IMELDA A NAKPIL, Complainant vs ATTY. CARLOS J.
VALDES, Respondent
FACTS:
The husband of Imelda Nakpil, Jose Nakpil is friends with the herein
respondent Atty Carlos J. Valdez.
Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a summer residence in Moran
St, Baguio City, hence he asked his friend respondent to purchase the property
for him and that the respondent would keep the said property in trust for Nakpil.
Consequently, Nakpil obtained 2 loans for the purchase of the property. The
title was then issued in the name of the respondent.
When Jose Nakpil died the respondent acted as the LEGAL COUNSEL and
ACCOUNTANT of the complainant. And the complainant was appointed as
administratrix of the estate.
The ownership of Moran property became an issue when the respondent
excluded the said property in the estate of the deceased Jose Nakpil and
transferred the same to his corporation Caval Realty Corporation.
Thus, the complainant filed a reconveyance with damages before the RTC
for the recovery of the property from the respondent. And during its pendency,
the complainant also filed an administrative complaint for violating the
professional ethics.
The complainant alleged that:
1. The respondent has transferred the property to his family corporation which
belonged to the estate of his husband and which the respondent was settling as
their lawyer;
2. The respondent, as their lawyer excluded the property from Nakpil’s estate
and also charged against the same estate, thru his accounting firm, as a liability a
loan that was secured by Nakpil to purchase the said property; and
3. The lawyer has committed representing adverse interest when he prepared
and defended monetary claims against the estate that retained him as its counsel
and auditor.
The respondent in his defense claimed that as for the 1 st charge:
He did not hold in trust the property concerned because he was in fact the
absolute owner of such property.
As for the 2nd charge: he claimed that the lists of liabilities of the estate of
Nakpil was not drawn up by him but by his accounting firm which merely stated
that the loans obtained by Nakpil were “PROBABLY for the purpose of
ISSUE/S:
WON the respondent has failed
to live up the standards embodied
in the CPR?
(atty-client relationship demands
utmost fidelity and good faith)
RULING:
Yes, the respondent has failed to live up the standards embodied in the
CPR.
The SC held that a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but
the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and
good faith.
As to the 2 charges, the Court held that the respondent and late Nakpil
entered into a Trust agreement, that the respondent would hold in trust the
Moran Property. But this agreement was violated when the respondent
claimed absolute ownership over the property and refused to sell the
property to the complainant after the death of Nakpil. And in order to place
the property beyond complainant’s reach and the intestate court, the
respondent later transferred it to his family corporation. The respondent,
did not even inform the complainant that he has claims over the property,
and if he wishes to claim the said property, he should have filed his claim
in the estate proceedings.
Clearly, the respondent misused his legal expertise to deprive his client
of the Moran Property, which is clearly unethical. Thus, the respondent has
violated that Canon 17 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer owes
fidelity to his client’s cause and enjoins him to be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed on him.
The Court also held that the respondent is also guilty of representing
conflicting interest. It is the GR: A lawyer cannot represent adverse
interests. This applies even if the intention or motives of the lawyer were
honest and made in good faith.
But there is an XPN: If the parties consented to the representation after
full disclosure of facts.
In the case at bar, there is adverse interest because the interest of the
estate of the deceased and the interest of the creditors are adverse. But,
both interests are being represented by the respondent. Because he
represents the estate in the estate proceeding and his accounting firm is
responsible for the listing of the assets and liabilities of the estate including
the claims of its creditors.
The defense of Nakpil that he was already separated from these both
purchasing a property in Moran St., Baguio City. The word “probably” implies
only of projected acquisition and not a consummated transaction.
The respondent also averred that the complainant herself acknowledge that
they did not own the property when she did not include the said property in her
1979 SALN and when she signed a Balance Sheet wherein the Moran property
is not included therein.
As for the 3rd charge: the respondent claimed that the complainant has
knowledge and consented thereto his representation as counsel for the estate of
Nakpil and his being one of the associates of accounting firm who is responsible
for determining the liabilities and representing the creditors of the said estate.
Moreover, he claimed that during the proceedings he has been already
separated from these 2 firms, and in fact the complainant was represented by
certain Atty. Enrique O. Chan in estate proceedings and not by him.
He also claimed that if he will be liable to any conflict of interest that is he
will be liable for misconduct as an accountant and not as a lawyer.
