CANON 2 INTEGRITY

He bragged about drafting decisions and his closeness to Judge

Pardo

Portrayed himself as a lawyer even thought he did not pass the

bar.

CALPATURA denied the allegations and presented a witness who

testified that the Rosendo did not give him money

That the accusations against him are fabricated.

CASE #1 CONSOLIDATED CASES OF

Atty. Jessi Tuldague and Atty. Alfredo Balajo vs Judge

Moises pardo and Jaime Calpatura and the report on the
judicial audit and investigation conducted in the RTC Cabarroguis
Quirino A.M. No. RTJ-05-1962 October 17, 2013

Facts:

COMPLAINANTS allege that Judge Pardo asked and received

P6,000 from Rosendo Discipulo, the accused in PP vs Rosendo
Discipulo, in exchange for a favorable decision on his application
for probation

That Calpatura sent an emissary to Rosendo to ask 10,000

That Calpatura and Judge Pardo sent text messages to the

accused instructing him to give 3,000 to Dominador Pascua, and
he was instructed to go to his house where he had a drinking
session with the judge where he gave P6,000 in the presence of
his companions and the driver of the judge.

In othere cases, the Judge allegedly obtained money for a

speedy release of a copy of petition, asked for one deer, in
exchange for endorsing him to the position of process server of
RTC, ordered to take out cans of paint to paint his house. Two of
said accusations were allegedly discovered by the complainants
themselves.

DEFENDANT JUDGE denied the accusations stating that these

are unsupported by concrete evidence and obtained illegally in
violation of the privacy of communication.

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

In the case against Jaime Calpatura:

It was alleged that Calpatura approached litigants and offered

them assistance provided they would give him money or animals.

That Calpatura acted as an emissary to ask for money for Judge

Pardos favorable decisions.

He acted as bagman for the Judge where the accused deposited

cash bonds

In the judicial audit

The audit team found an accumulated cases not yet resolved for
a considerable length of time.

ISSUE:
1.

W/N JUDGE PARDO IS GUILTY OF CORRUPTION AND

2.

VIOLATION OF THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Ans.1 No. The respondent Judge is not guilty of corruption, as well as

Calpatura. For failure of the complainants to substantiate their charges. The
complainants did not have direct knowledge of their charges and the
witnesses they presented were not credible to substantiate their claims. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, bare allegations of misconduct
cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of
judicial duty.
Ans. 2 YES. The act of Judge Pardo of meeting the accused in his house to
have a drinking spree constitute gross misconduct.
Section 1, Canon 2 " Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct
above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer."
Section 2, Canon 2 of the Code states that "The behavior and conduct of
judges must reaffirm the peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary."
Section 1, Canon 4 of the Code states that "Judges shall avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities."
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Judge Moises Pardo, GUILTY of gross
misconduct and FINE him 140,000.00 to be deducted from his
retirement benefits.
CRISELDA C. GACAD, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE HILARION P. CLAPIS, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 3,
Nabunturan, Compostela Valley,Respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant filed a verified complaint against Judge Hilarion

Clapis for Grave Misconduct and Corrupt Practices, Grave Abuse

of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and violations of

Canon 1 (Rule 1.01, 1.02), Canon 2 (Rule 2.01), and Canon 3
(Rule 3.05) of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to Criminal
Case No. 6898 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo
Comania."

Complainant went to the provincial prosecutor Graciano Arafol to

file criminal charges against the suspect who gunned down her
brother Gregorio Cardenas. They met provincial prosecutor
Graciano Arafol, Jr. (Arafol), who advised them not to hire a
private counsel.

Arafol told the complainant that because of the pressure by the

Governor, they must see Judge Clapis so that the motion for
reinvestigation to be filed by the accused be denied,

Arafol told complainant to prepare the amount of P50,000,which

was given to the Nephew of Arafol, in the presence of the
complainants driver, which Arafol delivered to Judge Clapis who
was waiting in a coffee bar.

RULING:

ANS.1 We have ruled that in administrative proceedings, the

complainant has the burden to prove his accusations against
respondent with substantial evidence or such amount of evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.6 This Court has consistently ruled that charges based
on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.7

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.

Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct

above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer.

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.

Section 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.

