REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

ATTENTION : OFFICE OF
THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR

IN RE: HON. TITA BUGHAO

ALISUAG, IN HER CAPACITY
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE
NO:_____________________
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
FOR: GROSS IGNORANCE
COURT OF MANILA CITY,
OF THE LAW
BRANCH 1

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
COMMISSIONER NICANOR
E. FAELDON,
Complainant.
x----------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
Complainant COMMISIONER NICANOR E. FAELDON
(FAELDON) OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC),
respectfully states:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1.1. This is an administrative complaint filed under the

Honorable Courts A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, in relation to Rule 140
of the Rules of Court and the New Code of Judicial Conduct, to
discipline Judge Tita Bughao Alisuag, Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, City of Manila
(respondent Judge), for her gross and deplorable conduct,
particularly in issuing the Order dated March 6, 2017, in the
case entitled Mighty Corporation vs. Commissioner Nicanor
E. Faeldon, Bureau Of Customs (BOC), Cleo Dongga-as,
Ceferino Checa III, Christopher Degano, John Edmund
Beda Andres and Other persons Representing Themselves
and Working Under BOC Mission Order Nos. 02-28-2017-
738 and 02-28-2017-739 and Those of Similar Purposes,
docketed as Civil Case No. 17-137788, (the Injunction
Case), in blatant and clear defiance of established law and
jurisprudence, and more specifically, the New Code of Judicial
Conduct. The instant Complaint will clearly establish that
respondent Judge is administratively liable for: (i) Gross
ignorance of the law or procedure, or for violating the Supreme
Courts rules, directives, and circulars; and (ii) gross
misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct.1

1.2. Respondent Judges issuance of the said Order dated

March 6, 2017 constitutes ignorance of the law, so gross that it
strikes at the very core of the publics faith and confidence on
the integrity and competence of the countrys judicial system.
Worse, it demonstrates deplorable and highly irregular conduct,
causing grave and irreparable damage to the public in general,
to the benefit of suspect individuals. As will be proven herein,
respondent Judge violated the following Canons as solemnly
enshrined in the New Code of Judicial Conduct:

CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the

rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify
judicial independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.

SECTION 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial

function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with a
conscientious understanding of the law, free of any
extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat
or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or
for any reason. x x x

1 See Sections 8 (3) and (9), and 9 (4) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by
A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.

2
 SECTION 6. Judges shall be independent in
relation to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.

SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote

high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce
public confidence in the judiciary, which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial
independence. x x x

CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge

of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision
itself but also to the process by which the decision is
made.

SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their

judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.

SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her

conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary. x x x

CANON 2
INTEGRITY

Integrity is essential not only to the proper

discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.

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.

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. x x x.

3
 CANON 4
PROPRIETY

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are

essential to the performance of all the activities of a
judge.

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all of their activities. x x x

CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Competence and diligence are prerequisites to

the due performance of judicial office. x x x

SECTION 3. Judges shall take reasonable

steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge,
skills and personal qualities necessary for the
proper performance of judicial duties, taking
advantage for this purpose of the training and
other facilities which should be made available,
under judicial control, to judges. [Emphasis
supplied]

PARTIES

2.1. Complainant NICANOR E. FAELDON is the

Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs with address at OCOM
Bldg., BOC, Port Area, Manila City, where he may be served with
orders and processes of the Honorable Court.

2.2. Respondent JUDGE TITA BUGHAO ALISUAG, is a

Filipino, of legal age, and is the Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila City, Branch 1, Manila City Hall, Padre
Burgos Ave., Ermita, Manila where she may be served with
summons, orders, pleadings and other court processes.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

2.3. On February 28, 2017, pursuant to Mission Order No.

02-28-2017-738 dated February 27, 2017, Mission Order No.
02-28-2017-739 dated February 28, 2017 (subject Mission
Orders) and two (2) Letters of Authority both dated February
28, 2017 (subject Letters of Authority), all signed by
complainant Commissioner Faeldon, agents of the BOC
conducted inspection, seizure, and forfeiture proceedings of
four (4) warehouses being operated by Mighty Corporation at
the San Simon Industrial Park located at Quezon Road, San
Simon, Pampanga.

