SPS. ANGEL and FELINA DUMAUA, Complainant, vs.

ANGERICO B. RAMIREZ, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, GAMU, ISABELA, Respondents.

A.M. No. MTJ-04-1546. July 29, 2005

FACTS:

Sps. Angel and Felina Dumaua filed an administrative complaint against Judge Angerico B. Ramirez
for undue delay in resolving complainants’ motion for execution of judgment in Civil Case Nos. 745
and 750. Complainants were the plaintiffs in an ejectment case, docketed as Civil Case No. 745,
and they were the defendants in a claim for ownership and action for reconveyance docketed as
Civil Case No. 750. Since the cases involve the same land, the two cases were consolidated.

Respondent judge rendered a Decision disposing the consolidated cases in favor of the Sps.
Dumaua. Thereafter, complainants filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment. However, the
scheduled hearings for the motion were cancelled four times due to absences of the respondent
judge.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent judge is liable for gross inefficiency.

RULING:

Yes. It bears repeating that the public’s faith and confidence in the judicial system depends, to a
large extent, on the judicious and prompt disposition of cases and other matters pending before the
courts. Failure to decide a case or resolve a motion within the reglementary period constitutes gross
inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. The
delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of
ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable. It constitutes gross
inefficiency.

In the instant administrative case, respondent judge rendered the Decision in Civil Case Nos. 745
and 750 on March 8, 2001. The motion for execution of judgment filed by herein complainants was
granted on July 6, 2001. However, the corresponding Writ of Execution was issued only on
December 27, 2002 or seventeen months after the order of execution. In addition, respondent judge
did not explain the reason for the delay. His failure to offer any explanation for the delay is an
admission of the negligence charge.
 JEANIFER BUENVIAJE and BLESILDA RECUENCO, Complainant, vs. ARTURO ANATALIO,
Deputy Sheriff of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan, Metro Manila, Branch
58, respondent.

A.M. No. P-00-1361. July 29, 2005

FACTS:

Complainants accuse Respondent Arturo Anatalio for Gross Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming
as an Officer of the Court and for violations of the Code of Conduct of Professional Responsibility.

Complainants allege that respondent together with several policemen, barged into and forcibly
ejected them from their house; they left inside the house most of their furnitures and fixtures and
permanently locked the door; they prepared a list of properties which they took against their will; this
was done by virtue of a Writ of Execution issued by the MTC of San Juan, Branch 58, in connection
with Civil Case No. 8290 now pending with the RTC, Branch 158, Pasig City; since the case is
already pending before the RTC and the lower court already lost jurisdiction over the case, the
execution made by respondent was improper and illegal; in any case, the writ of execution already
expired on June 23, 1997 or seven days before the actual execution thereof; respondent also told
complainants that he was paid by the plaintiffs in the civil case to undertake the said execution and
he cannot afford not to implement the writ as his income would be diminished; because of the acts of
respondent, some of complainants’ personal properties were lost and destroyed.

ISSUE: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable.

RULING:

Yes. It is basic that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it becomes his ministerial duty to
proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its mandate.
This duty, in the proper execution of a valid writ, is not just directory, but mandatory. The sheriff has
no discretion whether to execute the writ or not, and good faith on his part, or lack of it, in proceeding
to properly execute his mandate would be of no moment for he is chargeable with the knowledge
that being an officer of the court tasked therefor, it behooves him to make due compliance.

Indeed, as an officer of the court, respondent is expected to discharge his duties with great care and
diligence and perform faithfully and accurately what is incumbent upon him and show at all times a
high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties. Any method of execution falling
short of the requirement of the law deserves reproach and shall not be countenanced.

In this case, the writ of execution was implemented seven days beyond the date of its effectivity.
Under the old rules, which was in effect at the time the incident took place, the lifetime of a writ of
execution was 60 days from its receipt by the officer required to enforce the same. After said period,
the writ becomes functus officio.

Thus, for failure to implement the writ on time, respondent should be held administratively liable.
 BIENVENIDO BERNAL, JR., Complainant, vs. JOCELYN FERNANDEZ, Court Stenographer,
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Caba, La Union, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-05-2045. July 29, 2005

FACTS:

Respondent Jocelyn Fernandez is charged by, Letter- Complaint of Bienvenido Bernal, Jr. which
was received by the Office of the Court Administrator, of willful failure to pay just debt.

