SUMMARY 1

OCA V Ret J Galvez

1. After the retirement of Judge Fanuñal of Iloilo in 2001, OCA directed Judge Galvez to be assisted
by two other judges to resolve the left pending cases.
2. The Court issued a show cause order against the three judges for their failure to comply.
3. The two other judges provided the deemed satisfactory compliance, while Judge Galvez is
allegedly unaware of the Court's twin resolutions against him.
4. Judge Galvez filed a motion that he only came to know about the matter in 2018 and he
professes that these cases have already been abandoned as no one called his attention by filing
the appropriate motion.
5. In its Memorandum, OCA further mentions pending and dismissed administrative cases filed
against Judge Galvez.
6. The Supreme Court ruled that compliance with the directives issued by the Court is one of the
foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office.
7. The disregard of the directives issued to him clearly constituted insubordination.
8. It is not enough that no parties were prejudiced or that the cases were deemed abandoned
because of their inaction, judicial norms should have been maintained.
9. The transgression committed by Judge Galvez touched on the parties' right to the speedy
disposition of cases which resulted in the delay for at least 17 years.
10. Judge Galvez, is found guilty of gross misconduct and fined.

Chin v Gustilo

1. A complaint was filed by Chin against Judge Gustilo and Clerk of Court Balagtas.
2. Injured during his altercation with Girao, Chin contends that Balagtas should not have received
Girao's motion for bail while Judge Gustilo should not have acted on the motion without notice
to the prosecution.
3. Chin cited some provisions of Rule 114 of the 1988 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
4. Judge Gustilo contend that no notice was required citing former Chief Justice Moran's
comments.
5. The comments of former Chief Justice Moran were made on the provisions of the Rules of Court
as amended in 1958, where notice to the fiscal was required only in cases in which bail was a
matter of discretion.
6. The rule was changed effective October 1, 1988.
7. In all instances, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal,
or at least he must be asked for his recommendation.
8. Respondent was in error.
9. Nonetheless the Court stressed the importance of the duty of members of the judiciary to keep
abreast of the laws, rulings and jurisprudence affecting their jurisdiction.
 10. Respondent judge is reprimanded and Clerk of Court Danilo Balagtas is absolved.

OCA v Justalero

1. Respondent judge was the Assisting Judge of the RTC of Barotac Viejo and the Presiding Judge of
Branch 32, RTC Iloilo City.
2. Judicial audits were conducted in both courts with among the observations are the unusual
speed by which cases for declaration of nullity of marriage were decided, its numerous
irregularities and the affidavits of cohabitation notarized and administered by himself.
3. In notarizing such affidavits, Judge Justalero did not require presentation of competent proof of
identity.
4. The OCA recommended the dismissal of Judge Justalero.
5. The Supreme Court affirms OCA.
6. Judge Justalero solemnized marriage ceremonies and notarized affidavits of cohabitation in
violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, A.M. No. 08-7-429- RTC and A.O. No. 12-
2010.
7. In resolving nullity cases, Judge Justalero disregarded the rules of procedure under A.M. Nos.
02-11-10-SC and 02-11-11-SC.
8. The heavy caseload of Judge Justalero mitigates the imposable penalty against him.
9. The Court imposed the penalty of suspension from office with warning
10. The Court finds him GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and gross misconduct.

Fajardo v Natino

1. A Complaint was filed by Fajardo against Judge Natino of RTC Iloilo City, Branch 26 charging the
violation of the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
2. As summarized by Justice Maxino, Judge Natino was charged of the Violation of the 90-day
period within which a case is to be Resolved, Delay in the release of the Decision., Falsification
of Certificate of Service, Failure to resolve the matters covered in the Motion to Show Cause
(Contempt) and Entertaining a second motion for reconsideration.
3. Fajardo's theory that the delay in Civil Case No. 20225 and 07-29298, were all due to corruption.
4. In his Comment, Judge Natino refuted all charges against him and explained that the delay was
caused by circumstances beyond his control.
5. Justice Maxino noted Fajardo's failure to appear in the hearings where no merit was found in all
charges against Judge Natino, except as regards the delay in Civil Case No. 20225.
6. The records are bereft of any proof to support the allegation on the intentional delay on Civil
Case No. 20225, much less the charge of corruption against Judge Natino.
7. The Court ruled that In this case Judge Natino failed to decide Civil Case No. 20225 within the
mandatory 90-day period provided in the Constitution.
8. The justifications and explanations on such delay are not sufficient.
9. The Court has allowed to request reasonable extensions of time needed to decide cases, where
he did not avail.
 10. The Court finds Judge Natino GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision, for which he is
FINED.

Ganzon v Ereño

1. Ganzon II charged Judge Ereño of the RTC Branc h 27, Iloilo City, with having knowingly rendered
an unjust judgment, unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and gross
inefficiency/neglect in the performance of duty
2. While the parties agreed that no votes should be considered in favor of either party in one of
the precincts, yet the respondent judge credited candidates votes coming from the said
precinct.
3. Also, the tabulation of the election results indicated certain inconsistencies and deductions of
votes.
4. Complainant further claimed that the respondent judge delayed the resolution of the pending
incidents, and he entertained various motions and pleadings from the protestee.
5. And while respondent judge took cognizance of cases on 1995, the protest were decided only on
1997.
6. The respondent judge denied the charges and questioned the motive of the complainant.
7. The OCA recommended that the charges, with the exception of the case for unreasonable delay
in the administration of justice, be dismissed, and that respondent be meted a fine.galle
8. The Court ruled that in order to justify a disciplinary action against a judge, or to render him
accountable, for an unjust judgment, the error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious or
deliberate, or done in bad faith.
9. The court find respondent Judge Ereño guilty of delay in disposing EPC Case No. 10-1995 and 10-
1995-A with a fine.
10. The other charges against respondent judge in this administrative case are dismissed.

[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1412. March 28, 2003.] BERNIE G. MIAQUE, NOEL R. CABOBOS, RODOLFO H
DIVINAGRACIA and PETER G. JIMENEA, complainants, vs. JUDGE NILO P. PAMONAG, in his capacity as
Acting Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pototan-Mina, Branch 008, Iloilo Province,
respondent.

1. Complainants were charged before the MCTC of Pototan-Mina, Iloilo, Branch 008 by respondent
Judge Pamonag, with the crime of libel.
2. Respondent Judge conducted a preliminary investigation and issued warrants for the arrest of
the complainants.
3. Complainants filed an administrative case against the respondent Judge for "gross ignorance of
the law, grave abuse of judicial functions and authority and issuing patently illegal orders.
4. Complainants contended that under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the respondent
Judge neither has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation nor to issue warrants for
their arrest.
 5. Respondent Judge admitted his mistake and OCA found the respondent guilty of gross ignorance
of the Law.
6. He repleaded, and attached therein article declared as void the preliminary investigation he
conducted and the warrants of arrest.
7. The Supreme Court agreed with the finding of the OCA.
8. It is imperative that they should have basic knowledge of the law.
9. The respondent relying on the provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, prior to its
amendment by Republic Act No. 4363, was an honest mistake, but is not condoned for his failure
to keep himself updated with the amendments and latest jurisprudence on the said statute
10. Respondent Judge Pamonag was ordered to pay a FINE and STERNLY WARNED

[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1503. December 13, 2001.] LUZ LILIA, complainant, vs. JUDGE BARTOLOME M.
FANUÑAL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Iloilo City, respondent.

