Vidal vs. Dojillo MTJ-05-1591 July 24, 2005

Facts: The Hon. Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in Pangasinan was charged with “Misconduct” which stemmed from the election protest of his brother against the proclamation of the herein complainant (Vidal). Mr. Vidal alleged that during the hearing, Judge Dojillo “sat beside the counsel of his brother” and “actively coached, aided, assisted, and guided said counsel by now and then saying something, handing piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from manifesting something to the court, and other similar acts.” In which complainant contends that the judges’ actions promote partiality.

Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present during the hearings but explained that he did not sit beside his brother’s lawyer but in the area reserved for the public; and that the main reason why he was there was to observe how election protests are conducted as he has never conducted one. His other reason was to give moral support to his brother.

Issue: WON Judge Dojillo’s action constitute “misconduct”.

Ruling: Judge Dojillo was found guilty of misconduct and REPRIMANDED with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Respondent, being a judge, should bear in mind that he is also called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of the entire judiciary. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid not only impropriety but also the mere appearance of impropriety in all activities

Sy vs. Dinopol, January 18, 2011

Facts: Victoriano Sy filed a case against Judge Oscar E. Dinopol of the RTC in South Cotabato for Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Judiciary and for Gross Ignorance of the Law. This is in regards to the Civil Case No. 1403-24 involving Mr. Sy wherein Judge Dinopol inhibited himself from further acting on the caseon the ground that he received a call, from a ranking officer of the Philippine Judicial Academy, interceding in behalf of the defendant bank and an earlier call from a ranking personnel of the OCA, appealing in behalf of the plaintiffs. He claimed he wanted to avoid being charged with partiality either way he acted on the case. However, Sy found out that, Judge Dinopol still handled Misc. Case No. 1440-24, a matter closely intertwined with Civil Case No. 1403-24.

Sy claimed in relation with his charge that while Civil Case No. 1403-24 was pending in Judge Dinopol’s sala, the judge asked him for commodity loans in the form of construction materials to be used in the construction of the judge’s house. Sy further claimed that aside from the commodity loans, Judge Dinopol obtained cash loans from him on various occasions including the judge borrowing his multi cab.

Judge Dinopol admitted the commodity loans of the construction materials for his house however argued that it was before the case was on his sala. Further, he denies the cash loans and the borrowing of the multicab.

Issue: WON Judge Oscar E. Dinopol is guilty for Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Judiciary and for Gross Ignorance of the Law.

Ruling: Judge Dinopol cannot be disciplined for ignorance of the law and of procedure in his handling of Civil Case because he acted in accordance with the rules and jurisprudence on the matter. However, there is substantial evidence showing that Judge Dinopol obtained the commodity loans from Sy. By his own admissions, he failed to observe these ethical standards. Wherefore, Judge Dinopol is declared GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT and is hereby DISMISSED from the service.