote a
letter to Mayor Ismael Mathay, Jr.returning all but one of the forty-one (41)
complainants to the Quezon City Government issued Office Order No. 47
reassigning the forty-three (43) City Government employees including herein
forty-one (41) complainants to different offices of the Quezon City
Government. Complainants averred conspiracy between respondents
Camaya and Remedios Baby Garcia, the alleged girl Friday of respondent
Judge, on one hand, and on the other, Judge Legasto, purportedly to favor
some of her favorite national employees and Respondent Judge was
likewise charged with doctoring a payroll to fraudulently collect thirty (30)
days of election-related work during the 11 May 1992 elections when she
should have been credited with only five (5) days of work among others.
Issue:
1. W/N the respondents (especially Judge) are guilty?
Held/Ratio:
1. YES. It is our considered opinion that her decision to return the forty-one
(41) City Government employees previously detailed with the MeTC
exceeded her authority under Sec. IV of Administrative Order No. 6 which is
limited to the temporary re-assignment of court employees, i.e., for a period
of three (3) months extendible only once for the same period. Also, other
than the fact that all forty-one (41) employees were appointees of the
Quezon City Government, there were no common derogatory records which
would explain respondent Judge's recommendation for their collective

transfer. On the other hand, respondent Garcia would herself admit that
some of the complainants had been commended for their punctuality and
excellent attendance and by respondent Camaya for their outstanding
performance. We can reasonably infer from these admitted facts that the
move to
return complainants was not based on any valid and substantive ground.
respondent Judge Rose Marie AlonzoLegasto,
in her capacity as then Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Quezon City, is FINED
P10,000.00 to be paid within twenty (20) days from notice of this Decision

Tan v. Rosete (2004) (Showed copy of draft)

Doctrines:
Canon 1: A judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence. Also, check the course
syllabus for the doctrine/topic your case is under.
Canon 2: A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary
Facts:
Lucila Tan filed a complaint against Judge Maxwell Rosete for Gross
Misconduct and violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. Tan was
the private complainant in two criminal cases which was pending in an MeTC
in San Juan, of which Judge Rosete was the presiding Judge. The criminal
cases were both entitled People v. Alfonso Pe Sy for BP 22 and other Deceits.
Tan alleges that a member of Judge Rosetes staff talked to her and showed
her a draft of the decision dismissing the criminal cases she filed. She claims
that the staff member asked for Php150,000 so that the case will not be
dismissed and allowed her to keep a copy of the draft decision. Tan also
asserts that she met with Judge Rosete, who was with 2 other people, in
Sangkalan restaurant where again, they discussed the case. Tan says she did
not give the money because she believed that her evidence was strong.
Judge Rosete denies all these allegations. He contends that it was Tan who in
fact approached him and tried to bribe him so that he will decide in her favor.
He says she offered him Php300,000 for down payment of a car he wanted to
buy. Furthermore, he claims that after he made the decision, he left for New
Zealand would therefore have had no opportunity to change his decision
whether bribe money was involved or not. He says that while he was in New
Zealand, he even received a call from then Mayor Jinggoy Estrada who asked

him to decide the case in favor of Tan. Judge Rosete decided against Tan and
dismissed the criminal cases.
Issues:
1. W/N Judge Rosete committed Gross Misconduct and violated the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act
Held/Ratio:
1. YES, Judge Rosete was guilty. Since Tan and Rosete offered directly
contradicting versions of what happened, the SC only had to choose which
version was more credible. The SC believed Tans version of events because
it was clear and gave full detail. The presentation of the unsigned decision as
evidence bolstered the credibility of her claim because it would have been
impossible to obtain a copy without the participation of the Judge or court
staff. On the other hand, there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
witnesses presented by Judge Rosete. One of his witnesses admitted to being
in Sangkalan restaurant with Judge Rosete and Tan, whereas his other
witness denied being there. Also, Judge did not present the complete records
of his trip to New Zealand. He presented his departure dates from the
Philippines but did not present evidence as to when he came back. In ruling
against Judge Rosales, the SC stated that judges must be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence. A judge must not only be pure but
above suspicion. The strict standards of conduct demanded from judges are
designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary because the peoples confidence in the justice system is founded not
only on the legal knowledge of judges, but also on the highest standard of
integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. Rosetes act of
sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and show copies of
his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office
premises beyond office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct
required to be observed by members of the Bench. Judge Rosete was
suspended from office without salary and other benefits for 4 months.