1. Complainant Luz Lilia alleged that respondent Judge promulgated a decision finding accused
Salvador Lilia and Jessie Lilia guilty of Attempted Murder.
2. For failure of their bondsmen to be present during the promulgation, the accused were ordered
committed to Iloilo Rehabilitation Center.
3. The accused filed their Notice of Appeal and Motion for Admission to Bail which the respondent
denied for having been filed out of time.
4. Their Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.
5. Respondent Judge filed a Comment denying the allegations in the complaint.
6. OCA recommended that respondent Judge be fined for Gross Ignorance of the Law when he
disapproved the Notice of Appeal seasonably filed by accused based merely on [the] failure of
the accused to manifest in open court after a judgment of conviction was promulgated, that
they (accused) are going to appeal said judgment.
7. The law gives the accused fifteen (15) days from the date of promulgation of judgment of
conviction to avail [of] other remedies.
8. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent Judge compulsorily retired.
9. However, the retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from the service does not preclude the
finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable.
10. In this case, the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law
from which the respondent was fined.

[A.M. No. RTJ-02-1719. March 31, 2006.] ATTY. JOSE B. TIONGCO , complainant, vs. JUDGE ADRIANO S.
SAVILLO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Iloilo City ,

1. An administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Tiongco against Judge Savillo of the RTC, Branch
30, Iloilo City.
2. Among the allegations of the complainant are: the rendering erroneous decisions and not
wearing of black robe during court sessions of the respondent judge.
 3. OCA recommended that respondent judge be held liable for delay in the promulgation of the
decision and recommended that respondent judge be directed to wear the judicial robe in his
courtroom
4. The Supreme Court ruled that, the Constitution mandates all lower court judges to decide cases
within the reglementary period of 90 days from the time the case is submitted for decision.
5. Respondent judge admits and accepts full responsibility for the delay in rendering the decisions
in the cases of People v. Tuburan and People v. Hormina.
6. Circular No. 25 directs all Presiding Judges of all Trial Courts shall wear black robes during
sessions of their respective Courts in order to heighten public consciousness on the solemnity of
judicial Proceeding.
7. Respondent judge's medical condition may exempt him from complying with Circular No. 25, but
he must first inform the Court, through the OCA, of his health problem and request exemption
from the circular's coverage.
8. The Court is alarmed by complainant's unrestrained use of unsavory, even defamatory and
offensive language against respondent judge in his pleadings before the Court.
9. By showing disrespect to and contempt for respondent judge, complainant diminished public
confidence in respondent judge and, eventually, in the judiciary.
10. The Court finds Judge Savillo GUILTY of (1) undue delay in rendering the decisions in People v.
Tubaran and People v. Hormina, and (2) violating Administrative Circular and ordered tty. Jose B.
Tiongco to show cause why he should not be held administratively liable.

[A.M. No. P-13-3108. April 10, 2013.] (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3465-P) L.G. JOHNNA E. LOZADA and
L.G. LIZA S. MILLADO , complainants, vs. MA. THERESA G. ZERRUDO, Clerk of Court IV, and SALVACION D.
SERMONIA, Clerk IV, both of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Iloilo City,
respondents.

1. Complainants were security guards in OCC-MTCC of Iloilo City and were directed by Executive
Judge Natino to collect the time in record sheets of the court employees.
2. One day, a lady took the record sheets and they noticed that it had been distributed among late
employees.
3. The complainants recalled that respondent Sermonia angrily approached them and berated
them.
4. Zerrudo) supposedly came out of her office, approached the complainants, pointed her finger at
Lozada, and yelled at them.
5. Complainants averred that this happened in full view of other court personnel and visitors which
actuations were intended to embarrass them as lowly guards of the Hall of Justice.
6. OCA directed Sermoni and Zerudo to file their respective comments on the complaint where
neither of the respondents had filed a comment.
7. Instead of complying with the OCA’s directives, respondent requested or additional time to file
their respective comments.
8. After almost two years the respondents' adamant refusal to file their respective comments
ggravated the respondents' liability for "humiliat[ing] the complainants/security guards to cover
up the irregularities they were committing vis-a-vis the record sheets containing the attendance
of the court's employees."
 9. This Court has consistently directed the employees of the judiciary to exercise self-restraint and
civility at all times.
10. Respondents were found guilty of discourtesy and are hereby REPRIMANDED with a WARNING.

[A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361. February 2, 2016.] (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4144-RTJ)

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, MAKATI CITY, respondent.

1. An administrative complaint was filed by OCA against Judge Ruiz, Presiding Judge of the RTC
Branch 61, Makati City tracing its root from Criminal Case Nos. 27467-68 where the respondent
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
2. OCA reasoned out that conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is classified as a serious
charge under Section 8 (b) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
3. In his comment the respondent posited that the administrative complaint against him is
premature because his Sandiganbayan convictions are not yet final.
4. The respondent also stated that he went on leave of absence after his Sandiganbayan
conviction, and had submitted his application for optional retirement.
5. The court find no merit in the respondent's claim.
6. Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants the Supreme Court administrative
supervision over all courts and their personnel.
7. Based on Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, disciplinary proceedings against sitting judges
and justices may be instituted
8. In any case, that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service does not
necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to rule on complaints filed while he was still in the
service nor does separation from office render a pending administrative charge moot and
academic.
9. The conduct of judges, official or otherwise, must always be beyond reproach and must be free
from any suspicion tainting him, his exalted office, and the Judiciary.
10. Judge Ruiz was DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE and declared DISBARRED and STRICKEN FROM
the roll of attorneys.

[A.M. No. MTJ-04-1542. March 30, 2006.] ATTY. VICENTE B. DE ASIS , complainant, vs. JUDGE ARTURO G.
DORONILA, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jordan-Buenavista-Nueva Valencia,
Guimaras, responden

AO 128-200 was issued designating Judge Melliza of the 10th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Calinog-
Bingawan, Iloilo, as Assisting Judge of the MCTC-Guimaras. AO 128-2002 also directed Judge Melliza to
try and decide newly filed cases at the MCTC-Guimaras. On the other hand, in the same AO 128-2002
the Court directed respondent Judge Doronila to try and decide pending cases.