Thus, from the foregoing, the SC directed the SOLGEN to conduct an
investigation, report, and recommendation. Consequently, the SOLGEN
recommendation relied heavily on the CA decision that there was no trust
agreement and that the respondent is the absolute owner.
Hence, the present case.
ATTY PRUDENCIO PENTICOSTES, Complainant vs PROSECUTOR DIOSDADO S. IBANEZ, Respondent
FACTS: ISSUE/S:
Encarnacion Pascual is the sister-in-law of the herein complainant who was WON the respondent is guilty for
sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. The herein respondent was assigned professional misconduct?
as the prosecutor for the said case. Consequently, during investigation
Encarnacion gave the respondent the amount that she failed to remit to SSS,
however, the respondent failed to remit the same.
Thus, the complainant filed a complaint for professional misconduct against
the respondent due to his failure to remit the SSS contributions. Consequently,
these contributions were paid by respondents on behalf of the complainant.
law firms is contrary to the fact that the proof he has presented is only a
proof that he separated from the accounting firm and not from the law firm.
However, this documents also show that when he resigned in the
accounting firm on 1972 and 1974, he also returned to the same firm on
1976, and during this year the intestate proceedings is not yet terminated it
is still pending.
As regards his claim that he is liable for representing conflict of interest
only in so far as his Accounting profession is concerned was not upheld by
the Court. The SC held that:
1. The complainant charged him not for the breach of ethics in
Accounting but he was charged for breach of ethics in law, for
allowing his accounting firm to represent 2 creditors in estate
proceeding which the respondent himself is handling for the
complainant; and
2. Even granting that misconduct refers to his profession as
accountant, he may still be subjected to discipline because of the
rule that a “A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY
MISCONDUCT, even if it pertains to his private activities.”
Lastly, the SC held that members of the Bar are expected to live up to
the standards embodied in the CPR as the relationship between Atty-Client
is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good
faith. In the case at bar, respondent exhibited less than fidelity to his duty
to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings and transactions with
his clients.
RULING:
Yes, he is guilty for professional misconduct for his failure to pay the
money entrusted to him by Encarnacion.
The SC held that in the first place it was not the duty of a Provincial
Prosecutor to receive money from persons which have official transactions
with his office.
The Court cited the Rule 1.01 which provides that “A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, deceitful, immoral and dishonest conduct.”
Thus, it is expected upon lawyers that they possess high sense of
 The respondent in his defense for misconduct, he claimed that:
1. The accommodation of Encarnacion’s payment is just an act of Christian
charity;
2. The case became moot and academic when he paid the SSS contributions of
Encarnacion; and
3. That the acts complained of were not conducted in his capacity as a practicing
lawyer, but a public prosecutor, thus he cannot be held accountable for the funds
entrusted to him.
Hence, the present case.
morality, honesty and fair dealings with their clients.
In the case at bar, the failure of the respondent to remit the contributions
of Encarnacion for over one year constitutes gross violation of the Rule
1.01.
-While, indeed Encarnacion is not a client of the respondent because he
is a prosecutor and not acting in private practice, the Court held that the
rule on lawyer’s handling of the funds of a client is applicable to him.
That the relations between the attorney and his client is highly fiduciary
in nature lawyers are promptly account for money or property received by
them on behalf of their client and failure to do so constitutes misconduct.
The failure of respondent to immediately remit her contribution to SSS
gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated the funds.
-As regards his claim that he cannot be held liable because the said rule
is applicable only to the private lawyers, the Court held that such
contention is untenable.
The Court cited Canon 6 which stated that: “These canons shall apply to
lawyers in government services in the discharges of their official tasks”
 CARLITOS D. LAZO, Complainant vs JUDGE ANTONIO V. TIONG, Respondent
FACTS:
The complainant herein is the private complainant in a criminal case entitled
“People of the Philippines vs Danilo D. Lazo for the crim of falsification of
document. This Danilo Lazo is the brother of Carlitos D. Lazo.
The complainant filed a case for grave misconduct and abuse of authority
against the respondent judge on the ground that:
1. The respondent judge scheduled the arraignment on November 14, 1996,
when the said judge knew fully well that the prosecutor is available only
during Fridays and not on the said day. Because of such schedule the
complainant travelled from las Pinas to Bolinao, Pangasinan. However, the
hearing was dismissed because of the absence of the prosecutor;
2. The respondent judge failed to serve the Warrant of Arrest to the accused,
and he was able to do so only when the prosecutor called his attention of
this fact; and lastly
3. The respondent judge failed to inhibit himself despite the knowledge that
the wife of the accused is his first cousin.
