Serious misconduct; Acts constituting direct bribery; Issuing a warrant of
arrest while under suspension;
There is substantial evidence showing that respondent Judge is guilty of
serious misconduct for committing acts constituting direct bribery in
soliciting and receiving money in consideration of the dismissal of the case
filed against the respondent. Verily, in administrative proceedings, as in the
instant case, it is not legally objectionable to resolve a case based solely on
position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties
considering that affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct
Respondent Judge tainted the image of the judiciary to which he owes fealty and
the obligation to keep it all times unsullied and worthy of the people’s
trust. The Court has time and again admonished judges to conduct
themselves in a manner that is free even from the appearance of
impropriety. For judicial officers to enjoy the trust and respect of the
people, it is necessary that they live up to the exacting standards of conduct
demanded by the profession and by the Code of Judicial Conduct. This is
especially true in the case of judges who, on a daily basis, interact with the
public. Their official conduct, as well as personal behavior should
always be beyond reproach.
Respondent judge was found guilty of serious misconduct and was DISMISSED
from service with FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave
credits, with prejudice to his reemployment in any branch or service of the
government including government-owned or controlled corporations. He was
further ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00 to be deducted from his leave
credits, for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension. (A.M.
No. MTJ-03-1503, November 16, 2006)
Judges: Extortion, Grave misconduct, gross ignorance
of the law, grave abuse of authority;
proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Here, complainant miserably
failed to substantiate his charges of extortion and grave misconduct against
respondent. As regards respondent’s alleged grave abuse of authority and
gross ignorance of the law in disposing of complainant’s motions in the civil
case, the same involves matters of judicial adjudication that are not the
proper subject of an administrative complaint. The filing of an
administrative complaint against a judge is neither the appropriate nor
substitute remedy to question the propriety or impropriety of his
decision. There are ample remedies under the Rules of Court provided for
the purpose. It is axiomatic that, where some other judicial means is
available, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every
act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular.
Administrative complaint against respondent judge was DISMISSED for lack
of merit. (A.M. OCA IPI No. RTJ-06-1989, November 29, 2006)
Judges: Charges failed to measure up to the yardstick
of substantial evidence;
is the legal researcher who was charged of gross insubordination for being
absent without official leave (AWOL). Believing that he can still improve
his performance, respondent judge allowed him to continue to perform his
duties. But the drafts submitted by herein complainant were written in
different handwritings, giving the impression that they were prepared by more
than one person, thus as a precaution, herein respondent instructed to write
them in his own handwriting and set deadlines within which to submit the drafts.
In an en banc resolution dated February 11, 2005 the Court promulgated a
decision suspending the herein complainant for a period of 6 months for having
obtained an unsatisfactory rating during his probationary period.
Complainant failed to establish the guilt of the herein respondent.
As recommended in
the said memorandum, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the administrative
case against respondent judge for insufficiency of evidence and to CONSIDER
the administrative case as CLOSED and TERMINATED for having
become moot and academic, he having been dropped from the roll. (A.M.
OCA IPI No. 05-2306-RTJ, October 16, 2006)
Judges; Undue delay in the execution of final
court judgment; manifest bias and partiality;
The Court NOTED
the Report dated September 6, 2006 of the Office of the Court Administrator on
the complaint charging respondents with undue delay in the execution of final
court judgment and manifest bias and partiality relative to Civil Case No.
D-9922, finding that respondent judge cannot be faulted for complying with the
rules of procedure and for affording both parties ample opportunity to be heard
and that respondent’s legal researcher cannot be held liable for alleged delay
in the issuance of the writ of execution as, at the outset, she was not
authorized to issue court processes.
As recommended in the said report, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the
complaint against respondent for lack of merit. (A.M. OCA IPI No.
04-2094-RTJ, October 23, 2006)
Judges: Grave abuse of authority and grave
The Court NOTED
the Report dated August 24, 2006 of the Office of the Court Administrator on
the complaint charging respondents with grave abuse of authority and grave
misconduct relative to the implementation of the alias writ of execution,
finding that complainant failed to substantiate his charges against respondents
and that complainant was unsuccessful in establishing not only the attendance
of the elements of the aforesaid administrative offences but also the very
factual bases which said charges are anchored.
As recommended in the said report, the Court DISMISSED the instant
administrative complaint against the respondents for lack of
merit. (A. M. OCA IPI No. 06-2408-P, October 11, 2006)
Judges: Simple misconduct
judge’s efforts to bring litigants to settle is considered a laudable
act. The actuations of the respondent judge, however, of failing to hold
a hearing on complainants’ urgent motions and persistently pushing for a
settlement severely compromised the impartiality of his office. Judges
are not only required to be impartial, they must appear to be impartial.
Respondent judge is also required by Canon 3 of the old Code of Judicial
Conduct to maintain professional competence. In this regard, it is the
responsibility of the judge in every case before him to diligently ascertain
the facts and the applicable law based on the evidence presented.
The Court finds
respondent Judge GUILTY of simple misconduct. He was FINED
P20,000.00. The Court STERNLY WARNED him that a repetition of a
similar infraction will merit a more severe sanction. (A.M. No.
RTJ-04-1858, June 6, 2006)