Ms. Jocelyn C. Fernandez came to the store of Complainant Bienvenido Bernal, Jr. to get some
grocery items on credit. Complainant Bernal, Jr. eventually gave Respondent Fernandez a 30-day
credit. When her account became due, Complainant Bernal, Jr. made several demands but Ms.
Fernandez refused to pay her bills in the amount of Twenty Thousand One Hundred Eight Pesos
(P20,108.00) excluding interest.

ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of willful failure to pay just debt and misconduct.

RULING:

Yes. No doubt, willful failure to pay just debt does not become a court employee, hence proscribed
and subject to disciplinary action under Book V, Title I, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Section 46(b)(22) of
the Revised Administrative Code (E.O. 292). The offense is classified and penalized under Sec.
22(i), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Revised Administrative Code, as
amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, as follows:

SEC. 22. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less
grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government
service.

Neither does unjustified failure to comply with this Court’s directive for respondent to comment on
the Letter-Complaint become her. It in fact constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination or
disrespect.
 GABRIEL DE LA PAZ, Complainant, vs. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, Respondents.

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1857. July 29, 2005

FACTS:

On October 2004, Judge Santos B. Adiong was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law in A.M.
No. RTJ-04-1863 for which he was meted a penalty of six months suspension without salary and
benefits. On November 2004. Judge Adiong was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and
abuse of authority with a penalty of six months suspension without pay in the instant administrative
case.

ISSUE: Whether the abovementioned two decisions each imposing penalties of six months
suspension should be served simultaneously or successively.

RULING:

The penalty of suspension for six months shall be served successively. These two cases arose from
two different causes of action and, therefore, the penalties should both be served. Moreover, in
the en banc Resolution dated February 25, 1992, the Court categorically stated that in case of two
or more suspensions, the same shall be served successively by the erring lawyer.
 EVELYN SUAREZ-DE LEON, Complainant, vs. JUDGE SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, Pairing
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Pasig City, respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1935. July 29, 2005

FACTS:

Judge Santiago Estrella of the RTC was charged with serious misconduct and gross ignorance of
the law in a letter-complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator by Evelyn Suarez-De
Leon.

Complainant is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 51203, filed with the RTC, Pasig City, Branch
155, for annulment of judicial sale of several parcels of land. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed
Civil Case No. 51203 for failure of the plaintiffs to prosecute. Complainant then moved for
reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The trial court granted the motion and lifted the order of
dismissal. Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The CA rendered a decision directing among others, the dismissal of Civil Case No. 51203.
Complainant appealed to this Court. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 94918. The Court
rendered judgment, that Civil Case No. 51203 is reinstated only to determine that portion which
belongs to petitioners and to annul the sale with regard to said portion.

However, four years later herein respondent judge who was the pairing judge of RTC, Pasig City,
Branch 67, issued an order dismissing Civil Case No. 51203.

Herein complainant prays for the separation of respondent judge from the service contending that in
issuing the above-quoted order, the latter has disregarded the decision of this Court in G.R. No.
94918 and, as such, has shown evident bad faith and gross ignorance of the law as well as manifest
partiality in favor of the defendants in Civil Case No. 51203, to the damage and prejudice of
complainant.

ISSUE: Whether respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

RULING:

No. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to
existing law and jurisprudence, but were also motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and
corruption. Gross ignorance of the law is a serious accusation, and a person who accuses a judge of
this very serious offense must be sure of the grounds for the accusation.

In the instant case, we agree with the finding of the OCA that there is no evidence to prove that
respondent judge dismissed Civil Case No. 51203 because of any improper or corrupt motives.

Hence, he cannot be held guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

 NELDA APOSTOL, Complainant, vs. JUNIE JOVENCIO IPAC, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court -
Office of the Clerk of Court, Malolos City, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-04-1865 July 28, 2005

FACTS:

Complainant Nelda Apostol filed an administrative complaint against Junie Jovencio G. Ipac.

In Civil Case for ejectment, on appeal, the RTC reversed the MTC dismissal of the case and, by
Decision rendered judgment in favor of the therein plaintiff-appellant Silver Spirit and against the
therein defendants-appellees CWB Plastics Corporation. Its decision having become final and
executory, the RTC directed the issuance of a writ of execution.

Subsequently respondent served on CWB Plastics Corporation a Notice of Levy on Execution of its
properties. Also, respondent took possession of a Toyota Corolla vehicle, over the protest of herein
complainant who claimed ownership thereof, she presenting to him a Certificate of Registration of
the vehicle and the Official Receipt covering payment of registration fees both in her name, by the
Land Transportation Office, as well as a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by CWB transferring the
ownership of the vehicle to her.