1. Criminal Case No. 6024-B was filed against Atty. De Asis before the MCTC-Guimaras.
2. Respondent Judge Doronila conducted an examination and issued a warrant of arrest against De
Asis.
3. De Asis filed the instant administrative Complaint claiming that respondent Judge Doronila
violated of AO 128-2002.
4. Judge Doronila points out that there was no one to act on these new cassummaryes until the
designation of Judge Diamante to substitute for Judge Melliza and he could be subjected to
administrative complaints if he did not act on those.
5. De Asis contends that there was no need to conduct those without even informing De Asis of the
criminal complaint against him.
6. OCA recommended that respondent Judge Doronila be fined with a stern warning.
7. The OCA stated that respondent Judge Doronila was not divested of his jurisdiction over Criminal
Case No. 6024-B and that Judge Melliza was the one authorized.
8. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA and the language of AO 128-2002 is clear and simple.
9. Judge Melliza shall try and decide newly filed cases while respondent Judge Doronila shall
continue trying and deciding pending cases including those cases submitted for decision.
10. Respondent Judge Arturo G. Doronila GUILTY of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and
circulars classified as a less serious charge. He is FINED Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000) with a

[A.C. No. 7253. February 18, 2020.] ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, complainant, vs. ATTY. OFELIA M.

D. ARTUZ, * respondent. [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717. February 18, 2020.] (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-1911-
MTJ) ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II , complainant, vs. JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
IN CITIES, BRANCH 5, ILOILO CITY, ILOILO, respondent.

1. Atty. Nava II filed A.C. No. 7253 against Atty. Artuz claiming that he previously filed a Request for
Inhibition and Re-Raffle before the respondent.
2. However, in her comment to his request, she willfully and viciously maligned, insulted, and
scorned him and his father, who is not a party to the case.
3. Atty. Nava II also filed A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, seeking to nullify respondent's nomination and
appointment as judge.
4. Atty. Nava II alleged that the respondent is unfit and incompetent to be appointed as a judge as
she faces several criminal and administrative cases.
5. The Court directed respondent to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
her.
6. In connection with A.C. No. 7253, required respondent to comment on Atty. Nava II's complaint.
7. OBC recommended that respondent be disbarred and that her name be ordered stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys.
 8. Notwithstanding the opportunity given her, she failed to provide sufficient explanation.
9. Instead she opted to focus more on attacking and impugning Atty. Nava II's integrity and
credibility.
10. The Court finds respondent Atty. Artuz GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, CPRA and the
Canons of Professional Ethics and DISBARRED and STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys.

[A.M. No. R-465-MTJ. June 29, 1989.] MAMERTA NIDUA , complainant, vs. HON. CORNELIO LAZARO,
formerly Municipal Trial Court Judge of Iloilo City, now Regional Trial Court Judge, Branch 39, Iloilo City.

1. In AM-R-466-MTJ, a complaint was filed by Nidua, against Respondent Judge Lazaro for having
failed to decide Criminal Case No. 61358.
2. Respondent claims that he had prepared the Decision but was not promulagted due to
circumstances brought about.
3. Complainant contends that the circumstances had nothing to do with the sending of subpoena
and that the delay in the promulgation for five (5) years.
4. In AM No. 87-9-2310-MTCC, Judge Medina’s letter sought a clarification if it should be raffled,
the Court answered in a resolution and required respondent Judge to explain why he failed to
decide the cases
5. The respondent contend that the problem did not involve graft and corruption, but only one of
Mismanagement.
6. Clerk of Court Antillon concluded her letter by pleading for understanding of her difficult
situation, because she could not go against the instructions of Judge Lazaro.
7. The Court find merit in Complainant's charge that there was unreasonable delay in the
administration of justice and neglect of duty on the part of Respondent Judge.
8. Antillon was found negligent as well in the performance of her duties and must realize that their
administrative functions are just as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice.
9. Respondent judge is expected to keep his own record of cases submitted for decision and
cannot take refuge behind the mismanagement by Court personnel that is as much his
responsibility
10. In having failed to promulgate the Decision in Criminal Case No. 61358 Judge Lazaro was ordered
to pay a FINE as well as Antillon.

[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459. October 14, 2003.]

IMELDA Y. MADERADA, complainant, vs. Judge ERNESTO H.

MEDIODEA, 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Cabatuan

and Maasin, Iloilo, respondent.

 1. An administrative complaint was filed by Maderada against Mediodea.
2. The complainant filed an action for forcible entry with a prayer for preliminary injunction, (TRO)
and damages 3 covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure before the respondent.
3. The defendants' lawyer questioned the authority of complainant to appear on behalf of and as
counsel for her co-plaintiff.
4. Complainant filed Motions for the judgment on the civil case which the respondent denied due
of the pending hearing for the issuance of a restraining order and an injunction.
5. Respondent avers that the delay in the resolution of the case is based on the mandate of law
and the rules of procedure to pass upon every motion presented before him.
6. OCA agreed that the ssuance of the preliminary injunction prayed for in the Complaint should
first be resolved before judgment should be rendered in the principal action.
7. The SC ruled that although respondent is correct in asserting that he is mandated to rule on
every motion, cases should be decided within the prescribed period.
8. Also the raison d'etre for allowing litigants to represent themselves in court will not apply when
a person is already appearing for another party.
9. The former may be impairing the efficiency of public service once she appears for the latter
without permission from this Court.
10. GUILTY of gross inefficiency in failing to observe the reglementary periods in deciding cases and
Maderada was REPRIMANDED

[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1278. June 26, 2000.]

FLORA D. GALLEGO, complainanmadert, vs. Acting Judge ARTURO

DORONILA, MCTC, Jordan, Buenavista-Nueva Valencia,

Guimaras, respondent.

1. Complainant alleges inaction on her complaint of Forcible Entry against Judge Arturo Doronila.
2. The OCA suggested that respondent be penalized with a stern warning.
3. According to the OCA, the complainant finished presenting her evidence as early as January
1996.
4. Respondent judge took no substantial action until July 1996.
5. Because the expeditious resolution of forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases is a matter of
public policy.
6. The respondent judge's inaction on the complainant's action rendered nugatory the entire
purpose of summary proceedings.
7. Judges are obligated to handle court business quickly and to rule on matters within the time
frame specified.
8. In numerous cases that the failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary
period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions
9. If they can not do so, they should seek extensions from this Court to avoid administrative
liability.
 10. Judge Arturo G. Doronila is found guilty of GROSS INEFFICIENCY FINED ADMONISHED and
STERNLY WARNED.

[A.C. No. 9459. January 7, 2020.] RENE J. HIERRO, complainant, vs. ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II ,

Respondent.

1. Hierro filed a complaint for disbarment charging Atty. Nava of the CPRA through conflict of
interest, grossly immoral conduct for engaging in adulterous relation and dereliction of duty
2. Atty. Nava denied the allegations against him contending that he was compelled to sign the
petition out of exigency and for humanitarian consideration.
3. As to the allegation of grossly immoral conduct, the complaint for adultery filed against him was
dismissed to be without merit.
4. Regarding the allegation of abandonment of Hierro in his Grave Threats case which led to his
conviction, Atty. Nava denied such allegation saying it was Hierro who terminated his services.
5. It is undisputed that Atty. Nava became the retained counsel of Hierro in the latter's cases and
also as counsel for Annalyn in the petition for the issuance of a TPO against Hierro.
6. The TPO has reference to the criminal cases that were handled by Atty. Nava to demonstrate
Hierro's propensity for violence in order to show supposed maltreatment of Hierro to Annalyn
7. NAva should have used better judgment to foresee the possibility of conflict of interest as that is
what the society expects of Him.
8. Atty. Nava admitted having an affair with Annalyn and that he fathered a child with her.
Furthermore, the
9. Every lawyer is expected to be honorable and reliable at all times, for a person who cannot
abide by the laws in his private life cannot be expected to do so in his professional dealings."
10. The Court found Atty Nava GUILTY of conflict of interest and gross immorality, DISBARS and
ORDERS his name be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

[A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC. September 4, 2012.]

RE: RECOMMENDATION OF ATTY. MARIA VICTORIA

GLEORESTY SP. GUERRA, DIRECTOR IV & ACTING CHIEF,

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE, TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE

DECISIONS POSTED IN THE SC WEBSITE INVOLVING CASES

OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN

 1. Atty. Guerra recommended to grant the request of the removal of decisions involving sexually-
related crimes from the Court's website for confidentiality.
2. The Court agreed with Atty. Guerra's recommendation and provided the Guidelines covering
decisions under R.A. No. 9262, 7610 and 9208.
3. The use of fictitious initials instead and the non-disclosure of their personal information shall
involve the modification in the decisions.
4. It shall only be made in the part of the official website of the Supreme Court openly accessible to
the public.
5. Also to those published in the Supreme Court website beginning 1996 and covering lower court
decisions
6. It shall be made by the (PIO) and shall furnish a monthly list of modified decisions.
7. Modification are accessible only by using a "username" and "password" provided by the SC
Library, shall be made by the SC Library.
8. It shall not release to the public hard copies of the original or unmodified decisions that have
been modified as provided.
9. The Court granted the letter-requests and DIRECT The responsible court office and/or concerned
court personnel are STRICTLY ORDERED to follow the Guidelines.

[A.C. No. 11119. November 4, 2020.]

ATTY. JOSEPH VINCENT T. GO , complainant, vs. ATTY.

VIRGILIO T. TERUEL, respondent.

1. Atty. Go filed a Complaint of Falsification and Perjury and for violation of Canons 8, 10, and 11 of
the CPR against Atty. Teruel who maliciously charged him with deliberate misrepresentation and
intellectual dishonesty.
2. Atty. Teruel filed a Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint and Atty. Teruel's client, Fr. Reyes,
initiated a Complaint for grave professional misconduct against Atty. Go
3. Atty. Go filed motions praying that Atty. Teruel and Fr. Reyes be cited for contempt and that
both Atty. And their Complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping.
4. IBP-CBD found Atty. Teruel committed forum shopping in good faith and the complaint against
him should be dismissed for lack of merit with a reminder to be more cautious in his pleadings.
5. (IBP-BOG) affirmed IBP CBD.
6. Undeterred, Atty. Go filed a Petitio n and the administrative case was referred to the (OBC)
7. The OBC concluded that the filing of another action on the same subject matter in contravention
of the doctrine of res judicata violates Canon 12 of the CPR
8. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the OBC that indeed Atty. Teruel committed
willful and deliberate forum shopping.
9. Atty. Teruel cannot feign innocence or good faith when it is clear as day that the allegations in
his Counter-Complaint and Fr. Reyes' Complaint are essentially the same.
10. He was found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
and is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
[ A.M. No. P-02-1593, July 17, 2017 ]

ATTY. ROMEO P. GEROCHI, COUNSEL FOR BEATERIO DEL

SANTISIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO, COMPLAINANT, V. LEODE

V. LEONCITO, DEPUTY SHERIFF RTC, BRANCH 23, ILOILO

CITY, RESPONDENT

1. The administrative complaint stemmed from an ejectment case where Beaterio won which the
writ of execution was assigned to the respondent.
2. Beaterio gave respondent PhP 10,000 to execute the writ but the latter failed to perform his
duty and the said amount was not given back to Beaterio.
3. Respondent admitted having received PhP 10,000 from Beaterio but explained that the same
was used for the expenses in the service and implementation eventhough failed.
4. Judge Galvez of the RTC, Iloilo City, Branch 24, submitted his Investigation Report to this Court,
finding that respondent was remiss in his duty.
5. The report also stated that respondent has already retired from service and submits to (OCA)
the proper sanction upon the respondent.
6. OCA found that the respondent sheriff was already dropped from the rolls and did not submit
his clearance for retirement; hence, he could no longer be dismissed.
7. The Supremed court ruled that respondent received PhP 10,000 from the winning party in the
ejectment case, also admitted that the writ of execution was not implemented.
8. Basic is the rule that the sheriffs duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; he is to
execute the order of court strictly to its letter.
9. When the writ is placed in his hands, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the
contrary, to proceed accordance with its mandate.
10. Leoncito is hereby found GUILTY of grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, neglect of duty and
inefficiency in the performance of official duties.

[A.C. No. 7381. October 7, 2020.]

CUSTODIA N. TIPAWAN , complainant, vs. ATTY. ROMEO P.

GEROCHI, respondent

1. Tipawan alleged that she engaged the services of respondent to protect her rights and interest
over certain properties.
2. She entered into a Contract to Sell with Spouses Espinosa and a separate portion was sold to
Spouses Coloso.
3. Respondent insisted that the same portion of lot in the Contract to Sell with Spouses Espinosa
were issued to Spouses Coloso which caused the termination of their retainership agreement.
4. Spouses Espinosa, represented by respondent, filed a nullity of title on ground of double sale.
5. Respondent's act of initially representing her to protect her rights on a property and now suing
her for the same property was clearly a conflict of interest.
6. Respondents said the Spouses Espinosa were his close family friends. he was no longer the
counsel of complainant and complainant here had never paid him for his services
7. In IBP’s report and recommendation, by representing Spouses Espinosa on a complaint against
complainant, respondent violated the rule against conflict of interest. 17
8. As for the absence of legal fees paid to respondent, the same does not exempt lawyers from
complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases with conflict of interests.
9. The court ruled that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests
oppose those of a former client, whether or not they are parties in the same action or not.
10. GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, respondent He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law.
 SUMMARY 2

[A.M. No. RTJ-12-2336. November 12, 2014.]

ESTHER P. MAGLEO , complainant, vs. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN and

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ATTY. ADONIS LAURE, BOTH OF BRANCH 166, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
PASIG CITY, respondents.