The respondent in his answer claimed that:
ISSUE/S:
WON the respondent judge is
guilty for grave misconduct and
abuse of authority?
RULING:
Yes, with respect only to his failure to inhibit himself from hearing the
case on the ground that the wife of the accused is his first cousin.
The SC held thru the recommendation of the OCA, that the one who
determined that scheduling of hearing dated November 14, 1996 was the
Clerk of Court. The Court held that there is nothing wrong for the Judge to
adjudicate to his Clerk of Court in scheduling the cases. Clerk of Court is
the administrative assistant of the Judge in all other matters not involving
the exercise of discretion or judgment of a judge.
Although the Judge has overall supervision over his court personnel, he
is more expected to perform his judicial function, hence all matters not
involving exercise of discretion such as scheduling of cases, the Clerk of
Court is obliged by the established rules to do the said matters.
As regards the claim that there was a delay in the issuance of the
warrant of arrest, the Court held that the reason why there was delay is
because the respondent judge tried to amicably settle the case which parties
involved are siblings. And when this settlement is found to be futile, the
1. It was his Clerk of Court who scheduled the said arraignment on the said
day without his knowledge. Moreover, when it comes to initiatory proceedings
such as arraignment and pre-trial, he gave his clerk of court discretion to
calendar the schedule of the cases; and
2. As regards his failure to issue warrant of arrest the judge claimed that he
tried to amicably settle the case because the 2 parties in the criminal case were
brothers and that he also admitted that the wife of the accused was his 1 st cousin.
Moreover, the accused in the criminal case also filed simultaneous bail bond.
Therefore, the delay if there’s any is not entirely fault of the judge.
This complaint against the respondent judge was submitted to the Office of
the Court Administrator for investigation and recommendation. Thereafter, the
OCA submitted its report to the SC for decision.
Hence, the present case.
respondent judge then decided to issued warrant of arrest. Thus, the delay
of there’s any is not the fault of the judge.
And lastly as regards, the failure of the judge to inhibit himself, the
Court held that he violated the Rule 137 of the Rules of Court which
requires Judges to inhibit themselves in hearing cases wherein he ahs
relatives thereto within 6th degree of affinity or consanguinity. It ahs been
found out that the respondent is a relative of the wife of the accused within
4th degree of affinity.
The Court also held that although the actuations of the respondent judge
to settle the case between 2 brothers is praiseworthy, it cannot justify the
disregard of the law.
In the first place, the complainant was not willing to settle the case. The
judge cannot sacrifice the integrity of the judicial office in the chance that
complainant might agree to the settlement of the matter. A period of 2
months is enough for the judge to make good use of his office in trying to
bring the parties to an amicable settlement, however, after the lapse of the
said time he must inhibit himself. If really want to settle the feud between
the 2 brothers, then he may do so in his private capacity.
 ROAN I. LIABRIOS, Complainant vs JUDGE ROSARITO F. DABALOS, Respondent
FACTS:
The herein petitioner represent his client Mariano Corvera, Jr. against the
herein respondent Judge Rosarito Dabalos for gross ignorance of the law, grave
abuse of discretion, gross misconduct and partiality.
The case stemmed from the criminal case wherein Mayor Mariano Corvera,
Sr. was shot by Pablo Macapas, body guard of Mayor Tranquilino Calo, Jr. The
first information was field by Fiscal Macario Balansag charging him for
Frustrated Murder. However, when Mayor Corvera, Sr. died the information
was amended charging Macapas including Mayor Calo, Jr. and his driver and 2
others unidentified for the crime of murder.
Consequently, a MR was filed against the information submitted by Fiscal
Balansag. Thus it delayed the filing of information. Thereafter, while Fiscal
balansag was on his way to his office he was gunned down. Thus, Acting Fiscal
Brocoy handled the case and decided the MR and upheld that there is prima
faciae case for murder against the accused.
Consequently, the information earlier signed by Fiscal Balansag
recommending as well the No Bail of the accused, but thereafter, withdrawn on
the ground that it is fatally defective in form and since it is signed by demised
Fiscal Balansag. Hence, another information was filed by the acting prosecutor
and recommending as well no bail for the accused.
