BASIC LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Case #1

CASE TITLE: Roberto L. Obiedo, Complainant vs Hon Soliman M Santos Jr, Presiding judge Branch 61
Regional Trial Court Naga City Camarines Sur, Respondent (A.M. RTJ-20-2600, (Formerly OCA IPI 19-
4952-RTJ), January 12, 2021)

FACTS:
 Obiedo was a private complainant in the estafa case against spouses Nino Rico Nery and Mary
Anne Nery
 Judge Santos rendered a decision acquitting the couple but finding them civilly liable, ordered
to pay Php 1.29M for actual damages and Php 100,000 for moral damages
 After promulgating the verdict, Judge Santos sent the parties’ respective counsels a text
message, saying that he was more than fair with the couple, raising a possibility of acquittal to
be reversed if lawyers file for MR and an appeal
 Judge Santos argued that he was merely discouraging the parties from pursuing further
litigation, but SC pointed out that it was unnecessary to elaborate the rationale for his
disposition because his promulgated judgement should already speak for itself
 OCA likewise noted that respondent Judge has previously been penalized by the Court in two
instances

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Judge should be held administratively liable for violation of the
Code of the Judicial Conduct

RULING:
 The Court adopts the OCA recommendation: Respondent Judge is GUILTY of impropriety and
violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct (Sec 1 and 3 of Canon 4)
 The admonition in Canon 4 that propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all activities of a judge must be continuously emphasized.
 In this case, there is sufficient basis to find the respondent guilty of impropriety by sending the
parties’ respective counsels his text message supposedly explaining his judgement, which was
correctly noted by OCA that his message cast doubt over his impartiality, integrity, and
competence in rendering his judgement
 The Court finds respondent Judge guilty of impropriety and is suspended from his duties as a
presiding judge for six months, without salary and other benefits.
 He was also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely by the Court.