Rodriguez vs Judge Rodolfo R.

Bonifacio
GR No. AM No. RTJ-99-1510

Facts:
On May 7, 1999 at about 11 p.m., the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in
coordination with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Bureau of
Immigration (BI) conducted simultaneous raids at the Royal Flame Club, Space World
and Narcissus Club which are all located in Ermita, Manila as a result of which 20
female Chinese nationals were caught in the act of entertaining customers and guests.
No Alien Employment Permits or Alien Employment Registration Certificates having
been presented by these nationals, they were turned over to the BI for custody and
verification of their alien status. They were thereupon confined at the BI Detention
Center at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila on May 8, 1999. On May 17, 1999,
Chinese National Ma Jing, one of the 20 apprehended Chinese, filed a petition for
habeas corpus at the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) which was raffled to Branch 151
thereof. After conducting a hearing on the petition for habeas corpus, Judge Bonifacio,
by Order of May 27, 1999, held that the petitioner is not really an undocumented alien
as she has a valid passport and visa issued by the Philippine Embassy on March 18,
1999. Her stay in the Philippines has been duly extended up to June 30, 1999 under
O.R. No. M 7922945. Ma Jing was release upon order of the court. The following
day, May 28, 1999 respondent Bureau of Immigration filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. By Order of June 15, 1999, Judge Bonifacio denied the BIs Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order of May 27, 1999 and directed BI Commissioner Rodriguez
and his co-respondents in the Motion to hold them in contempt of court for failure to
obey the Order of May 27, 1999. Also on June 15, 1999, the BI issued a summary
deportation order to Ma Jing who refused to receive it. The following day or on June 16,
1999, the BI filed at Branch 151 of the RTC Pasig a Notice of Appeal (to the Court of
Appeals) of the May 27, 1999 Order and the June 15, 1999 Order. By June 24, 1999,
Judge Bonifacio found Commissioner Rodriguez and co-respondents guilty of indirect
contempt and ordered their arrest and detention at the Pasig City jail until they have
complied with the Order dated May 27, 1999. On June 25, 1999, a Friday, at about 2
oclock in the afternoon, Commissioner Rodriguez, et al. were, pursuant to the June 24,
1999 Order, arrested by the NBI whose Director was specifically ordered by Judge
Bonifacio to serve the warrant. Commissioner Rodriguez et al. lost no time in filing at
the Court of Appeals on June 25, 1999 an Urgent Petition for Certiorari against Judge
Bonifacio, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 53425, followed by an Amended Petition, assailing

the Judges Order of June 24, 1999. He argue that the contempt proceeding was
improper because it was commenced by mere motion and not by a verified petition . By
Order of June 25, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction commanding the immediate release of Commissioner Rodriguez et al. after
posting a bond and directing Judge Bonifacio to file his comment on the petition.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and gross
incompetence.
Held:
Yes, the Court agrees with the investigating Justice that respondent judge should
indeed be sanctioned, but finds the recommended penalty not commensurate to the
gravity of respondents malfeasance. The degree of restraint respondent should have
observed in the exercise of his contempt powers leaves much to be desired, given the
prevailing facts of this case much more so, considering that the same bears with it the
taint of personal hostility and passion against the party to whom it is directed. Time and
again magistrates have been reminded that the salutary rule is that the power to
punish for contempt must be exercised in the preservative not vindictive principle, and
on the corrective not retaliatory idea of punishment. The courts and other tribunals
vested with the power of contempt must exercise the power for contempt for purposes
that are impersonal, because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges
as persons but for the functions that they exercise
Besides the basic equipment of possessing the requisite learning in the law, a
magistrate must exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and selfrestraint which are indispensable qualities of every judge. A judge anywhere should be
the last person to be perceived as a petty tyrant holding imperious sway over his
domain. Such an image is, however, evoked by the actuations of respondent judge in
this case.
It has time and again been stressed that the role of a judge in relation to those who
appear before his court must be one of temperance, patience and courtesy, a judge who
is commanded at all times to be mindful of his high calling and his mission as a
dispassionate and impartial arbiter of justice is expected to be a cerebral man who
deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of purely personal preferences which he
shares with his fellow mortals

Jocelyn Briones vs. Judge Francisco A. Ante Jr.