Conseqquently, Mariano Corvera, Jr. staged a protest and has held a meeting
with the respondent judge to issue a warrant of arrest.
After such meeting, the respondent Judge, directing the raffle of the case,
issued a warrant of arrest without conducting a hearing and allowing Mayor
Calo, Jr. for a bail of P50,000, but not allowing the accused Pablo Macapas, on
the ground that it was not shown that Mayor Calo, Jr. acted as co-principals in
the criminal charge.
This issuance of the Judge was appealed to the CA by Corvera, Jr. The CA
directed the respondent judge to restrain the execution of its order granting bail,
while the resolution of CA is still pending.
However, the respondent Judge together with Mayor Calo, Jr. informed the
ISSUE/S:
WON the respondent judge is
guilty for gross ignorance of the
law, grave abuse of discretion,
gross misconduct and partiality
RULING:
Yes. The respondent judge is guilty gross ignorance of the law and
grave abuse of discretion.
The SC held citing the ruling of the CA that the determination as to
WON the evidence of guilt is strong in capital offense rests upon the sound
judgment and discretion of the court which can only be exercised and
reached after due or summary hearing.
In that hearing fiscal must be notified and given opportunity to present
his evidence. If the court grants bail without a hearing, due process is
seriously violated.
With the issuance of a bail without hearing, the respondent judge is
guilty for gave abuse of discretion.
Generally, a Judge cannot be held liable or accountable civilly,
criminally and administratively for an erroneous judgment or decision
rendered by him in good faith. However, if a judgment is done in without
good faith then he is liable.
Moreover, in the absence of fraud dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of
a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even
though such acts may be erroneous.
While a judge may not be held liable for erroneous acts, it is imperative
that he is conversant with the basic legal principles. A Judge owes it to the
public and the administration of Justice to know the law he is supposed to
apply to a given controversy.
In the case at bar, when a person is accused in a capital offense, the
court is required to conduct a hearing in summary proceeding to allow the
prosecution an opportunity to present evidence.
Lastly, considering that the Judge has close association with the accused
Mayor, as a former employee, prudence and regard for his position as a
judge demanded that he should have refrained from fixing the bail of said
accused and from concluding that the evidence against the accused are
mere circumstantial, in order toa void any doubts as to his judicial
CA that the assailed order has already been implemented thus, such resolution is impartiality.
now moot and academic. A judge should not only render just, correct and impartial judgment but
With such conduct of the respondent judge, the complainant filed a should also do so in a manner that is free from suspicion as to his fairness,
complaint charging him for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of impartiality and integrity.
discretion, gross misconduct and partiality. They claimed that the Judge has
violated the Sec 5 Rule 114 of the RROCP.
Moreover, the judge is claimed to have close association with the accused
Mayor, because he was a former associate of the latter in a law firm.
On the other hand the respondent Judge claimed that in the said Sec. 5 Rule
114, hearing for bail is applicable only when the accused is under the custody of
the law, however the accused are not under the custody of the law, thus, no
hearing is required.
Moreover, the respondent judge claimed that he is not an associate of the law
firm of the accused Mayor but only an employee and that there is only one case
wherein they both present a client acting as co-counsel.
Hence, the present case.

CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, Complainant vs JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, RTC BRANCH 16, NAVAL, LEYTE, Respondent

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

The herein complainant is a practicing lawyer in Naval, Biliran, Leyte. He
filed a complaint for falsification of his Monthly Certificates of Service by
making it appear that he had resolved all cases submitted for decision within the
90-day period required by the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Because of this complaint, the OCA conducted an investigation and it was
Won the respondent Judge shall
be held liable for falsification of
Certificate of Service?
Yes, the respondent Judge is guilty for falsification of Certificate of
Service.
The SC held that the respondent’s defense that because of the
incomplete stenographic notes of the cases he decided not to render
decision for those cases for fear of rendering injustice, is controverted by
found out that 87 of the total cases was undecided beyond the 90-days period.
Moreover, it has been found out that 2 criminal cases, and 12 civil cases
records are missing.
The investigating team also reported the status of dismal state of the RTC
Courthouse, which they described as bereft of any dignity as a court of law. In
fact, the MTC is even better housed.
Aside from this falsification complaint by the complainant, the latter also
submitted a letter, alleging that the respondent judge had intervened FOR THE
ACCUSED in a criminal case for theft.
