Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Facts:
The judge presented Fr. Lazo who testified that he did not see
that the Judge received any money
The judge alleged that the filing of complaint against him was to
get even with him he issued a memorandum prohibiting Tuldague
from serving summons before the raffle of cases and he stopped
the practice of filing all pleadings with the Office of the Clerk of
Court and limited it to initiatory pleadings only, among others
The audit team found an accumulated cases not yet resolved for
a considerable length of time.
ISSUE:
1.
2.
RULING:
ANS. 2 Judge Clapis violated Canon 1 (Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02)
and Canon 2 (Rule 2.01) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The
OCA also found Judge Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the law
for failing to observe the rules in hearing the petition for bail and
to accord the prosecution due process.
CANON 2. INTEGRITY IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO THE
PROPER DISCHARGE OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE BUT ALSO
TO THE PERSONAL DEMEANOR OF JUDGES.
The judge denied the motion for reinvestigation but was borrowing
another P50,000 to the complainant and gave a postdated check
as assurance of payment.
Her failure to produce the money, allegedly made Arafol and the
Judge to play hideous schemes to prejudice their case by sending
notice late, calendaring the case for speedy trial, granting petition
for bail.
ISSUE:
The complainant filed a civil case for Support with a prayer for
Support Pendente Liteagainst George Butler, who denies
paternity of the children. Then pairing judge, Teodoro A. Bay,
issued an Order dated November 12, 1999, directing defendant
Butler to provide support pendente lite in the amount of P5,000
per month to be "delivered to the mother (the complainant herein)
within the first five (5) days of each month."3
affecting her vital interests. The secret meeting cannot but invite suspicion,
for no minutes or stenographic notes of the meeting have been presented, if
any existed.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary11 mandates
that judges must not only maintain their independence, integrity and
impartiality; but they must also avoid any appearance of impropriety or
partiality, which may erode the peoples faith in the judiciary. Integrity and
impartiality, as well as the appearance thereof, are deemed essential not just
in the proper discharge of judicial office, but also to the personal demeanor
of judges.12 This standard applies not only to the decision itself, but also to
the process by which the decision is made.
ISSUE: W/N The judge is guilty of grave abuse of discretion and authority,
and of conduct unbecoming of a judge
RULING: It is not , the act of a judge done within his judicial discretion, such
as the reduction of fine for indirect contempt, should not be subject to
disciplinary actionRather, it is the conduct of respondent Judge Asdala in
meeting with defendant Butler without notice or knowledge, much less the
presence, of the complainant or her representative that is assailed. The
meeting was not an innocuous one for it resulted in the cancellation of the
bench warrant, the revocation of the order of imprisonment and the
significant reduction in the amount of the private meeting was improper, to
say the least. It deprived the complainant of her right to be heard on matters
RULING:
Respondent judge should be reminded of Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary:19
CANON 2
Rule 2.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that "A
judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or administrative agency". Respondent
in making the said letter had abandoned his duty that "A judge should be
embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence". That respondent
opted to write the letter himself instead of his wife indicates improper use of
his judgeship.
WHEREFORE, for violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
respondent Judge Joven F. Costales of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta
City (Branch 45) is REPRIMANDED with warning that a repetition of similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only in the proper discharge of the judicial
office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SEC. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in view of a reasonable
observer.
SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the
peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not
merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
Respondent judge unduly intervened in the presentation of evidence. He
asked more questions than counsel and conducted direct and crossexamination of witnessesQuestions designed to clarify points and to elicit
additional relevant evidence are not improper.33 But the judge should limit
himself to asking clarificatory questions and the power should be sparingly
and judiciously used. The rule is that the court should stay out of it as much
as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct of the trial.34A
judge must always maintain cold neutrality and impartiality for he is a
magistrate, not an advocate.35
Accordingly, respondent Judge Ruben B. Carretas is hereby
found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a judge
VICTORIANO SY VS JUDGE DINOPOL
FACTS:
RULING: