Legal and Judicial Ethics Cases - Disqualification and Inhibition of a Judge Flashcards
Geotina v. Gonzales
Disqualification/Inhibition of a Judge
REASON
JUDGE Gonzales Did not inhibit himself when he heard a case wherein one of the parties are related to Judge Gonzales within the sixth civil degree by affinity
CHARGE: disqualification, in violation of section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.
Judge Gonzales RESPONSE
he bears no relationship either to ANY OF THE parties.
Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.
Section 1. Disqualification of judges. — No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has been presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
WHEREFORE, The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Gonzales is hereby ordered to refrain permanently from taking further action in the criminal case because of his relationship within sixth degree of affinity to the complainant Calderon.
Paredes v. Abad
Topic: Disqualification/Inhibition of a Judge
Paredes v. Abad
Topic: Disqualification/Inhibition of a Judge
CHARGE
disqualification to continue hearing the election protests for the position of Governor and Vice-Governor
RESPONSE of respondents
respondents argued that because of the ratification of the new Constitution under Section 9, Art. XVII the private respondents are now holding their respective positions under a new term, indefinite as it is, the original four-year term to which they have been elected having expired upon the ratification of the New Constitution on January 17, 1973.
The SC ruled that it is erroneous to conclude that under Section 9, Art. XVII of the New Constitution, the term of office of the private respondents expired, and that they are now holding their respective offices under a new term.
RULING
Private respondents hold their respective offices still under the term to which they have been elected, although the same is now indefinite.
WHEREFORE And therefore disqualified Judge Abad for dismissing the election protest.
What did the case say about the inhibition of a judge?
Evangelista v. Baes
Topic: Disqualification/Inhibition of a Judge
Evangelista v. Baes
Topic: Disqualification/Inhibition of a Judge
CHARGE: serious misconduct or inefficiency
The case started because of an unverified letter is captioned with: “Servillano Evangelista vs. Judge Juan A. Baes “ which requests this Court “to require the Court of Agrarian Relations to decide the case of Evangelista vs. Calupitan, within the reglementary period as provided for in the New Constitution,”
the same having allegedly pended decision since 1970.
RULING
The Court ruled that the letter can by no means be regarded as a complaint as it does not comply with the requisites of a complaint, as set forth in Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Because Evangelista’s letter is not sworn to, does not set out facts constituting any alleged serious misconduct or inefficiency of the respondent, and merely requests this Court to order the agrarian court to decide a certain case within a specified period, the said letter may not properly be treated as an administrative complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, and for failure of the complainant San Gil to file a reply to the respondent’s answer and supplementary answer to the complaint, as required by this Court in its resolution on February 26, 1974, copy of which was served upon the said complainant on March 6, 1974, the complaint should be dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, for lack of a prima facie showing, all the charges against the respondent Judge are dismissed, except the second charge in Administrative Case No. 585-CAR, of which the respondent is adjudged guilty and for which he is hereby reprimanded.
Pimentel v. Salonga
Disqualification/Inhibition of a Judge
Pimentel v. Salonga
Disqualification/Inhibition of a Judge
Sec. 1 Par 1 of Rule 137 – A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
CHARGE: Serious misconduct inefficiency in office, partiality, ignorance of the law and incompetence.
PRAYER: Pimentel seeks to have Judge Salonga immediately suspended from office
Then, upon Judge Salonga’s return the cases handled by Pimentel was assigned to Judge Salonga.
Then Pimintel filed a complaint that Judge Salonga should disqualify himself and not sit in the cases where he is the counselor as per Sec. 1 Par 1 of Rule 137
RULING
Judge Salonga has not as yet crossed the line that divides partiality and impartiality. He has not thus far stepped to one side of the fulcrum. No act or conduct of his would show arbitrariness or prejudice. Therefore, we are not to assume what respondent judge, not otherwise legally disqualified, will do in a case before him.
