7/29/2019 Basic Legal Ethics-judicial Conduct Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/basic-legal-ethics-judicial-conduct-cases 1/2

1

HON. JULIETA DECENA vs. JUDGE NILO MALANYAON, A.M. No.RTJ-02-1669, 4/14/2004

FACTS: A session was conducted wherein revocation of two previousresolutions granting authority to operate a cockpit in the locale wasbeing deliberated. Respondent, whose nephew-in-law was one of thecockpit operators, heckled and interrupted the session by hurlingvarious accusatory remarks and insults (such as “lies, they are lies”,“Lies! Can you do that even if they are lies? Even if you are beingdeceived?”) at the council members. Municipal officials later filed a

joint affidavit- complaint for Respondent’s dismissal and disbarment.Respondent admitted his presence during the council session, but

contended that he was not drunk and that he was there merely in hisprivate capacity as a taxpayer.

RULING: Respondent FINED P20,000 for conduct unbecoming of a judge in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.01 and Rule 2.03 of the Code ofJudicial Conduct; with STERN WARNING that the commission of thesame or a similar act or omission in the future will be dealt with moreseverely. His actuations constitute palpable violations of the Code ofJudicial Conduct, that, “ a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities (Canon 2) ”, “a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (Rule 2.01) ”; “a judge 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 (Rule 2.03) ”. Respondent needs to be reminded that his judicial identity does notterminate at the end of the day when he takes off his judicial robes.Even when garbed in casual wear outside of the halls of justice, a

judge retains the air of authority and moral ascendancy that he or shewields inside the sala .A judge’s official life cannot simply be detached or separated from hispersonal existence. Indeed, the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 inparticular, mandates that a judge should avoid impropriety and theappearance of impropriety in all activities, as well as behave at alltimes as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality ofthe judiciary. Thus, the Court has to dismiss outright JudgeMalanyaon’s suggestion that his actions be evaluated as one of ataxpayer or ordinary citizen and not as that of a judge. In fact, hisutterances were not made under a cloak of anonymity, for themembers of the council, as well as some of the people in the galleryknew very well that he was a judge. It is highly probable that his

invectives took on a greater imperative on the listeners preciselybecause he was a judge, with all the authority attendant to the office.

BESO VS. DAGUMAN A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000 Complainant: Zenaida S. BesoRespondent: Judge Juan Daguman, MCTC, Sta. Margarita-Tarangan,Pagsanjan, SamarPonente: J. Ynares-Santiago

Facts: Judge stands charged with Neglect of Duty and Abuse ofAuthority by Beso. In the Complaint-Affidavit dated December 12,1997, the complainant charged judge with solemnizing marriageoutside of his jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy andnot registering the marriage contract with the office of the Local CivilRegistrar with the following facts:

(a) On August 28, 1997, the complainant and complainant’s fiancée,Bernardito A. Yman, got married under the solemnization of therespondent in th e respondent’s residence in Calbayog City, Samar; (b) That after the wedding, Yman abandoned the complainant;(c) That when Yman left, the complainant inquired to the City CivilRegistrar to inquire regarding her Marriage Contract. The complainantfound out that her marriage was not registered;(d) The complainant wrote to the respondent to inquire and the formerfound out that all the copies were taken by Yman and no copy wasretained by the respondent.The respondent averred with the following rationale:(a) Respondent solemnized the marriage because of the urgentrequest of the complainant and Yman. He also believed that being a

Filipino overseas worker, the complainant deserved more than ordinaryofficial attention under present Government policy;(b) Respondent was also leaning on the side of liberality of the law sothat it may be not too expensive and complicated for citizens to getmarried;(c) Respondent’s failure to file the marriage contract was beyond hiscontrol because Yman absconded with the missing copies of themarriage certificate.(d) Respondent, however, t ried to recover custody of the missingdocuments.The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation reportdated, August 11, 1998 found the respondent Judg e “…committed

non- feasance in office” and recommended that he be fined FiveThousand Pesos (P5,000).Issues: The issues raised in this complaint are:(1) Whether or not the respondent solemnized a marriage outside ofhis jurisdiction; and(2) Whether or not the respondent committed negligence by notretaining a copy and not registering the complainant’s marriage beforethe office of the Local Civil Registrar.

Held: (1) Yes. The judge solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction.Article 7 of the Family Code provides that marriage may be solemnizedby, “Any incumbent member of the judiciary with the court’s

jurisdiction” . In relation thereto, according to Article 8 of the FamilyCode, there are only three instances with which a judge maysolemnize a marriage outside of his jurisdiction:(1.1) when either or both the contracting parties is at the point of death;(1.2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place;(1.3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writingin which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or placedesignated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.In this case, none of the three instances is present.(2) Yes. The judge committed negligence. Pursuant to Article 23 ofthe Fam ily code, such duty to register the marriage is the respondent’sduty. The same article provides, “It shall be the duty of the personsolemnizing the marriage… to send the duplicate and triplicate copiesof the certificate not later than fifteen (15) days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate, the original of the

marriage license, and in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a place other than those ment ioned in Article 8.”.

RUFINO CASIMIRO v. JUDGE OCTAVIO FERNANDEZ, et al.422 SCRA 293 (2004), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)

The Code of Judicial Conduct dictates that a judge should avoidimpropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activit ies.Petitioner Rufino Casimiro filed complaint against respondents JudgeOctavio Fernandez and Clerk of Court Teresita Esteban for refusing toreturn his P4,000.00 cash bond which he posted for his provincialliberty in a criminal case despite its dismissal. Casimiro gave the cashbond to Fernandez who, in turn, handed it to Esteban with the directivethat the latter issue the corresponding receipt. No receipt was issued,however. As despite the order directing Esteban to release Casimiro’s

cash bond, the latter failed to secure it. Esteban asserted that Casimirodid not post the cash bond with her, in support of which she submitteda copy of an undated letter from Mrs. R. Fernandez, the wife of JudgeFernandez, wherein Mrs. Fernandez stated that she had ―sent[complainant] P4,000.00 [via] Allied [Bank] check addressed to Atty.[Lamberto] Magbintang. ‖ Fernandez averred that ―the cash bond of P4,000 of Mr. Rufino Casimiro was already received by him, when [he]personally sent him a check for refund thereof, ‖ which the latter hadencashed.ISSUES:1.) Whether or not Fernandez is guilty of Grave Misconduct andDishonesty when they did not follow the usual procedure for theacceptance of cash bail bonds and the return thereof

7/29/2019 Basic Legal Ethics-judicial Conduct Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/basic-legal-ethics-judicial-conduct-cases 2/2

2

HELD:While there is no direct and hard evidence that Judge Fernandez madepersonal use of the cash bond, his wife’s issuance of her personalcheck to Casimiro in the amount of the cash bond, to have been drawnfrom an account which was treated as ―a joint accou nt‖ with his wife,indicates so. His subsequent justification for such issuance of a checkby his wife - mistaken belief - is too shallow to merit persuasion.By his actuations then Judge Fernandez placed his honesty andintegrity under serious doubt. Judg e Fernandez’s paying back of thecollection does not thus absolve him.