Canon 1 – Independence

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez Jr. on CA GR SP No. 103692 (Meralco-GSIS Case)A.M. No. 08-8-11October 15, 2008

FACTS: Several motions for reconsideration of the Decision dated September 9, 2008 were filed, sanctioning several justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) for improprieties or irregularities in connection with CA G.R.-SP No. 103692, entitled “Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.” (the Meralco-GSIS case). It involved the motions of Justice Vicente Roxas, Justice JosevSabio, Jr, Presiding Justice Conrado Vasqeuz, Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Mr. Francis De Borja.

ISSUE: Whether or not the justices of Court of Appeals violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct

HELD: As for Justice Roxas, he is found guilty of various infractions of judicial ethics after he ignored and refused to act on several motions pending before him and fabricated the “Transcript of Final Decision,” to make it appear that deliberations had been conducted before the drafting of the Meralco decision when, in fact, there had been none. It constitutes grave misconduct and he should be penalized with dismissal and forfeiture of all benefits except accrues leave credits if any.

As for Justice Sabio, Jr, who through highly inappropriate conversations with his brother, PCGG Chair Camilo Sabio and MERALCO Broker, Mr. De Borja threatened the independency and integrity of the Judiciary by discussing the pending case before them and exposing himself to pressure should have inhibited himself from the case yet pursued it and showed unusual interests, thus manifesting conducts unbecoming of a member of the Justices. It is aggravated by the fact that he teaches Legal and Judicial Ethics. Hence, for violating Canon 1, Secs. 1, 4 and 5 (Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently x x x free from extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.)Canon 3 Secs. 3 and 5 (Section 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases. Section 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where (a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; (b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy;(c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy;(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the 6th civil degree or to counsel within the 4th civil degree; or(g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings.) and Canon 4 Secs. 1 and 9 (Sec.1 Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Section 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed by, for any other purpose related to their judicial duties.) the court found him worthy of dismissal.

As for Presiding Justice Vasquez, who failed to provide leadership as head of the Court of Appeals by omitting from arguing the case and vacillating and temporizing in resolving the chairmanship dispute. He hesitated to assert authority showing inefficiency in being the torchbearer and forerunner in reforming and restoring faith in the CA. He is sanctioned with forced retirement but with entitlement to leave credits and retirement benefits without prejudice to re-employment in the government.

As for Justice Dimaranan-Vidal, who deviated from the IRCA when she signed the Meralco decision without reading and deliberating the parties’ memoranda, indicating lack of caution on the part of one who has been deigned to don the judicial robe. She was reprimanded.

As for Mr. De Borja, who allegedly bribed Justice Sabio for 10 Million pesos in order to obtain a favorable judgment for Meralco, the Court found him without any legal standing to file a motion as he was neither a complainant nor a respondent in the present case but it is without prejudice to the power of the DOJ to find probable cause to hold Mr. De Borja liable for the said charge.

Marces v. Judge Arcangel A.M. No. RTJ-91-712 July 9, 1996Respondent: Judge Paul T. Arcangel Complainant: Ben D. Marces, Sr.

Facts: In 1984, spouses Wilfredo and Flordeliza Cañas’ domestic helper sought complainant’s help for alleged maltreatment she had received from her employers. The dispute was resolved but the families’ relation became strained as evidenced by their fights after this incident.

On September 28, 1990, Mrs. Cañas had the complainant arrested through the warrants issued by Judge Sarabia in criminal cases for violation of BP Blg. 22. After a night in jail, complainant saw Judge Sarabia and explained that the criminal cases in connection with the alias warrants against him have been settled already. Judge Sarabia told that he had only been requested by respondent to issue the warrants.

On December 29, 1990, there was a violent confrontation between members of the two families. Some of the parties were injured as a result of hacking. Investigations were conducted by the police during which, according to complainant, he saw respondent talking to the policemen.

On the night of January 2, 1991, armed men arrested complainant’s family on orders of a certain Col. Estares. Complainant avers that the illegal issuance and service of the “warrant” can only be done by respondent judge, considering his high position in the government and close relations with the Cañas family.

On May 11, 1991, the investigating prosecutor filed charges of attempted murder against complainant, his wife and his son, Farley. Complainant alleges that respondent is taking advantage of his position, influenced the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Warrants of arrest were issued by the RTC against complainant, his wife Ruth and son Farley respectively. Subsequently, Farley was arrested and was allegedly followed by respondent to make sure of the arrest. He also allegedly questioned the validity of the bond posted.

Complainant avers that he knew the judge’s car was often parked in front of the house of Mrs. Cañas, especially when Mr. Cañas was away working overtime. In his Comment, respondent judge alleges that the charges against him are false, malicious and utterly baseless.

Issue: W/N respondent judge violated Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Held: It is clear that respondent judge intervened in the feud between the complainant’s family and the Cañas family and such interference was not limited to the barangay mediation proceedings but extended as well to the various stages of the conflict. Respondent judge allowed himself to be dragged into what was a purely private matter between feuding families. Also, respondent’s request to the judge of a lower court to issue warrants of arrest against the complainant and improperly in accompanying Wilfredo Cañas to Col. Nelson Estares who ordered the arrest of complainant and members of the latter’s family are no less censurable. The Code of Judicial Conduct provides: “That the prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge” and “that a Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another Court” These acts of respondent judge must be viewed not as single, isolated actuations but in their totality and in the context of the enmity between the two feuding families and violations of Sec 3 and Sec 4 of Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds respondent judge guilty of improper conduct. Respondent is hereby reprimanded with warning that commission of similar acts of impropriety on his part in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Hurtado vs Judalena

Facts:

Isabel G. Judalena had sold a portion, containing an area of 75 square meters of her parcel of land to Palmarin Q. Hurtado, with the condition that the latter shall cause a subdivision survey of the portion sold in order to segregate said portion from the bigger portion, after which the said Palmarin Hurtado shall construct a concrete fence between the two lots. Hurtado, however, violated their agreement. Pursuant to this, Judalena prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain Hurtado.