This criminal case for theft alleged, is when the MTC Judge told the
respondent Judge that because the former received a letter from the wife of the
accused containing a request to acquit him-this letter was from the respondent
Judge himself. Thus, Judge Pitao told the respondent that he convicted the
accused because he could not in conscience acquit him. Thus, the
recommendation of the respondent judge is to elevate the case to him and he
will acquit the accused for the crime of theft, in which he did.
The respondent Judge in his defense, he claimed that:
1. The complaint is just a mere harassment and vengeance, that if he
intended to sue the respondent thus, he could have simply filed the case
before the Ombudsman;
2. He also claimed that indeed there are cases in which he decided not to
render decision because of the incomplete transcript of records, and if
he does so it might cause grave injustice to the parties; and
3. As regards the falsification of Certificate of Service, the respondent
Judge claimed that he is not the person responsible in the preparation of
the said Certificate but his Clerk of Court, his only participation in the
preparation of such Certificate is to sign it after his Clerk of Court has
prepared them.
Hence, the present case.
his own stenographic reporter who stated that the transcripts in those cases
were ready as far back as 1984.
Moreover, under Canon 3, Rule 3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, it
provides that a Judge should diligently discharge administrative
responsibilities and maintain the court competence in court management
and to facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other
judges and court personnels.
Thus, the respondent as a Judge does not sit only to litigate the cases
with least possible delays but also it his responsibility to become an
effective manager of the Court.
And being a manager, one of his duty is the preparation of Certificate of
Service by verifying whether there are cases pending decisions for more
than 90 days, because he could be held responsible.
The Certificate of Service as held by the court is not merely a means to
one’s paycheck but an instrument by which the Courts can fulfill the
Constitutional mandate of the people’s right to speedy disposition of
cases.
Thus, from the foregoing, the respondent judge by falsifying the
certificates of service has committed falsification and has violated the
Canon of CJC which requires diligent discharge of a Judge’s
administrative responsibilities.
In addition to this, as regards the missing cases, the Court held that “It is
expected to a Judge to ensure that the records of the cases assigned to his
sala re intact”. Thus, the loss of those cases is indicative of gross
misconduct and inexcusable negligence unbecoming of a Judge.
As regards, the claim that the respondent Judge has intervened the
function of the MTC in deciding the Criminal Case and acquitting the
accused therein, the Court held that the record show that indeed the
respondent has acquitted the accused in the said criminal case, even if no
notice yet has been made by the clerk of court to the parties involved. This
actuation of the respondent Judge is in violation of Rule 21 of the Interim
Rule and Guidelines.
Moreover, the sending of letter of the respondent Judge thru the wife of
the accused, asking a Judge under his jurisdiction is improper and was apt
to create the impression that he was foe the exoneration of the accused.
The Court held that cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid
 impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. The Canons
in the CJC requires every Judges to refrain from influencing in any manner
the outcome of litigation or dispute pending in another Court.
Thus, from the foregoing the respondent Judge is guilty for serious
misconduct for undue interest in a pending criminal case before a lower
court over which he exercised supervisory power.

MAYOR ROGER S. PADILLA, Complainant vs HON. ROBERTO V. ZANTUA, JR., Respondent

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

The herein complainant is the Mayor of the municipality of Jose Panganiban,
Camarines Norte. He consequently, filed a complaint against the respondent
Judge on the ground that he committed serious irregularities and grave
misconduct in the performance of his official duties because the respondent:
1. Has failed to decide the case within the prescribed period;
2. He committed unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases;
3. He committed manifest impartiality of a litigant; and
4. Fraternizing lawyers who have pending case in his sala.
The said Mayor, alleges that the respondent Judge for cases of:
1. Grave Coercion and Grave Threats;
2. High grading;
3. Trespassing; and
4. For alarms and scandals
The Judge committed undue delay in these cases. Moreover, he claimed that
WON the respondent Judge shall
be held liable for serious
irregularities and grave
misconduct?
No, the respondent Judge shall not be held liable for serious
irregularities and grave misconduct.
The SC held that the charges with respect to the respondent’s failure to
decide the cases within the prescribed period and the charges of
unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases against respondent Judge
should be dismissed.
The Court held that the complainant has failed to specify the cases
referred to in the complaint which remained undecided after the lapse of
the required 90 day period.