IN HIS COMMENT, judge Clapis claimed that notices were made

verbally because fo time constraints, but were nevertheless given
an opportunity to be heard since the proceedings were done in
open court. He denied having a bank account.

the Investigating Justice ruled that Judge Clapis committed grave

misconduct for acting contrary to the prescribed standard of
conduct for judges. Although the Investigating Justice was not
convinced that Judge Clapis received P50,000, and then tried to
borrow another P50,000, from Gacad, she found Gacads
narration of her meeting with Judge Clapis in Golden Palace Hotel
as credible

Respondent judge merely offered a flat denial when he could

have presented Prosecutor Arafol to buttress his disavowal of any
imputed misconduct on his part
Furthermore, the Investigating Justice found Judge Clapis liable
for gross ignorance of the law. Judge Clapis was partial in
granting bail to the accused and in failing to set the case for
hearing within a reasonable time.

ISSUE:

GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES

VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr. of the Regional

Trial Court, Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley from the service for
Gross Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law, with forfeiture of all
benefits due him, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from
appointment to any public office including government-owned or controlled
corporations. His position in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Nabunturan,
Compostcla Valley is declared VACANT. This Decision is immediately
executory.

CARMEN P. EDAO, Complainant,

vs.
JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, RTC Br. 87, Quezon City, and
STENOGRAPHER MYRLA DEL PILAR NICANDRO, RTC Br. 217, Quezon
City, Respondents.
FACTS:

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

A writ of execution was subsequently issued which included the

garnishing of rental payments for the apartments in Cubao,
Quezon City

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.

It was at this juncture that respondent Judge Asdala took

cognizance of the case.

Due to the failure of defendant Butler to comply complainant

Edao moved to cite defendant Butler in contempt. Judge Asdala
found defendant Butler guilty of indirect contempt and sentenced
him to four (4) months imprisonment and a P30,000.00 fine.

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.

a Bench Warrant was issued against defendant Butler.4

Defendant prafter privately meeting with defendant Butler in her

chambers, respondent Judge Asdala issued the following order
that the finding of guilt is reconsidered and the fine is reduced to
P5,000 and the imprisonment is set aside.

The complaint was then dismissed on the ground of insufficiency

of evidence.
COMPLAINANT alleges that Judge met privately with
defendant without notice or consent and without her
participation. That judge forced her to file a complaint for
neglect of duties against her counsel, paid her for her
silence, and that the money was not given directly to her.

Section 1, Canon 2, specifically mandates judges to "ensure that not only is

their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of
reasonable observers
Thus, judges must be circumspect in their actions in order to avoid doubt and
suspicion in the dispensation of justice. To further emphasize its importance,
Section 2, Canon 2 states:
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.
1. Respondent Judge Fatima G. Asdala is found GUILTY of gross
insubordination and gross misconduct unbefitting a member of the
judiciary and is accordingly DISMISSED from the service with
forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which she
may be entitled. Since this is not the first time she committed
mistakes.

COMPLAINANT also alleges that stenographer Myrla

Nicandro subtracted certain amount before turning over the
money to her, and uses the functings of OIC acting branch
clerk of court without approval.
JUDGE comments that the recall of the bench warrant and the
reduction of the fine are matters of judicial discretionRespondent
Judge Asdala likewise denies the charges that she instigated a
complaint against Atty. Alejandria. She points to the fact that the
complainant herself wrote a letter of apology withdrawing her
complaint and retracting the statements made therein. As for the
designation of respondent Nicandro that the same was with the
knowledge of the Executive Judge of Quezon City; and that as
presiding judge of Branch 87, she has the discretion and the
authority to appoint whoever has her trust and confidence. With
regard to the decision to dismiss the civil case for support

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

2. Respondent Myrla Nicandro is found GUILTY of

insubordination in assuming the position and discharging the
functions of OIC/ Branch Clerk of Court without and in defiance of
proper authority and is accordingly SUSPENDED from the service
for a period of sixty (60) days,

NORA C. PEREZ and ENGRACIA G.

RONQUILLO, Complainants, v. JUDGE JOVEN COSTALES, RTC, Branch
45, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Respondent.
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Nora C. Perez and Engracia G.
Ronquillo, professors of the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University,
South La Union Campus (DMMMSU-SLUC), against Judge Joven Costales
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City (Branch 45), charging him
of violating Canons 2 and 3, and Rules 2.04 and 3.12 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, and for Harassment.