Respondent Judge Arsenio Gonong, his close relationship with Judalena notwithstanding, and despite the prohibition imposed by Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, issued an order, ex-parte. directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

Respondent judge issued an order voluntarily disqualifying himself from hearing the case in view of his close relationship with the plaintiff therein and directed the transmittal of the records of the case to the incumbent Executive Judge for proper assignment to the other judges of the court.

Hurtado filed a motion for the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction in order to preserve the status quo until the designation of another judge to try the case, with a prayer that the respondent judge hear the motion to give him an opportunity to rectify the mistake error he had committed in taking cognizance of the case and in granting, ex-parte, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

Respondent judge, however, denied the motion.

Hence, the instant petition.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Gonong acted unlike of a judge

Held:

Yes. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates without ambiguity the cases in which any judge or judicial officer is disqualified from acting as such. The said section, in no uncertain terms, expressly prohibits a judge or judicial officer from sitting in a case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguity or affinity. This is mandatory.

In the case at bar, it is not denied that the respondent judge is the brother of the respondent Isabel G. Judalena and their close relationship notwithstanding, and despite the prohibition mentioned above, the respondent judge took cognizance of the case and issued the controversial order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, after which he inhibited himself from sitting on the case for the same reasons. Such action, to our mind, is reprehensible as it erodes the all important confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

RE: SUSPENSION OF CLERK OF COURT ROGELIO R.  JOBOCO, RTC, BRANCH 16 NAVAL, BILIRANA.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC

August 12, 1998

FACTS: This is a series of complaints and counter-complaints between Judge Bonifacio S. Maceda and Atty. Rogelio R. Joboco where the latter was found guilty of the following charges: Infidelity in the Custody of Court Records, Usurpation of Judicial Authority, Grave Misconduct and Tampering Subpoena in Criminal Case No. 1536, Falsification of Certificates of Service, Misconduct for attempting to utilize the court employees for the ends of the local IBP and Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL). In this case, Judge Maceda was also charged with several complaints by Atty. Joboco including the Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge because of his closeness and dependence on the Governor of Biliran, which he said do not give a good image of the independence of the RTC and the judiciary in general. The judge was allegedly using the vehicle of the latter. According to the judge, the vehicles being used are a necessity to alleviate the inconvenience of rugged land travel and to enable him to cope with his work in two salas, RTC Branches 11 and 16, which are situated at Calubian and Naval, respectively. Moreover, Judge Maceda justifies his use of the vehicle via the Revised Administrative Code which provides that it is the duty of the local government to afford facilities for the court.  ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Maceda is guilty of violating Section 5 of Canon 1 of The New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary.

HELD: Canon 1, Section 5 of The New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary states that: “Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of the government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.” Mere congeniality between a judge and a governor may not necessarily be unethical, but it may still create the appearance of impropriety. In this case, Judge Maceda was on congenial terms with the Governor of Biliran Province from whom he borrowed vehicles on several occasions to travel to his judicial station. The Supreme Court held that this congeniality was not necessarily detrimental to judicial independence, provided that there was no showing that such relations were for corrupt ends. However, had this case been tried under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the judge’s acts would likely have created an “appearance” of an improper connection. To the common person, the accommodation may seem a reason for the judge to ingratiate himself towards his benefactors, which may ultimately be perceived as affecting the judge’s ability to rule independently. Therefore, whether or not the congenial relationship was indeed used for corrupt ends, it would be advisable for judges to avoid becoming dependent on other parties, especially for basic needs like transportation to the judge’s workstation.1

1 Philippine Judicial Academy, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Annotated) February 2007, p. 7

A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563 September 8, 2004LUCILA TAN vs. Judge MAXWEL S. ROSETE

Facts:The complaint alleged that Lucila Tan was the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 59440 and Criminal Case

No. 66120, both entitled People of the Philippines vs. Alfonso Pe Sy and pending before Branch 58, Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan, Metro Manila, then presided by respondent judge. Before the cases were decided, respondent judge allegedly sent a member of his staff to talk to complainant. They met at Sangkalan Restaurant along Scout Albano, near Timog Avenue in Quezon City. The staff member told her that respondent was asking for P150,000.00 in exchange for the non-dismissal of the cases. She was shown copies of respondent judge’s Decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120, both still unsigned, dismissing the complaints against the accused. She was told that respondent judge would reverse the disposition of the cases as soon as she remits the amount demanded. The staff member allowed complainant to keep the copy of the draft decision in Criminal Case No. 59440. Complainant, however, did not accede to respondent’s demand because she believed that she had a very strong case, well supported by evidence. The criminal cases were eventually dismissed by respondent judge. Respondent judge, in his Comment, denied the allegations of complainant. He instead stated that it was complainant who attempted to bribe him in exchange for a favorable decision. As the investigation ensued, and during presentation of evidences, it was found out that the evidence presented by the complainant is more trustworthy than the evidence presented by the respondent due to conflicting statements of respondent’s witnesses.

Issue:Whether or not the acts committed by Respondent Judge violate the standard of judicial conduct?

Held:We have repeatedly admonished our judges to adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct. They must be

the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the people’s confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount that a judge’s personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.

Respondent’s act of sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and show copies of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by members of the Bench. They constitute gross misconduct which is punishable under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court