Moreover, the delay in the cases are not due to the fault of the judge but
it was due to the numerous postponements committed by the prosecution
and the defense.
However, despite such the Court maintained that the respondent Judge
should be reminded of the SC Order requiring all courts to conduct a
the said respondent is always seen eating and drinking in the constant company
of Atty. Augusto Schneider.
The respondent Judge in his defense, claimed that:
1. For grave threats and Coercion cases which he admitted has been lagging for
2 years was due to the numerous postponements made by the parties thereto,
thus he cannot be held accountable for the said delay;
2. As regards the High Grading cases and Forcible Entry case, the claim that the
respondent did not conduct a hearing is false. He claimed that in those cases he
conducted hearing;
3. As regards the fraternizing with lawyers with pending cases, the respondent
claimed that his close association with Atty Schneider is due to the fact that he
is the only lawyer in the locality and it is natural for him to be friendly with the
said lawyer; and lastly
4. The complaint that was filed against him was due to the local politics in the
said place, wherein he did not let himself to be influence by the Padillas in the
said locality.
Hence, the present case.
mandatory continuous trial which is to be terminated within 90 days from
its inception of the initial hearing.
As regards, the close association of the respondent to Atty Schneider,
the Court held that constant company of a Judge with a lawyer tends to
breed intimacy and camaraderie to the pint that favors In the future may be
asked from the respondent Judge.
Moreover, the contention of the respondent that, he remained impartial
despite of his being close to the said lawyer, by stating that all cases of Atty
Schneider in his sala is lost shall not be countenanced.
This eventuality may undermine the people’s faith in the Administration
of Justice.
A Judge should behave at all times as to inspire public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. The prestige of the Judicial
Office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others,
nor convey or permit the others the impression that they are in special
position to influence the Judge.
Lastly, the Court also held that a Judge being the subject of constant
public scrutiny, a Judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on
conduct that might be viewed as burdensome in ordinary citizens.
 LUCILA TAN, Complainant vs JUDGE MAXWELL S. ROSETE., Respondent
FACTS:
Lucila Tan is the complainant in a criminal case involving BP 22 and Other
Deceits. In her own version of the facts, she claimed that respondent Judge
allegedly send his court staff “Joyce Hernandez” to talk to the complainant.
They consequently, met in the Cravings restaurant together with 2 men
which accompanied the respondent Judge in QC. In the said restaurant, the
complainant told the respondent of her case. After that, he received a phone call
from the Court staff of the respondent and told her that she needs to give the
respondent a money in order to expedite the case. Because of this, the
complainant was constrained to give the respondent P20,000.00. Thereafter, the
respondent Judge is asking again for an amount of P150,000.00 in exchange for
the non-dismissal of her case. In order to substantiate this, the staff presented to
her the copies of the decision unsigned by the respondent Judge dismissing the
complaint she filed before his sala.
However, she now refused to give the respondent the said amount believing
that her case was strong enough and well supported by the evidence. The
criminal case was eventually dismissed.
And because of this actuation of the Judge, he filed a case against the
respondent for violating the Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices.
The respondent Judge in his defense, he presented the 4 witnesses’ affidavits
to belie the complainant’s claim. And further claimed that, it was in fact the
complainant who tried to bribed him, and the latter even sought the intervention
of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to obtain a judgment favorable to her.
According to Josefina Ramos, she testified that she was the secretary of
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the respondent Judge shall Yes, the respondent Judge shall be held liable in the said charges.
be held liable for violating the The SC held that the case has 2 version of the story. But the more
Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of credible version is one that is submitted by the complainant based on the
Court and the Anti-Graft and following ground:
Corrupt Practices? 1. First, the complainant in her were not just able to testify with clarity
and in full detail, but she was also able to present during the
investigation the unsigned copies of the decision of the respondent
Judge;
2. This decision of a Judge is highly confidential, and it cannot be in
possession of another person unless it is the Judge himself, or his
Court Staff gave it to another person. Moreover, an ordinary Court
staff cannot promise a litigant the reversal of a case IF NOT
ASSURED BY THE JUDGE WHO DRAFTED the case;
3. The affidavits of Rodolfo Cea and Fernando Espuerta are
contradicting to each other. Espuerta claimed that him, respondent,
the complainant and 2 others met in a restaurant. While Rodolfo
Cea, denied that they met in a restaurant; and
4. Lastly, the respondent claimed that he was already in New Zealand
when the complainant alleged that he met with her. However, his
passport does not show when he left the country only the time when
he went back from the country
Having been shown that the version of the complainant is more credible,
thus the respondent Judge is indeed guilty from the acts alleged by the
complainant.