Complainant having failed to restrain respondent from taking possession of the vehicle, she filed her
Affidavit charging respondent with grave abuse of authority.

ISSUE: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable.

RULING:

No. A sheriff’s duty in the execution of a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. When he levies
on a property which is claimed by one other than the judgment obligor, Rule 39, Section 16 of the
Rules of Court directs him to observe the following procedure:

SEC. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. – If the property levied on is claimed
by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of
his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and
serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the
officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the
officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than
the value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be
determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping
of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefore is filed within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond. x x x, to free him from liability for
damages in connection therewith.

The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to any third-party
claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third
person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the judgment
obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third-party claimant who
filed a frivolous plainly spurious claim.
 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. DOLORES T. VILLAFLOR, Clerk
of Court II, NORBERTO C. CARPIO, Process Server and SUSANA L. RAMOS, Court
Stenographer, all of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Quezon-Licab, Nueva
Ecija, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-05-1991. July 28, 2005

FACTS:

A spot judicial and financial audit was conducted on April 29, 2004 in the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC) of Quezon–Licab, Nueva Ecija. As of audit date, the court had a caseload of one
hundred sixteen (116) cases. Of the eighty-six (86) criminal cases, there was no further action or
setting for a considerable length of time in Criminal Cases Nos. 2661, 2772, 2354, 2895, 2896,
2886, 2919 and 2844 while twenty-seven (27) of the thirty (30) civil cases were also unacted upon
for a considerable length of time, to wit: Civil Cases Nos. 1087, 1069, 1072, 1090, 1115, 1116-1124,
1034-1040, 1042-1045 and 1047.

The audit team also observed that the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) collection as of April 29,
2004 as well as the Legal Research Fund (LRF) were not entered in their respective cash books.
The cash count of the JDF resulted in an overage in the amount of P300.00 due to the failure to
record the transactions in the cash book.

When the audit team arrived on April 29, 2004 on or about 8:30 a.m., Susana L. Ramos, Court
Stenographer I and Romeo V. Campos, Utility Worker I, together with a policeman assigned at the
Quezon Police station, were watching television. They also noted that the court personnel were not
regularly recording in the log book their time of arrival and departure from the office. Ramos did not
record her attendance for the month of April 2004, while Clerk of Court Dolores T. Villaflor logged
her arrival and departure for April 29, 2004 although she was not around when the audit team
arrived. Worse, she had made entries for the following day, April 30, 2004.

The docket books were not updated and a number of subpoenas and summons have no official
returns. There were also instances where the parties receiving the subpoenas merely signed
opposite the names of the addressee without printing their name and indicating their relationship to
the addressee as well as the date when the same was received.

Based on the recommendation of the audit team, a Memorandum was issued by Deputy Court
Administrator (DCA) Jose P. Perez dated June 29, 2004 directing:

1. Judge Mendoza to resolve and take appropriate actions on Civil Cases Nos. 1108, 1087, 1069,
1072, 1090, 1033-1040, 1042-1045, 1047, and 1115-1124 and on Criminal Cases Nos. 2661, 2772,
2354, 2844, 2895, 2896, 2886 and 2919.

2. Clerk of Court Villaflor to: (2-a) strictly comply with all the circulars issued for the proper
management of Judiciary Funds collections specifically the recording of transactions in their
respective cash books; (2-b) explain within ten (10) days from notice hereof: (2-b.1) why she already
entered her time of arrival and departure in the log book on 29-30 April 2004 when she was not yet
around on April 29, 2004 on or about 9 o’clock in the morning; and (2-b.2) her failure to issue the
corresponding summons in Civil Cases Nos. 1033-1040 and 1043-1047 and the recording of
transaction of the JDF Account and Legal Research Fund from 01-29 April 2004 at their respective
cash books; (2-c) take appropriate action to: (2-c.1) provide a logbook and the daily time records
reflective of the correct and accurate time in and out of court personnel and strictly implement the
observance of the regular working hours and proper decorum in the Court premises specifically
watching television during office hours; (2-c.2) regularly supervise the updating of the entries in the
docket books and the preparation of the return of service of court processes of the Process Server
both with warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely; and (2-d) submit
within thirty (30) days from notice hereof a report on the action taken on the cases mentioned in
paragraphs (A to B-5) and the present status of the said cases in chronological order as stated,
attaching therewith copies of the decisions or orders of the action taken thereon for reference;

