PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

SUBMITTED BY:

CRISTIAN LEE RAMIREZ

SUBMITTED TO:

ATTY. DEXTER ZENO ACHILLES PASCUA

7 FEBRUARY 2018
KILOSBAYAN VS JANOLO

G.R. No. 180543; August 18, 2010

FACTS: On July 9, 2007, private respondent Gregory Ong (Ong), following the promulgation
of the Court’s Decision in Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, filed a petition for the
"amendment/correction/supplementation or annotation" of the entry on citizenship in his
Certificate of Birth, raffled to Branch 264 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City over
which public respondent Leoncio Janolo, Jr. presided.
Petitioners assail an Order and the Decision emanating from the proceedings in the RTC case.
In their motion for voluntary inhibition, petitioners cite that Ong, his counsel, and public
respondent are members of the San Beda Law Alumni Association which, along with the school’s
Benedictine community, publicly endorsed and supported Ong’s petition through newspaper
advertisements. They alleged that the law school ties among public respondent, Ong and his
counsel, they having graduated from San Beda College of Law, albeit years apart, spell partiality.

ISSUE: Is membership per se in an organizational affiliation a ground for inhibition by the

Judge?

HELD: No. A trial Judge or member of this Court who is or was a member of a college
fraternity, a university alumni association, a socio-civic association, a religion-oriented
organization like Knights of Columbus or Methodist Men, and various other fraternal
organizations is not expected to automatically inhibit himself or herself from acting whenever a
case involving a member of his or her group happens to come before him or her for action.
The added fact that the law school’s alumni association published statements in support of
Ong’s application cannot lend credence to the imputation of bias on the part of pubic respondent.
No clear and convincing evidence was shown to indicate that public respondent actively
sponsored and participated in the adoption and publication of the alumni association’s stand. It is
inconceivable to suppose that the alumni association’s statement obliged all its members to
earnestly embrace the manifesto as a matter of creed.
In the absence then of clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge, a ruling not to
inhibit oneself cannot just be overturned. In this case, petitioners failed to demonstrate such acts
or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice as to thaw the attributes of the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge. Unjustified assumptions and mere misgivings that the hand of
prejudice, passion, pride and pettiness moves the judge in the performance of his functions are
patently weak to parry the presumption that a judge shall decide on the merits of a case with an
unclouded vision of its facts. In fine, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion when public
respondent did not inhibit himself from hearing the case.

1
RAMISCAL, JR. VS HERNANDEZ

G.R. Nos. 173057-74; September 20, 2010

FACTS: Petitioner, then President of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-Retirement and
Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), signed several deeds of sale for the acquisition of
parcels of land for the development of housing projects and for other concerns. However, the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee conducted an extensive investigation in 1998 for reported
anomalies. They concluded that there were irregularities committed by the officials of the
AFP-RSBS and recommended the prosecution of those responsible, including petitioner, who had
signed the unregistered deeds of sale as AFP-RSBS President. Accordingly, informations were
filed with the Sandiganbayan against petitioner for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, and for the crime of estafa through falsification of public documents.
Then, in 2003, junior officers and enlisted men from elite units of the AFP took over the
Oakwood in Makati City to air their grievances about graft and corruption in the military. In
response to the incident, President Arroyo created a Fact-Finding Commission (Feliciano
Commission) wherein respondent’s wife, Professor Carolina G. Hernandez, was appointed as one
of the Commissioners. The Feliciano Commission submitted its Report recommending, among
others, the prosecution of petitioner. But petitioner moves to inhibit Justice Hernandez from
taking part in the cases pending before the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner cited
that spousal relationship between Justice Hernandez and Professor Hernandez created in his
mind impression of partiality and bias, which circumstance constitutes a just and valid ground for
his inhibition under the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not spousal relationship per se is a just and valid ground for his inhibition
under the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.
HELD: No. An allegation of prejudgment, without more, constitutes mere conjecture and is
not one of the "just or valid reasons" contemplated in the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule
137 of the Rules of Court for which a judge may inhibit himself from hearing the case. The bare
allegations of the judge’s partiality, as in this case, will not suffice in the absence of clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role of
dispensing justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor. Verily, for bias
and prejudice to be considered valid reasons for the involuntary inhibition of judges, mere
suspicion is not enough.
Marital relationship by itself is not a ground to disqualify a judge from hearing a case. Under
the first paragraph of the rule on inhibition, "No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in
which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise...."
The relationship mentioned therein becomes relevant only when such spouse or child of the
judge is "pecuniarily interested" as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise. Petitioner, however,
miserably failed to show that Professor Carolina G. Hernandez is financially or pecuniarily
interested in these cases before the Sandiganbayan to justify the inhibition of Justice Hernandez
under the first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 137.
Therefore, the petition is denied. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan where the