Jinggoy Estrada and affirmed that the complainant went to the Office of the
Mayor so many times, but she did not know how close the complainant with the
Mayor. She also testified that she has no knowledge about the case of the
complainant.
According to Rodolfo Cea “aka Buboy”, he claimed that he never went to
the restaurant which the complainant is talking about but admitted that he at one
time, when he was still a court staff in the said MTC, he encountered the
complainant asking him to help her in her case, with the respondent Judge, but
he refused. Thus, the complainant got mad at him.
According to Fernando Espuerta, he is a friend of the respondent Judge and
admitted that he was invited by the respondent in a restaurant in QC because
they have not seen each other for a long time. However, he belied the claim that
the respondent Judge is into such activity as alleged by the complainant because
he knew very well the respondent.
And lastly, Joyce T. Hernandez, in her affidavit she denied that she gave the
complainant the copies of the decision of the respondent contrary to the
allegations of the complainant. Moreover, she also denied that she called the
complainant for the purpose of exacting money from the complainant for the
respondent Judge.
Hence, the present case.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA), Complainant vs JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, Respondent
The SC held that the exacting standards of conduct demanded from
Judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the Judiciary because the people’s confidence in the judicial
system is not founded only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the
diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of
integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to posses
When a Judge is the one who violates the law, he encourages disrepute
and disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary itself.
Moreover, the respondent’s act of sending its staff beyond the working
hours violates the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by
the members of the Bench. This actuations constitute GROSS
MISCONDUCT which is punishable under Rule 140 of the RROC.
 FACTS:
Norvic Incorporated (Norvic), was the principal stockholder of Overseas
Superintendence Corporation (OSC) which is the owner of Yakal property.
Consequently, a contract was entered into by the President of Norvic and the
President of St. Michael International Institute of Technology (SMIIT) to sell
the OSC shares of stock and the Yakal Property.
Consequently, the Yakal Property was sold to the SMIIT, thus a new title
was issued, however, 2 years after the Norvic filed a case annulling the said
contract on the ground that the transfer of property was fraudulent. Thus, they
filed a notice of lis pendens over the new certificate of title of Yakal Property.
As such, the SMIIT filed its Motion to Cancel Lis Pendens, but it was denied
by Judge Cosico. Thereafter, Judge Cosico, resigned from judicial service, thus
the party to the case requested to re-raffle the case and it was referred to the
herein respondent Judge De Guzman. Upon filing of MR, the respondent Judge
lifted the lis pendens upholding the contention of the SMIIT that Norvic is not
the proper party to the case because they are not the owner of the Yakal property
but the OSC.
Consequently, the parties to the case reached a compromise agreement and
thus it was granted by the respondent Judge.
The administrative suit was based on the testimony of Judge Cosico during
an Ad Hoc Committee which was composed of CJ and 2 other Justices, wherein
he alleged that the respondent Judge approached him twice to lift the notice of
lis pendens in the said case and claimed that the respondent has keen interest in
the said case which is prejudicial to the administration of Justice.
On the other hand, the respondent denied the allegations of the Judge Cosico.
1. He also claimed that Judge Cosico was just motivated by vindictiveness when
the respondent testified against Judge Cosico during Ad Hoc Committee
Investigation.
2. He also claimed that he never went to Judge Cosico to lift the notice lis
pendens and if they will meet the only thing, they discussed is about the law.
3. He also admitted that the President of Norvic was his former classmate in
Ateneo and because of this friendship he decided to inhibit but both parties
requested him to adjudicate their case and help them reach an amicable
settlement.
4. Lastly, his decision of liftin the notice of lis pendens was made in good faith.
Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S:
WON the complainant is guilty
for Gross Misconduct in trying to
influence Judge COsico to lift the
notice of lis pendens?
RULING:
Yes, the respondent Judge is guilty for Gross Misconduct.
The SC held that according to the investigation conducted by Justice
Salas the respondent was not dictated by any pecuniary consideration in
lifting the said lis pendens however, upon investigation it was proved that
he is liable for influencing the outcome of the subject case when it asked
Judge Cosico to cancel the said lis pendens.