3. Santiago V. de la Cruz, Clerk-in-Charge of the Docket Books, same Court, to update the entries in
the docket books and submit compliance therewith within thirty (30) days from notice hereof;

4. Norberto C. Carpio, Junior Process Server, same Court, is hereby directed to: (4-a) make an
official and accurate return of the processes of the Court assigned to him with warning that a
repetition of the same shall be dealt with severely; and (4-b) explain within ten (10) days from notice
why summons in Civil Cases Nos. 1033-1040 and 1043-1047 were improperly served; and

5. Dolores T. Villaflor, Clerk of Court II, and Ms. Susana L. Ramos, Court Stenographer I, same
Court, to explain within ten (10) days from notice why Ms. Ramos is not included in the personnel log
book for the month of April 2004.

Likewise, Presiding Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza is hereby directed to closely monitor the reporting for
work of the court personnel thereat.

In their respective explanation and compliance reports, Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza apprised the
Court of the actions taken in Cases Nos. 1108, 2661, 2772, 2354, 1087, 1069, 1072, 1090, 1033,
1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1047, 2844, 2895, 2896, 2886,
2919, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123 and 1124. He also reported that all
court personnel had been advised to be punctual and to record in the log book their actual time of
arrival and departure.

For her part, Villaflor explained that the non-recording of the JDF and LRF transactions from April 1-
29, 2004 was due to the failure of the designated clerk to complete the list in the cash book. She
alleged that since the JDF is remitted through postal money order and the cut-off period is every
10th day of the succeeding month, the same may still be done at the end of the month. She admitted
that it was their practice to make entries in the personnel logbook on the basis of one employee per
sheet and the non-inclusion of the name of Ramos was due to inadvertence. On April 29, 2004,
Villaflor was constrained to return to her residence to locate her missing wallet, hence she was not
around when the audit team arrived although she had already logged in. With regard to the entries
pertaining to April 30, 2004, she averred that she had the intention of reporting for work the following
day and promised that the incident will not be repeated. She vowed to strictly implement the
observance of working hours and proper decorum in the office and to accurately log their daily arrival
and departure from office. She also undertook to supervise and monitor the timely return of service
of court processes.

Process Server Carpio explained that he failed to complete the service of processes because the
defendants were residing in six (6) different remote barangays and they were also absent when the
processes were being served. The unavailability of transportation also hampered his mobility. He
reported though that he had already complied with the filing of official and accurate return of court
processes assigned to him for service.

Court Stenographer Ramos admitted her mistake in not signing the log book. She professed that the
same will not be repeated. On the other hand, Clerk dela Cruz reported that he has completed the
updating of the entries in the docket books.
In the Resolution dated April 13, 2005, we resolved to:

(a) NOTE the report of the Judicial Audit Team, Office of the Court Administrator on the spot judicial
and financial audits conducted on April 29, 2004 at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Quezon-Licab,
Nueva Ecija, presided over by Hon. Tertulo A. Mendoza who was also designated acting presiding
judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cabanatuan City and Municipal Trial Court,
Zaragoza, both in Nueva Ecija;

(b) RE-DOCKET this matter as a regular administrative matter;

(c) NOTE the series of compliance submitted by Presiding Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza, Clerk of Court
Dolores T. Villaflor, Process Server Norberto C. Carpio, Court Stenographer Susana L. Ramos,
Clerk Santiago V. dela Cruz, all of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija;

(d) ADVISE Presiding Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza to CLOSELY SUPERVISE his subordinates in the
performance of their official functions and to STRICTLY IMPLEMENT the observance of the regular
working hours and proper decorum within the Court premises;

(e) require Clerk of Court Dolores T. Villaflor and Process Server Norberto C. Carpio
to MANIFEST within five (5) days from notice hereof if they are willing to submit the case for
resolution based on the pleadings filed; and

(f) REPRIMAND Court Stenographer Susana L. Ramos for her failure to indicate in the personnel
log her daily time of arrival and departure from office in violation of Circular No. 7-2003 (Certificate of
Service and Daily Time Records [DTRS]/Bundy Cards of Judges and Personnel of the Lower Courts
issued by the Office of the Court Administrator).

On May 31, 2005, Villaflor and Carpio filed their Joint Manifestation requesting for ten (10) days to
submit additional documents which to date have not been received.