1. Magleo is the accused in a criminal case where she avers that Judge Manalo granted her
demurrer to evidence.
2. As Judge Manalo was inhibited from the case, it was presided over by judge De Juan-Quinagoran
whom Magleo then filed against a Complaint-Affidavit.
3. The complainant avers that, instead of dismissing the case on the ground of double jeopardy,
the respondent judge overturned the order of acquittal.
4. She further stated that she did not receive the notice of hearing and respondent judge still
issued a warrant of arrest where there was no bail indicated.
5. Moreover, they claimed that the court personnel treated their bondsman with hostility.
6. Respondent judge emphasized that the accused filed the demurrer to evidence prematurely as
the prosecution has not rested its case yet and they were duly notified of the hearing as
evidenced.
7. The respondents likewise stressed that the order of arrest did not state a bond because she
jumped bail by failing to appear in court for the hearing.
8. Also, respondents denied that their court personnel made disrespectful remarks, and even
assuming indeed made, these were justified remarks under the circumstances of the situation.
9. The OCA then recommended that the administrative case be referred to the CA where it ruled
that the complaint against respondents is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
10. Respondents and their court personnel are ADMONISHED to be always courteous in dealing with
litigants and the public in the performance of official duties

[A.C. No. 9920. August 30, 2016.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. FORMER JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS,
respondent.
 1. OCA found Tormis guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty for solemnizing marriages with
questionable documents, for failure to make sure that the solemnization fee has been paid, for
solemnizing marriages wherein one of the contracting parties is a foreigner who submitted a
mere affidavit of his capacity to marry in lieu of the required certificate from the embassy and
for solemnizing a marriage with an expired license.
2. Tormis was dismissed from the service for the second time, and OCA directed the OBC to initiate
disbarment proceedings against her which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
3. Three issues were sought to be resolved regarding the said case.
4. First, whether the alleged irregularities committed by respondent in the solemnization of
marriages constitute gross misconduct warranting her disbarment.
5. Second, whether Plaza's and Dela Cerna's affidavits against Tormis are indispensable in finding
that respondent's acts constitute gross misconduct and merit the penalty of disbarment.
6. Lastly, whether respondent's long line of administrative sanctions should affect her standing as a
member of the bar.
7. Respondent's act of heedlessly solemnizing marriages in utter disregard of the law and
jurisprudence clearly constitutes gross misconduct.
8. The Court recognized the indispensability of Plaza and Dela Cerna in the proceedings before the
Office of the Bar Confidant, the disbarment case cannot be dismissed solely based on this.
9. Considering that she was repeatedly involved in administrative charges, the severe penalty of
disbarment should be meted against her.
10. Respondent is DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys.

[A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842. February 24, 2014.]

REX M. TUPAL, complainant, vs. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO, Branch 5, Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, respondent

1. Tupal filed with the OCA a complaint against Judge Rojo who allegedly violated Circular No. 1-90
for notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized.
2. Also, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by not requiring the parties to present their competent
pieces of evidence of identity as required by law.
3. Judge Rojo argued that notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is a public document related to his
official functions and duties as a judge and alleged that the other judges also notarized said
documents of parties whose marriage they solemnized.
4. Also, he need not notarize the affidavits with the parties presenting their competent pieces of
evidence of identity since he interviewed them.
5. OCA ruled that a judge's duty is only to personally examine the affidavit of cohabitation and
cannot notarize said document of the parties whose marriage they will solemnize.
6. The SC ruled that judges may notarize in their ex officio capacities only and in the exercise of
their official functions and duties.
7. An affidavit of cohabitation remains a private document until notarized.
 8. That other judges have notarized affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriages they
solemnized does not make the practice legal.
9. The parties appeared before Judge Rojo and that he interviewed them do not make the parties
personally known to him the notary public must at least be acquainted with them.
10. The SC found Judge Rojo guilty of was suspended for violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct
and gross ignorance of the law.

[A.M. No. MTJ-15-1860. April 3, 2018.]

ROSILANDA M. KEUPPERS, complainant, vs. JUDGE VIRGILIO G. MURCIA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES, BRANCH 2, ISLAND GARDEN CITY OF SAMAL, respondent.

1. The complainant averred in her affidavit-complaint, respondent Judge solemnized the marriage
on May 19, 2008 in the premises of the DLS Travel and Tours in Davao City.
2. And that the couple was surprised to find erroneous entries in the marriage certificate as well as
on the application for marriage license.
3. Respondent Judge admitted that he solemnized the marriage of complainant and Peter
Keuppers at DLS Travels and Tours because of pity.
4. Also, he contended that he should not be blamed for the erroneous entries and claimed that he
was entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties.
5. OCA recommended the case to CA where it recommended that respondent is guilty of
solemnizing a marriage outside of his territorial jurisdiction.
6. CA recommended that respondent be meted a fine with a STERN WARNING.
7. The SC held that Article 8 of the Family Code emphasizes that the place of the solemnization of
the marriage by a judge like him should only be in his office or courtroom.
8. The only exceptions to the limitation are when the marriage was to be contracted on the point
of death, or in a remote place, or where it is requested in writing.
9. Respondent Judge's offense was not his first act of gross misconduct concerning the discharge of
the office of solemnizing marriages.
10. JUDGE MURCIA is found GUILTY and DECLARED as forfeited all his retirement benefits, except
his accrued leaves, with prejudice to his appointment in the government service.

A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691 April 2, 2013

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, vs. JUDGES ANATALIO S. NECESSARIO, JUDGE GIL R.
ACOSTA, JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, and JUDGE EDGEMELO C. ROSALES and some court employees,
Respondents.

1. An audit team created by OCA investigated several branches of MTCCs of Cebu City and
reported alleged irregularities in the solemnization of marriages.
 2. OCA recommended the dismissal of the respondent judges and some court employees, and the
suspension or admonition of others.
3. Judges Necessario, Tormis and Rosales solemnized marriages even if the requirements
submitted by the couples were incomplete and of questionable character.
4. Most of these documents showed visible signs of tampering, erasures, corrections or
superimpositions of entries related to the parties’ place of residence.
5. And that corresponding official receipts for the solemnization fee were missing or payment by
batches was made for marriages performed on different dates.
6. Judges Necessario, Tormis, and Rosales also solemnized marriages where a contracting party is a
foreigner who did not submit a certificate of legal capacity to marry from his or her embassy.
7. They also solemnized marriages of minor parties by mere submission of a pro forma joint
affidavit of cohabitation notarized by the solemnizing judge himself or herself.
8. The contracting parties were made to fill out the application for a license on the same day the
marriage was solemnized.
9. The court ruled the dismissal of the respondent judges and some court employees, and the
suspension or admonition of others.
10. The case against Judge Rosabella M. Tormis be REFERRED to the Office of the Bar Confidant for
disbarment.

[A.M. No. RTJ-20-2582. August 16, 2022.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. PRESIDING JUDGE HERMES B. MONTERO,
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ATTY. MA. GAY A. ERNI-PUENTENEGRA and PROCESS SERVER ANNABELLE U.
RODRIGUEZ, respondents.

1. Two (2) judicial audits conducted by the complainant OCA discovered various irregularities in the
performance of duties of the respondents.
2. OCA recommended that respondents be found administratively liable, and consequently,
penalized.
3. The Court adopts the findings of the OCA with certain modifications.
4. Judge Montero applied for and was granted optional retirement, however, will not preclude the
Court from determining his administrative liability, pursuant to Section 2 (2) of Rule 140.
5. Judge Montero violated A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC by proceeding with the hearings despite failure to
acquire jurisdiction due to improper service of summonses, not having the required collusion
report, and not waiting for the Notice of Appearance of the OSG.
6. Also, he violated A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC by resolving drugs cases even without making therein
accused undergo the required drug dependency examination.
7. Judge Montero is also administratively liable for Undue Delay in Rendering an Order that under
Rule 140 regarded as gross neglect of duty.
8. Atty. Erni-Puentenegra is found guilty simple neglect of duty for failure to give proper attention
to a task expected of her and was remiss in her duties as a Branch Clerk of Court
9. As to Rodriguez, case law instructs that a process server who is unable to serve mail matters
should be found guilty of simple neglect of duty.
 10. The respondents were administratively liable, and consequently, penalized.

[A.M. No. RTJ-06-2030. October 5, 2007.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 56, Mandaue City, respondent.

[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2032. October 5, 2007.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE JESUS S. DELA PEÑA, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 62, Oslob, Cebu, respondent.

1. Judge dela Peña rendered his Decision declaring the nullity of Castro-Roa's marriage to Rocky.
2. The CA nullified Judge dela Peña's decision due to "very apparent fatal irregularities" during the
trial.
3. OCA found that respondent Judge dela Peña failed to observe prior notice and hearing before
rendering the decision in the civil case, depriving Rocky of his right to due process.
4. Rocky's right to cross-examine the witness for the adverse party was waive d, but respondent
Judge dela Peña violated Section 5, Rule 30 of the Revised Rules of Court by deciding the case
without giving Rocky the opportunity to adduce evidence.
5. The actions of Judge Vestil in dismissing the petition without a hearing were questionable as this
goes against Section 6, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
6. Judge Vestil approved the motion submitted by Atty. Cabahug without verifying its status.
7. The clerk had overstepped their duties, and the judge's approval was deemed injudicious.
8. The judge was also absent during a hearing that should have resulted in the motion being
rescheduled.
9. Judge Vestil was fined for gross ignorance of the law and procedure and Judge Jesus dela Peña for
gross ignorance of the law and jurisprudence, was fined and warned.
10. Atty. Cabahug was required to SHOW CAUSE.

[A.M. No. RTJ-20-2593. Novedelamber 10, 2020.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION , complainant, vs. HON. JESUS B. MUPAS, Presiding
Judge Branch 112, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, respondent.

1. PNCC is the owner of FCA where parts were leased to, among others, LCDC and Jecar.
2. When the contract expired, PNCC decided not to renew the same, however, LCDC and Jecar
refused to vacate the property causing PNCC to file separate cases for ejectment against them.
3. The MTC issued a WPI in favor of PNCC and the RTC granted Jecar’s Rule 65 petition for certiorari
granting Jecar's prayer for a TRO to enjoin the MTC's implementation of the WPI.
4. PNCC reported Judge Mupas' actions to the Court.
 5. Judge Mupas insisted that the subject injunctive reliefs were issued in accordance with procedural
rules and in the spirit of liberality, claimed that he was swayed by the employees and that the
parties showed they were open to an amicable settlement of the case,
6. Judge Mupas admitted that a petition for certiorari is not allowed, however, he invoked the liberal
application of the rules of procedure on affording the parties the opportunity to be heard.
7. Judge Mupas further claimed that he had no hand on the service of the TRO to LCDC.
8. OCA recommended that Judge Mupas be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the
law by issued the injunctive reliefs in favor of LCDC without any legal basis, blatantly ignored
Section 19 (g) of the Rules on Summary Procedure when he took cognizance of Jecar’s Case,
violated anew the basic tenets on the issuance of injunctive reliefs when he issued a TRO in
favor of Jecar, whose contract of lease had also expired, to enjoin an act that had already been
accomplished.
9. As to the timing of the service of the TRO, there was no irregularity because of the court a quo's
close proximity to the FCA.
10. The Court fully adopted the findings and recommendations of the OCA.

[A.M. No. RTJ-21-018. September 29, 2021.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vsHON. ROMEO M. ATILLO, JR., Executive Judge
and Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 31, Agoo, La Union, respondent.

1. OCA received pictures of Judge Atillo, Jr. allegedly posted on his Facebook revealing tattoos on
his upper bod in his profile page.
2. Judge Atillo, Jr. explained that his Facebook account was hacked, the subject pictures were
never posted for public consumption" and that the pictures are inadmissible in evidence based
on exclusionary rule,
3. OCA found Judge Atillo, Jr. guilty of violating Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct, as well as OCA Circular No. 173-2017.
4. The OCA likewise held Judge Atillo, Jr. administratively liable for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge
for his improper behavior.
5. The Court adopts the findings of the OCA, but modifies the penalties to be imposed against
Judge Atillo, Jr.
6. In Lorenzana, the court ruled that in communicating and socializing through social networks,
judges must bear in mind that what they communicate — regardless of whether it is a personal
matter or part of his or her judicial duties — creates and contributes to the people's opinion not
just of the judge but of the entire Judiciary of which he or she is a part.
7. Judge Atillo, Jr.'s contentions are without merit.
8. It is elementary that the exclusionary rule only applies as a restraint against the State.
9. Judge Atillo, Jr. should have known better than to post highly personal content on his Facebook
account that was viewable also by members of the general public
10. Respondent is found GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and is hereby ADMONISHED
and STERNLY WARNED.
[A.M. No. RTJ-04-1885. November 17, 2004.]

STATE PROSECUTOR PABLO FORMARAN III, ATTY. FELINO M. GANAL and KANEMITSU YAMAOKA,
complainants, vs. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO-DARAY, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, General Santos City,
respondent.

1. Complainants aver that in the case for estafa through falsification of public document, Judge
Majaducon of RTC issued a hold departure order against Tetsuo Adachi and Eiji Kawai
2. Subsequently the Judge inhibited himself then Judge Lubao also issued a hold departure order
against the other accused, Richard Friend, Gari Ocampo, and Ma. Lynn Gesmundo
3. Lubao went on leave without resolving his pending motion to lift hold departure order.
4. Meanwhile, respondent Judge Daray, in her capacity as Acting Executive Judge issued an Order
denying the motion to lift hold departure order.
5. The respondent judge is being accused of filing a litigious motion without proper notice or
support, and for not verifying the allegations, acted on pending motions while absent, failed to
ensure the legal process of a permanent US resident, and lifted the hold departure order
without a hearing.
6. The judge in question denies any wrongdoing and explains that the order was issued in the
exercise of her judicial functions.
7. Atty. Ganal filed a Supplemental Complaint on the ground that respondent judge exhibited
manifest partiality and patent injustice against his client Kanemitsu Yamaoka.
8. OCA recommended that this case be assigned to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for
investigation, report and recommendation.
9. The investigating Justice, found that respondent judge showed manifest partiality and bias in
favor of Eiji Kawai and Richard Friend, recommended that she be fined with a stern warning.
10. Judge Trabajo-Daray is GUILTY of manifest partiality and bias in violation of Rule 2.0.1 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.

[A.M. No. RTJ-16-2456. March 2, 2020.]

RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE LAARNI N. DAJAO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 27, SIOCON, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

1. In a complaint an unknown person accused Judge Dajao of detailing his name and position in
documents as Dr. Laarni N. Dajao, Ph.D (CL-HC) and making malicious and degrading statements.
2. In an order Judge Dajao mentioned "big dick/penis, homophobic baklita, idiot, ugok,
psychopath" and imputed a "sexual relationship with a man who is the accused in his sala, etc."
3. And cited the questionable act of Judge Dajao by placing "Dr." and "Ph.D." beside his name.
4. Judge Dajao stated that the sole purpose of the complaint was to malign him and prayed that
the complaint not be acted upon.
 5. OCA found Judge Dajao LIABLE for vulgar and unbecoming conduct and be FINED with a STERN
WARNINGand was adopted by the Court
6. Judge Dajao's unguarded written words, as well as insinuations of a sexual relationship between
the parties involved in the case he was hearing, fell short of the standards expected of a
magistrate of the law and constituted vulgar and unbecoming conduct that eroded public
confidence in the judiciary.
7. "The act of Judge Dajao in adding "Dr." and "Ph.D" to his name in the subject order is a clear
example of self-promotion and vanity and disseminates unnecessary publicity.
8. Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that "a judge should not seek
publicity for personal vainglory."
9. Canon 1 on Integrity and Canon 2 on Propriety of the Code of Judicial Conduct proscribes judges
from engaging in self-promotion and indulging their vanity and pride.

[A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472. January 24, 2017.]

JUDGE MARTONINO R. MARCOS (Retired), complainant, vs HON. PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, Presiding

Judge, Regiona Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmariñas City, Cavite, respondent.

1. Judge Marcos’ grandson, Marc Andrei, died during the initiation rites of Lex Leonum.
2. OCP recommended the prosecution of several members of Lex Leonum for Violation of The Anti-
Hazing Law and discharged Marcelo as a state witness.
3. Judge Cabrera dismissed the case against all the accused for lack of probable cause.
4. The order of dismissal prompted complainant to file this administrative case against Judge
Cabrera-Faller.
5. Allegedly, Judge Cabrera-Faller issued an Order finding probable cause to sustain the
prosecution and archived the entire record of the case.
6. However, she recalled the warrants of arrest which she claimed were issued inadvertently.
7. He also issued an Omnibus Order, quashing, lifting and setting aside the warrant of arrest and
dismissing the case.
8. Respondent Judge denied the accusations.
9. OCA found Judge Cabrera-Faller liable for gross ignorance of the law for inadvertently issuing
the warrants of arrest against the accused, for sending the record of the case to the archives,
even prior to the return/report that the accused could not be apprehended in violation of the
six (6)-month period under Administrative Circular (A.C.) No. 7-A-92 and for precipitately
dismissing Criminal Case No. 11862-13.
10. The findings of the OCA are well taken, but the Court differs as to the recommended penalty.

[A.M. No. RTJ-16-2460. June 27, 2018.]

ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA and LETICIA RODRIGODUMDUM, complainants, vs. JUDGE PERLA
V. CABRERAFALLER, Executive Judge, and OPHELIA G. SULUEN, Officerin-Charge/Legal Researcher II,
both of Branch 90, Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas City, Cavite, respondents.
 1. Civil Case No. 398810, was initially pending before Judge Felicen and when Judge Felicen
inhibited himself from the case and it was raffled to Judge Cabrera-Faller.
2. After receipt of the records of the case, Judge Cabrera-Faller set a clarificatory hearing. which
was, however, rescheduled due to a seminar attended by Judge Cabrera-Faller
3. The case was set for pre-trial however suspended until receipt of the Mediator’s Report.
4. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the civil case belatedly filed their Pre-Trial which prompted Spouses
Dumdum to file a Motion to Expunged which was denied after 2 years upon filing.
5. The case was set for pre-trial which was rescheduled because Judge Cabrera-Faller was
hospitalized.
6. The delay attendant in resolving the motion in the case prompted complainant to file this
complaint against Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen.
7. Respondents argued that there was no ignorance of the law and no delay in the administration
of justice.
8. OCA found that the allegation of gross ignorance of the law against Judge Cabrera-Faller and
Suluen was bereft of any evidence and found that Judge Cabrera-Faller was guilty of gross
inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice.
9. As against Suluen OCA found that there was no evidence on record to substantiate the charges
against her and cleared her of administrative liability.
10. The Court agreed with the findings of the OCA.

[A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301. January 16, 2018.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, OFFICER-
IN-CHARGE OPHELIA G. SULUEN and PROCESS SERVER RIZALINO RINALDI B. PONTEJOS, all of the RTC,
Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite, respondents.

[A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302. January 16, 2018.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. PRESIDING JUDGE FERNANDO L. FELICEN et al.
all of the RTC, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite, respondents.

[A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC. January 16, 2018.]

RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, Branch 90, Regional
Trial Court, Dasmariñas City, Cavite, relative to Civil Case No. 1998-08

1. Three administrative complaints for gross irregularity in the conduct of proceedings in

annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage cases were filed against judges and personnel
of the Regional Trial Courts of Dasmariñas and Imus, Cavite.
2. Additionally, an anonymous complaint was filed against Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller for
irregularities in the proceedings of a civil case.
 3. In A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301, OCA found that out of the court's 827 cases, the court had failed to act
upon several of those for a considerable length of time from the date of their filing.
4. Several irregularities in the petitions for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage noted
by the judicial audit team.
5. In A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302, OCA found that four branches of the court violated certain rules in
handling petitions for nullity and annulment of marriage, adoption, and correction of entries.
6. In A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC, an anonymous letter addressed to the OCA claimed that despite
being aware of an American citizen who used a fake address, Judge Cabrera-Faller granted the
petition allegedly for a cash consideration.
7. The Court ruled they cannot use the defense that no objection was raised against their alleged
irregularities.
8. Judge Quisumbing, who serves as an executive judge overseeing court administration, failed to
provide leadership and enforce policies in his area of responsibility.
9. Instead, he participated in the unethical practices described in recent administrative cases.
10. The four courts herein have allowed themselves to become havens for "paid-for annulments."

[A.M. No. RTJ-15-2437. December 9, 2020.]

AAA, * complainant, vs. JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS, Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Naga City, Camarines
Sur, respondent.

1. This administrative case stemmed from a complaint-affidavit was filed by AAA before OCA
against respondent for sexual molestation and rape that allegedly occurred from 1994 to 2014.
2. She averred that she is the acknowledged illegitimate daughter of respondent and he invited her
to live with him and his family.
3. Complainant observed that the affection of the respondent towards her turned into sexual
molestation.
4. The respondent maintained that the cases are all based on vicious lies.
5. The criminal cases were still pending at that time.
6. Since respondent managed to successfully evade arrest for several years, OCA recommended
the dismissal of respondent from service, forfeiture of his retirement benefits.
7. The Court were fully in accord with the OCA's recommendation.
8. Dismissal from service is an appropriate penalty for a judge who becomes a fugitive from justice.
9. The Court also take note that this is not the first time that respondent failed to act beyond
reproach and was found guilty of an administrative infraction.
10. In Re: Judge Jaime E. Contreras, he was charged and found guilty of simple misconduct by the
Office of the Ombudsman.
[A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452. March 9, 2016.]

IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY
COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4TH PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)

1. OCA received an anonymous complaint charging Judge Contreras with Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct and Perjury, relative to an administrative case 2 filed against him before OMB .
2. He maintained that during the Judicial and Bar Council's (JBC) interviews, he had been disclosing
information relating to the cases filed against him with the OMB.
3. OCA recommended Judge Contreras be found guilty of dishonesty.
4. The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA but modifies the recommended penalty
of dismissal to suspension of one (1) year given the attendant circumstances.
5. Civil service rules mandate the accomplishment of the PDS as a requirement for employment in
the government."
6. The OMB admonished him for simple misconduct in OMB-ADM-1-94-1040 .
7. In the PDS dated 16 April 2007 respondent Judge Contreras answered "NO" to the question
"Have you ever been charged with, found guilty of, or otherwise imposed a sanction
8. In the PDS dated 24 January 2010 respondent Judge Contreras' application for the post of
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, he answered "YES"
9. In a more recent PDS dated 28 September 2013, which was also submitted before the JBC,
respondent Judge Contreras answered "YES".
10. Dishonesty is considered a grave offense and carries the maximum penalty of dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual
disqualification from reemployment in the government service.

[A.M. No. RTJ-15-2413. September 25, 2018.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE LYLIHA AQUINO, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 24, respondent.

[A.M. No. RTJ-15-2414. September 25, 2018.] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs.

JUDGE RALPH LEE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 83, respondent.

[A.M. No. RTJ-15-2415. September 25, 2018.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROMMEL BAYBAY, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 132, respondent.

[A.M. No. RTJ-15-2416. September 25, 2018.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE MARINO RUBIA, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF BIÑAN, LAGUNA, BRANCH 24, respondent.

1. These cases arose from several news reports concerning a fixer in the Judiciary by the name of
"Arlene" and an alleged controversy in the 2013 Philippine Judges Association (PJA) elections.
2. The Court en banc issued a Resolution creating an ad hoc committee to investigate Bondoc's
report on Ma'am Arlene.
3. The Ad Hoc Investigationg Committee submitted its report citing Judges Aquino, Lee, Baybay
and Rubia all candidates in the 2013 PJA elections, for probable violations of the Guidelines on
the Conduct of Elections of Judges' Associations and the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
4. The Court ruled Judge Aquino guilty of failure to maintain the appearance of propriety in
booking room accommodations for judges for the 2013 PJA Convention and election even when
she was running for re-election as PJA Secretary-General.
5. Judge Lee is guilty of violating Section 4 (a) of the Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of
Judges' Associations for his use and distribution of prohibited campaign materials such as desk
calendars, posters, and tarpaulins.
6. Judge Baybay is guilty of violating Section 4 (a) of the Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of
Judges' Associations for giving away cellphones as raffle prizes at the 2013 PWJA Convention
during the campaign period which were deemed prohibited campaign materials, as well as
Section 4 (d) of the same Guidelines for providing hotel room accommodations with 25%
discount to select judges during the 2013 PJA Convention and election.
7. Judge Rubia is guilty of violating Section 4 (a) of the Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of
Judges' Associations for distributing prohibited campaign materials, particularly, campaign kits
consisting of a bag, cap, t-shirt, and printed materials.
8. The Court hopes to impress upon the judges the strict standards of conduct of their office.
9. Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to "avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities."

[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1535. November 10, 2020.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE OWEN B. AMOR,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41, DAET, CAMARINES NORTE , respondent.

1. On January 26, 2000, three (3) criminal charges were filed against respondent before the
Sandiganbayan.
2. The Court referred the instant administrative case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
for evaluation, report and recommendation.
 3. Respondent's resignation be accepted without prejudice to the continuance of the instant
administrative case against him.
4. OCA recommended that respondent former Presiding Judge Owen B. Amor be found guilty of
violation of Section 7 (d) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Canon 2, Section 2 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
5. The Court adopted the findings of the OCA.
6. Separation from office does not render a pending administrative charge moot and academic.
7. An administrative case is independent from the criminal action, although both arose from the
same act or omission.
8. Respondent's actuations constituting as administrative offense.
9. The Court finds respondent Judge Owen B. Amor, GUILTY of gross misconduct
10. In lieu of dismissal from the service which the Court can no longer impose, Judge Amor's
retirement benefits are instead declared FORFEITED.

[A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974. March 19, 2013.]

CARMEN P. EDAÑO , complainant, vs. JUDGE FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA and STENOGRAPHER MYRLA
DEL PILAR NICANDRO, respondents

1. Respondent filed with this Court a letter prayed that she be given one last chance to redeem
herself and the grant of some of the benefits and leave credits she had earned in her almost 25
years of service in the government.
2. Respondent wrote another letter, begged that she be given the chance to redeem herself within
the institution.
3. Treating the first letter as a Motion for Reconsideration, Court Resolves to DENY respondent's
motion for reconsideration with FINALITY.
4. The Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator submitted a list of the several
administrative cases against respondent (Annex "B") that are still pending."
5. (OCA) requested Chief Justice Puno to allow it to retain a portion of the monetary leave benefit
of respondent
6. Respondent wrote another letter where the Court granted respondent's request that P80,000 of
the money equivalent of her accrued leave credits be retained by the OCA.
7. Respondent's second Motion for Reconsideration was denied by this Court with finality
8. A year after her second Motion for Reconsideration was denied respondent filed another
9. It appears to this Court that respondent, in filing multiple Motions for Reconsideration in the
guise of personal letters to whoever sits as the Chief Magistrate of the Court, is trifling with the
judicial processes to evade the final judgment against her.

[A.M. No. RTJ-96-1344. March 13, 1996.]

VERONICA GONZALES, complainant, vs. JUDGE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 96,
Quezon City, respondent

1. In relation to the two cases where spouses Cruz were ordered to pay spouses Gonzales, two
notices of levy were presented and entered in the record of real property of Spouses Cruz.
2. The spouses Chan filed a case against the ROD, alleging that TCT No. 319140 which is subject to
the levy had been previously purchased by them from the spouses Cruz.
3. Hence, the reconstituted title issued to the spouses Cruz carried the annotations of the deed of
sale in favor of the Chans as well as the notices of levy in the new title (TCT No. 50572).
4. Spouses Chan claimed that the notices of levy should not have been carried over in the new title
because the notices of levy were entered after the sale of the property.
5. ROD submitted to the discretion of the court and the respondent judge thereafter ordered the
cancellation of the annotations of the notices of levy on TCT No. 50572.
6. Veronica Gonzales filed a complaint against respondent judge for grave misconduct, knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment and unjust interlocutory orders, malicious refusal to implead
complainant as an indispensable party and dereliction of duty relative to the case of Spouses
Chan against ROD.
7. Respondent states that there was no need to give notice to complainant of the petition for
cancellation because complainant was not a party in the case.
8. He alleges that complainant was not an indispensable party and that she had no priority of right
over the plaintiffs in relation to the property.
9. OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, however, respondent judge
should have ordered the notice since she had an adverse interest as annotated on the back of
their certificate title and §108 requires it before the court may hear and determine the petition.
10. Respondent judge was ADMONISHED to be more careful and diligent in the discharge of judicial
function.