Case

Cua Shuk Yin

v.
Judge
Perello (2005)

Keyword/ Doctrine
FACTS
Greedy
and
usurer Cua Shuk Yin filed a complaint for
Chinese woman.
undue delay against Judge Norma
Perello.
Doctrine:
Cua Shuk Yin had a case under
Judge Perello against Sps.
In the absence of
Arciaga. According to her, Perello
malice, fraud, dishonesty
had a
or corruption, the acts of history of being negligent and
a judge in his judicial
tolerating delays of the other party.
capacity are not subject
It was only after the SC ordered
to disciplinary action,
Perello to resolve with dispatch
even if such acts are
cases pending in her sala and
erroneous.
warned her that such other delays
Judges must bear in
would be dealt with severely, that
mind that their behavior
Perello decided to resolve her
must
reaffirm
the
case.
peoples faith in the
The case was decided against Cua
integrity of the judiciary,
but was reversed by the CA.
and that justice must not
Perello issued an order for the
merely be done but must
execution of the CA decision
also be seen to be done
giving the Spouses 90 days to pay
their
loan
otherwise
their
properties would be foreclosed.
90 days have lapsed but Perello
failed to issue a writ of execution
despite persistent follow-ups.
Cua filed another administrative case
against Perello. The Office of the
Court Administrator recommended
that the case be dismissed
because it involved Perellos
understanding
of
a
judicial
question under Sec.2, Rule 68 of
ROC- the start of the 90-day
period - which should be resolved
in a judicial action and not in an
administrative action.
However, the OCA recommended
that Perello be admonished for
calling Cua Shuk Yin names such
as greedy and usurer Chinese
woman, tagging her lawyer as
lazy
and
negligent
while
branding her own clerk of court as
equally lazy and incompetent.

ISSUE AND RULING

Issues:
1. WON the finding of the OCA should be
upheld.
2.WON the respondent violated the code of
judicial conduct for her improper language
against the complainant.
Held:
1. YES. Perellos act of not issuing the writ
was not motivated by bad faith because it
was justified by her understanding of the law.
For her, the 90-day period should start on the
issuance of her order executing the CA
judgment and not the entry of judgment of the
CA. If Cua wanted to question this, she
shouldve done so in a judicial action.
2. YES. As for the improper language, the
Court stated that:
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the
activities of a judge. As such, the esteemed
position of a magistrate of the law demands
temperance, patience and courtesy both in
conduct and in language. As subjects of
constant public scrutiny, personal restrictions
that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen should be freely and willingly
accepted by a judge. In particular, he or she
must exhibit conduct consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office. Thus, judges
must bear in mind that their behavior must
reaffirm the peoples faith in the integrity of
the judiciary, and that justice must not merely
be done but must also be seen to be done.
The case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
However, she is ADMONISHED for conduct
of unbecoming a judge and STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same similar
act shall be dealt with more severely.