We agree with the OCA that Villaflor failed to perform her duties and functions diligently. Considering
that Judge Mendoza is also designated as Acting Presiding Judge of two (2) other courts and reports
only in the MCTC Quezon-Licab on Thursday and every first and third Tuesday of the month, she is
expected to be more cautious in the performance of her duties. She should have been more
attentive in supervising and monitoring the conduct of the staff, including their strict observance of
office hours. As Clerk of Court, she is directly responsible for the custody and reliability of the time
recorded in the registry book.1 Unfortunately, we find that she had no moral authority to compel the
other court personnel to make accurate entries in the log book because she also made untruthful
entries therein.

As the court’s cashier and disbursement officer, Villaflor is primarily responsible to maintain the cash
books and record the transactions thereat daily.2 Her failure to record the JDF and LRF transactions
from April 1-29, 2004 should not be ignored. Her attempt to pass on the responsibility to her
subordinate to justify her negligence is not acceptable.

The explanation of Carpio on his failure to make an official return of the summons in Civil Cases
Nos. 1033-1040 and 1043-1047 lacks merit. It must be stressed that if summons is returned without
being served on any or all of the defendants, the server should also serve a copy of the return on the
plaintiff’s counsel, stating the reasons for the failure of service within five (5) days
therefrom.3 Service may also be effected by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by leaving copies
at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.4 As
a result of Carpio’s negligence, the case proceedings were suspended for more than three (3) years.

Clerks of courts are the administrative officers of courts and have, inter alia, control and supervision
over all court records. They should then see to it that subordinates perform their functions well.5 As
an officer of the court, Villaflor is duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance
of her officially designated duties. Villaflor did not measure to this expectation. Thus, we find her
administratively liable for simple neglect of duty.6 The fine of P5,000.00 recommended by OCA is
well-taken. In Magleo v. Atty. Tayag,7 the respondent clerk of court was ordered to pay a fine of
P5,000.00 for neglect of duty.

We held in Atty. Dajao v. Lluch8 that the "duty of a process server is vital to the machinery of the
justice system. His primary duty is ‘to serve court notices’ which precisely requires utmost care on
his part by seeing to it that all notices assigned to him are duly served upon the parties". In that
case, respondent process server who forgot to serve the notice to the parties was found guilty of
neglect of duty. In this case, Carpio failed to serve summons in several civil cases which delayed the
proceedings. We find his actuation inimical to the speedy dispensation of justice. Considering the
heavy backlog of cases in the trial courts, negligence of this kind, if lightly taken, will definitely hinder
their speedy disposition.9 He should also be meted the penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000.00.

In government service, both the highest and the lowest positions are impressed with public interest
and are, by the solemn mandate of the Constitution, public trusts. Faithful adherence to this public
trust character of a public office is strictly demanded from those involved in the administration of
justice because their task is a sacred one.10

WHEREFORE, Clerk of Court Dolores T. Villaflor and Process Server Norberto C. Carpio, of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija, are each FINED in the amount of
P5,000.00 for neglect of duty and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act
shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.
 RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE EDMUNDO T. ACUÑA, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 123.

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891. July 28, 2005

FACTS:

The Office of the Court Administrator received a Letter from "Concerned citizens of the lower court"
reporting the alleged "practices" of Judge Edmundo T. Acuña. According to the letter, the
respondent Judge conducted trials, signed orders and even sentenced accused while on official
leave

The letter went on to question whether the respondent had authority to impose such sentences,
issue orders and conduct hearings. Aside from listing the respondent’s "dialogues," his "favorite
expressions" were likewise listed, as follows: 1. Putris; 2. Anak ng pating; 3. Putang Ina; 4. Pogi,
beauty; 5. Tulungan nyo naman ako, hirap na hirap na ko.; 6. Mali ka na naman.

According to the unknown complainants, the respondent Judge also "spends much of his energy
talking" and loves to berate and embarrass people, not caring whether he speaks in open court, as
long as he has an audience. The complainants further stated that the respondent’s decisions usually
take about seven to ten drafts, as he "changes his mind so many times." It was further alleged that
the respondent loves to "glorify himself," and that his behavior was weird.

ISSUE: 1. Whether respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the rules.

2. Whether the respondent judge is guilty of impropriety.

RULING:

1. No. The act of respondent does not constitute such a gross ignorance of the rules that will warrant
an administrative liability. In view of the lack of malice and improper motive in reporting for work and
discharging his functions and taking into account his desire to dispense justice promptly, respondent
cannot be said to have been grossly ignorant of the rules as to be deemed administratively liable.