Upon investigation it was found out that it was correct to lift the notice
of lis pendens by reason that under Section 24, Rule 14 of ROC, lis
pendens maybe cancelled only when it is not necessary to protect the rights
of the party who caused it to be recorder. Clearly, the notice of lis pendens
was bot necessary to protect the rights of Norvic because, it was never the
owner of the yakal property. It was just a principal stockholder of the OSC.
And under the law, the personality of the corporation is distinct to the
personality of its members such as stockholders.
Now, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, corruption and bad faith, this
act of the respondent is not subject to disciplinary action.
AS regards the claim that he intended to influence Judge Cosico, the SC
held that the latter Judge was able to narrate the event with clear and
straightforward manner by which the respondent Judge approached him.
Moreover, it is hard to consider that Judge Cosico would lie before the
panels of the Ad Hoc Committee considering that its members are
participated by the CJ and Justices of the Supreme Court.
Moreover, contrary to the claim that the allegation of Judge Cosico was
motivated by vindictiveness is disproved by the fact that they used to meet
before to discuss each other many things about the law. Lastly, since the
respondent claimed that the Judge Cosico was moved by vindictiveness, he
must show proof of such, because well settled is the rule that in the absence
of any evidence to show any reason or motive why witness should have
testified falsely, the logical conclusion is that no improper motive existed.
The SC also held that Judges are expected to conduct themselves in a
manner that would enhance the respect and confidence of our people in the
Judicial System. It is incumbent upon Judges to behave at all times to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.
Being the dispenser of Justice, judges should not act in a way that would
cast suspicion in order to preserve the faith in the administration of Justice.
 In the case at bar, the act of
subject case which was pending
TARNISHES THE INTEGRITY
JUDICIARY AND SUBVERTS
JUDICIAL PROCESS.
the respondent in interfering with the
in the sala of Judge Cosico clearly
AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE
THE PEOPLE’S FAITH IN THE

ROLAND ERNEST MARIE JOSE SPELSMANS, Complainant vs JUDGE GAYDIFREDO T. OCAMPO, Respondent

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

Spelsmans wife, Annylyn VIllan filed a complaint of theft against Joelito WON the respondent by taking Yes, the respondent Judge is guilty for violating the New Code of
Rencio and his wife from whom they rented their house. According to and keeping personal items Judicial Conduct.
Spelsmans, this complaint was for the purpose of taking the personal property in belonging to Spelsmans for the The Sc held that:
their rented house. purpose of safekeeping it 1. the respondent were not able to explain why of all the people in the said
In the course of investigation, Judge Ocampo and other parties conducted an constitutes violation to the New locality, he was the one whom Villan entrusted the properties concern for
ocular inspection in the said rented house, and during such inspection, the Code of Judicial Conduct? safekeeping. Thus, it is suspicious.
respondent allegedly took several pieces of personal property of the complainant 2. The case does not involve robbery for the respondent to have an interest
and his wife. in personally looking the place as to how and where the break-in took
Thus, the complainant filed a complaint of theft and graft and corruption place.
against the respondent Judge.
The respondent in his defense, claimed that:
1. It was VIllan who gave him the alleged properties he took from their rented
house for the purpose of safekeeping those properties.
Consequently, the OCA issued a resolution declaring the respondent Judge
guilty for committing acts of impropriety and maintaining close affinity with a
litigant which is violative of Rule 140 of the Rule 140 of the RROC.
Hence, the present case.
3. Since, the respondent received the personal properties concerned thus,
there is relation of trust that exist between him and the litigant, and
therefore he should have instead inhibited himself because of such relation.
4. The respondent’s admission that he returned the property only after 4
years have lapsed clearly shows that such possession went beyond
safekeeping. He could have indeed acquired the same not for the purpose
of safekeeping but to own them.
Thus, from the foregoing, the respondent Judge clearly violated the Rule
140 of the RROC which prohibits Judges “for “committing acts of
impropriety and maintaining close affinity with a litigant”.
The Court held that respondent Judge should be made accountable for
gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct (Canon 1(6); Canon2 (1); and Canon 4(1)).
From the facts established the respondent has acted with malice. The
respondent is a Judge and not a warehouseman of personal properties of the
litigants. Because of his actuations he tainted the integrity of the Judiciary.