GR No. AM No. MTJ-02-1411

Facts:
Jocelyn Briones, a clerk of MTC Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur, charged Judge Francisco A.
Ante Jr, MTC of Sto. Domingo, with grave misconduct, acts unbecoming of a judge,
oppression and abuse of authority. In her letter-complaint filed with Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) on September 17, 1996, she alleged that on September 3, 1996,
she was instructed by clerk of court Apolonio T. Tagelo to docket the order archiving a
particular case. Not finding the docket book in its place, complainant searched for it and
saw it in possession of Court Interpreter Marcela Rabanal who was in the courtroom.
Complainant asked for and got the docket book from Rabanal. She then went back to
the staff room and placed the docket book on top of a filing cabinet but it fell on the floor,
causing a loud sound. She was about to pick it up when respondent judge appeared
and shouted at her why did yout throw the docket book? Respondent also added, you
get out of here, punyeta, we dont need you. Worse, respondent got a monobloc chair
and threw it at complainant, hitting her on the forehead and right arm. Immediately
thereafter, Heraclea Soliven, the court stenographer, brought complainant outside the
staff room.
In his comment, respondent judge denied hitting complainant with a chair, likewise
maintained that it was purely for harassment purposes as complainant knew that he
was about to file a complaint against her for testifying her Daily Time Record.
The administrative complaint were assigned to Executive Judge Alipio V. Fores for
investigation, report and recommendation.
In his report, the respondent judge was recommended for 1 month suspension without
pay. Said recommendation was referred to OCA. The OCA adopted the findings and
recommendation.

Issue:
Whether the respondent is guilty of abuse of authority and unbecoming acts of a judge.

Held:
Yes, respondent judge displayed a predisposition to use physical violence and
intemperate language which reveals a marked lack of judicial temperament and selfrestraint traits which, aside from the basic equipment of learning in the law are
indispensable qualities of every Judge.
The evidence positively shows that respondent judge shouted invectives and threw a
chair at the complainant on September 3, 1996, as a result of which, complainant, as
proven by a medical certificate, sustained wrist and other injuries. Clearly, this behavior
of respondent first cannot be sanctioned. Respondent act, coupled with his being a
public official, holding a position in the fiduciary, holding a postion in the fiduciary and
specifically entrusted with the sacred duty of administering justice, violates Canon 2 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Antonio Yu-Asensi vs. Judge Francisco D. Villanueva,

GR No. AM No. MTJ-00-1245

Facts:
On December 10, 1996, Antonio Yu-Asensi filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) charging respondent judge with serious misconduct and/or
inefficiency particularly violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics on promptness and
punctuality.
The complaint was filed in connection with Crim. Case No. 5400 entitled People vs
Edwin Santos, for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Serious Physical Injuries pending
before Br. 36, MTC of Quezon City. Complainant is the father of a 7 year-old boy who
was hit by a car driven by the accused Santos. In his letter complaint is an affidavit

which alleges that Respondent Judge consistenetly arrive 1 1 hours late from the
scheduled hearing.
Respondent judge filed a comment on March 13, 1997, complainant Antonio Yu-Asensi
and his lawyer were harassing judge, for advese ruling and resolutions rendered, due
to negligence and omission of complainants counsel.
Finding his comment unsatisfactory, the court issued resolution referring the complaint
to Executive Judge of RTC QC.
Executive Judge finding respondent guilty of habitual tardiness which amounts to
serious misconduct and inefficiency in violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of serious misconduct and inefficiency by
reason of habitual tardiness.

Held:
Yes, the Court is convinced that respondent judge is guilty of habitual tardiness which
amounts to serious misconduct and inefficiency. Punctuality and strict observance of
office hours and punctuality in the holding of scheduled hearing is an imperative. The
trial judge should strictly observe the requirements of at least 8 hours of service a day,
pursuant to Sec. 16 of BP 129.
The Code of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should administer justice impartially
and without delay. A judge should likewise be imbued with a high sense of duty and
responsibility in the discharge oh his obligation to promptly administer justice. The trial
judge being a paradigms of justice in the first instance have, time and again, been
exhorted to dispose of the courts business promptly and to decide cases within the
required period because delays result in undermining of their supplications is
anticipated and expected, and reinforces in the minds of the litigants the impression that
the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.
It is toward the sacrosanct goal of ensuring the peoples faith in te judiciary that the
Code of Judicial Conduct must always be observed.