2. Yes. It is paramount that a judge’s official conduct should be free from the appearance of
impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only in the bench and in the performance of his official
duties, but also in his everyday life should be beyond reproach. This includes following simple rules
as well as conducting himself in the most respectable and honorable manner possible. Only through
such kind of demeanor of the members of the judiciary that the institution earns the respect and faith
of our people in the administration of justice

In Ignacio v. Valenzuela, a judge who heard a motion while he was on vacation was held guilty of
impropriety and was meted a fine of one month’s salary. To reiterate, a judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Thus, in conducting hearings and
promulgation of decisions on the day when his official leave of absence was to commence, the
respondent Judge was guilty of impropriety. Considering, however, that no bad faith or ill motive can
be attributed to the respondent, the Court deems it proper to reprimand him for his actuations.
RESTITUTO L. OPIS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, and REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BOAC, MARINDUQUE, BRANCH 94, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1942 July 28, 2005

FACTS:

Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano stands charged with gross inefficiency, serious misconduct and grave
abuse of discretion. The respondent Judge issued an Order voluntarily inhibiting himself from
hearing and deciding Civil Case No. 00-5, together with all the other cases handled by the
complainant and pending before his (judge’s) sala. According to the complainant, this was the
respondent’s way of retaliating against him, but since none of the parties in the said cases had
moved for his inhibition, the issuance of such orders was improper. The complainant further alleged
that were it not for the appointment of Judge Alejandro Arenas as presiding judge the said cases
would not have been included in the court calendar. The complainant further manifested that the
respondent Judge failed to issue an inhibition order and did not set for hearing a personal case of
his. He claimed that the respondent Judge was "selective" in issuing inhibition orders. Finally, the
complainant further alleged that the respondent Judge is a habitual absentee.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent Judge is guilty of serious misconduct, inefficiency and grave
abuse of discretion.

RULING:

No.

It must be stressed that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular
or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available, such as a
motion for reconsideration, or an appeal. Before a respondent judge can be declared as biased and
partial in favor of a party, the Court has to be shown acts and conduct of the judge clearly indicative
of arbitrariness or prejudice. Mere suspicion that the judge is partial to a party is not enough; there
should be adequate evidence to prove the charge. Even an order of inhibition is not administrative,
but judicial in nature, and when reversed by the Court, as in this case, could at most be considered
as an error in judgment. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad
faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise
would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law
in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.

The charge of habitual absenteeism must likewise be dismissed, considering that the complainant
failed to substantiate such allegation.

It is submitted that this final charge may be dispensed with. While disregard of this Court’s Circulars
cannot be taken lightly, the purpose of raffling (i.e., to obviate impression of impartiality in the
assignment of cases to predetermined judges) has not been defeated under the circumstances, as
indeed respondent would undoubtedly be the very same magistrate to handle Civil Case 00-5
regardless of raffle. Moreover, there was no showing that respondent willfully or knowingly violate[d]
the aforementioned circular. Complainant [failed] to establish bad faith or malice on the part of
respondent, nor that the latter was moved by impartiality or other ill motive in failing to observe the
strict rules on raffles. It is settled rule that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the
burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence.
 RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA.

A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC. July 22, 2005]

FACTS:

Atty. Noel S. Sorreda wrote a letter addressed to the Chief Justice over his frustrations of the
outcome of his cases decided by the Supreme Court. The letter contained derogatory and malignant
remarks which are highly insulting. The Court accorded Atty. Sorreda to explain, however, instead of
appearing before the court, he wrote another letter with insulting remarks as the first one. The court
was thus offended with his remarks.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sorreda can be held guilty of contempt due to the remarks he
has made in his letters addressed to the court.

HELD:

Yes. Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to embarrass the court or to bring it into
disrepute have no place in a pleading. Their employment serves no useful purpose. On the contrary,
they constitute direct contempt of court or contempt in facie curiae and a violation of the lawyer’s
oath and a transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As officer of the court, Atty.
Sorreda has the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to promote confidence in
the fair administration of justice.[24] No less must this be and with greater reasons in the case of the
country’s highest court, the Supreme Court, as the last bulwark of justice and democracy

Atty. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is not to his client but to the administration of
justice, to which his client’s success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of law and ethics. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascription
can hardly be justified nor can it have a place in the dignity of judicial forum. Civility among members
of the legal profession is a treasured tradition that must at no time be lost to it. Hence, Atty. Sorreda
has transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment and constructive criticism to the detriment
of the orderly administration of justice. Free expression, after all, must not be used as a vehicle to
satisfy one’s irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this Court and its
magistrates.

Thus, ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA is found guilty both of contempt of court and violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility amounting to gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member
of the Bar.