SC ruled that since Judge Salonga is not legally under obligation to disqualify himself, we may not, on certiorari or prohibition, prevent him from sitting, trying and rendering judgment in the cases herein mentioned.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
Flores v. Abesamis
Disqualification/Inhibition of a Judge
This case is about a lawyer filing various cases against a judge at different times.
Atty. Flores had loans with Ligon and wasn’t able to pay it, and therefore had an obligation to surrender the “Parañaque Cockpit Stadium” (held by Flores under lease)
Flores won in the lower court, allowing him to have a cockpit since he had not infringed the compromise judgment.
But Flores was still unable to regain possession of the cockpit because Ligon filed an action in the CA.
Then after Ligon’s petition was dismissed again in CA, Judge Abesamis ordered issuance of an alias writ of execution to revert possession of the cockpit to Flores.
But enforcement of the alias writ of execution was again effectively delayed by still other circumstances.
Then Flores filed a criminal and administrative case against Judge Abesamis despite being aware of the circumstances.
Judge Abesamis was found innocent but after 2 years, Atty. Flores filed another case against Judge Abesamis in the Ombudsman.
SC ruled that – that Atty. Flores is guilty of abuse of the process or proceedings of the courts, and of improper conduct tending to obstruct or degrade the administration of justice (Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court). And GUILTY OF of contempt of court and fined 1,000 pesos.
Discuss the case of Lachica v. Flordeliza in relation to the topic of “The Judge.”
CHARGE
Abuse of judicial position and intimidation
INCIDENTS
(1) compelled the petitioner who is a doctor to sign a death certificate even though she was not the attending physician.
(2) the respondent was observed to be inebriated or intoxicated during a Municipal Employees Night (party)
RULING
The SC found that There was substantial evidence for the charges and the respondent violated Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
Canon 1. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
Canon 2. A judge should avoid impropriety and appearance of imprpriety in all activities
WHEREFORE, imposed a fine of P10,000 and a stern warning.
Discuss the case of Estoaya v. Abraham Singson in relation to the topic of “The Judge.”
The respondent judge demonstrated
(1) disrespectful behavior towards her court staff by shouting at them and treating them in a dictatorial manner.
(2) gross ignorance of the law by rendering incorrect judgment on cases such as imposing incorrect penalties to accused guilty of murder, granting accused guilty of murder bail and ordering a branch clerk to write decisions for her.
RULING
The SC said that gross ignorance of law and incompetence are characteristics and quirks impermissible in a judge.
A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles.
Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires that the judge should be “studious of the principles of law”; and Canon 18 mandates that he “should administer his office with a due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, remembering that he is not a depository of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law.”
Respondent judge was dismissed from service with prejudice to holding government office.
Discuss the case of Cortes v. Agcaoili in relation to the topic of “The Judge.”
Charge: corruption, abuse of authority and ingrnorance of the law
Reasons:
(1) Irregular attendance in respondents office (allegedly reporting only on Tues-Thurs)
(2) Anomalous dismissal of a Criminal Case and was allegedly given a car after the dismissal
(3) Irregular Dismissal of a Criminal Case entitled, People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Siriban.
(4) respondent did not place the witness on the stand and was allegedly given a car by the respondent in the case
4. Solicitation of fund, paint, spare parts of vehicles and free transportation pass
After the investigation, it was found that the respondent judge violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the Code for failure to comply with the rulings of the Supreme Court in the issuance of the order granting bail to accused Eddie Roldan, Jr. charged [with] murder; for ordering the release of the confiscated narra flitches and lumber to Jimmy Abad, contrary to the rulings of the Supreme Court and applicable laws; and, for eating and drinking with litigants and a person who expected to secure a favorable order from him, with a stern warning that respondent [j]udge will be dealt with more severely upon repetition of similar acts.
The respondent was FINED with the total amount of P40,000 P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law and P20,000 for the improper grant of bail. He is also SUSPENDED for a period of ten days, this being his second infraction of the rules on bail. He is further REPRIMANDED for fraternizing with litigants. Finally, he is sternly WARNED that a repetition of the foregoing or similar transgressions shall be penalized much more severely.