Complainants Perez and Ronquillo are two of the four professors

accused by respondent Judge's wife, Perla F. Costales, of the
crime of Estafa

respondent Judge was with his wife during the hearing of

Criminal Case

respondent Judge testified in behalf of the prosecution in Criminal

Case

Respondent Judge pressured and made follow-ups on the case

with the public prosecutor;

Respondent Judge wrote a letter dated October 10, 2003,

addressed to the President of the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial
State University, asking what course of action you would

IN HIS COMMENT respondent Judge denied the allegations.

THAT he attended in his private capacity as he was a witness for
his wife, although he was not presented anymore. Respondent
Judge stated that he filed a leave of absence and did not use his
official time to attend the hearings of the case. Respondent Judge
also believed that there was no impropriety in his act of writing a
letter to the university officials. It was done with the consent of his
wife, and he did not use his position to influence the officials. He
merely asked what course of action has been taken against the
four professors involved. Respondent Judge also denied that he
pressured the public prosecutor and if ever he went to the
prosecutor's office, it was on leave of absence

FINDINGS OF THE OCA

JUAN DE LA CRUZ (CONCERNED CITIZEN OF LEGAZPI

CITY), complainant,
vs.
JUDGE RUBEN B. CARRETAS, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Legazpi City, Branch 9,respondent.
FACTS:

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

The respondents participation in the criminal cases filed by

his wife was limited to being a witness. He did not give his
opinion nor participation in the proceedings. Likewise the
presence in the prosecutors office did not show that he
influenced the action of the prosecutor
However, in writing to the administrative officials respondent
judge obviously sought to influence or put pressure on them
with regard to the actions to be taken against the four
professors. His wife could have written the letter herself, as
she is the complainant in the criminal cases against the four
professors. Respondent ought to have known that such a
letter from one occupying the position of judge will not be
treated as a mere ordinary inquiry. Respondent should have
realized that his letter can be regarded as tending to
influence the outcome of the investigation being conducted
by the university about the matter.

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.

This administrative case stems from an anonymous complaint by

"Juan de la Cruz," a concerned citizen of Legazpi City, against
respondent Judge Ruben B. Carretas, presiding judge of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 9.
The letter is about the actuations of the judge in insulting the
fiscal, lawyer or witnesses with his harsh side comments. He may
have used harsh word sometimes, they were made out of
exasperation and with the intention merely to right the wrong
committed in his presence, not to insult anyone. Nonetheless, he
apologized to those who may have been offended by his remarks.
Executive Judge Romeo Danas made a discreet investigation and
interviewed lawyers regarding the decorum of the judge
The OCA adopted the findings of Judge Daas and
recommended that the judge be advised of the proper judicial
decorum.

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:

METROBANK was a mortgagee in good faith and for value,

forclosed the mortgaged of parcels of land in Koronadal. The
mortgagors failed to redeem.
Complainant filed a complaint for annulment of the
mortgage.
Judge dinopol inhibited himself because he wanted to avoid
being charged with partiality since a ranking officer of
Philippine Judicial Academy and from the OCA.
Metrobank filed a petition for issuance of writ of possession,
judge granted the petition. The implementation of the writ of
execution was prevented by the stay order of RTC of Marawi,
but judge dinopol ordered the re-execution of the same.
Complainant filed an administrative complaint charging
Judge Dinopol gross ignorance of the law and conduct
unbecoming of a judge.
Complainant alleged that judge asked him for commodity
loans in the form of construction materials to be used in the
construction of the judge house,cash loans, borrowed a
multicab
In his comment, the Judge said he already inhibited himself
when he obtained the loan

RULING:

THE judge cannot be disciplined for ignorance of the

law since he already inhibited himself.
The act of the judge in granting a writ of possession is a
ministerial function, and regardless of whether there is
a pending suit, the purchases is entitled to a writ of
possession.
However, he is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge
by committing serious impropriety in his familys
financial dealings
CANON 2 requires a judge to promote integrity in the
discharge of his official functions, but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.
Section 1. The judge shall ensure their conduct is above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in view of a
reasonable observer.
Section 2. The conduct must reaffirm the peoples faith
in the judiciary. Justice must be done and seen to be
done
Dismissed for gross misconduct., forfeiture of all
benefits, barred from re-employment.