2.4. The subject Mission Orders uniformly provide:

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 214 (a)

and (b), of R.A. No. 10863, otherwise known as the
Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA), you
are hereby directed to conduct the following activities
in the area herein specified:

AREAS: Warehouses inside San Simon Industrial

Park, Quezon Road, San Simon,
Pampanga which are being used as
storage of cigarettes

ACTIVITIES: 1. To inspect all warehouses that

are being used as storage of cigarettes
inside San Simon Industrial Park, Quezon
Road, San Simon, Pampanga:

2. To inspect, search and locate

counterfeit and smuggled cigarettes
or goods in the said area/s;

3. To seize cigarettes or goods which

are found to be counterfeit and/or
smuggled and immediately turn-
over the seized items to the
Bureau of Customs;

4. To conduct such other activities as

may be necessary for the
implementation of this Order, in

5
 accordance with existing laws, rules
and regulations.

A report hereon must be submitted to the

undersigned within five (5) days after the end of the
conduct of the above activity. [Emphasis supplied]

2.5. On the other hand, the Letters of Authority uniformly

provide:

To implement the Title II Chapter 3, Section

224 of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act
(CMTA), which read as follows:

Section 224. Power to Inspect and

Visit. The Commissioner or any customs
officer who is authorized in writing by the
Commissioner, may demand evidence of
payment of duties and taxes on
imported goods openly for sale or kept
in storage. In the event that the interested
party fails to produce such evidence within
fifteen (15) days, the goods may be seized
and subjected to forfeiture proceedings:
Provided, That during the proceedings, the
interested party shall be given the
opportunity to prove or show the source of
the goods and the payment of duties and
taxes thereon: Provided, Further, That
when the warrant of seizure has been
issued but subsequent documents
presented evidencing proper payment are
found to be authentic and in order, the
District Collector shall, within fifteen (15)
days from the receipt of the motion to
quash or recall the warrant, cause the
immediate release of the goods seized,
subject to clearance by the Commissioner:
Provided, Finally, That the release thereof
shall not be contrary to law.

In relation thereto, Sec. 219 of the CMTA

provides that any person exercising police authority
may enter any land or enclosure that is not
principally used as dwelling house, thus:

6
 Section 219. Authority to Enter
Properties. Any person exercising police
authority may, at any time, enter, pass
through, and search any land, enclosure,
warehouse, store, building or structure
not principally used as a dwelling house.

When a security personnel or any

other employee lives in the warehouse,
store, or any building, structure or
enclosure that is used for storage of goods,
it shall not be considered as a dwelling
house for purposes of this Act.

In furtherance with the above mentioned

provisions, the visiting officers, are hereby
AUTHORIZED to BREAKDOWN any outer or inner
gate or window of the establishment/s, if refused
admittance to the place after giving notice for their
purpose/s, and to SEIZE the goods should the
payment of duties and taxes cannot be produced
upon demand therefore.

Copies of Mission Order No. 02-28-2017-738 dated

February 27, 2017, Mission Order No. 02-28-2017-739 dated
February 28, 2017, and the two (2) Letters of Authority dated
February 28, 2017 are attached as Annexes A to D,
respectively.

2.6. The inspection of the said warehouses resulted in the

discovery2 and seizure of cigarettes with fake stamps used for
taxes.3

2.7. Subsequently, on March 3, 2017, Mighty Corporation

filed a Complaint (With Application for a 72-Hour Temporary

2 P2-B worth of fake cigarettes seized, link available at:

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/local-news/2017/03/02/p2-b-worth-fake-
cigarettes-seized-528686 (last accessed: March 8, 2017).
3 Dominguez orders BOC, BIR to sue cigarette tax evaders, link available at:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/877646/dominguez-orders-boc-bir-to-sue-cigarette-
tax-vaders#ixzz4aiBnwcqp (last accessed: March 8, 2017).

7
 Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) dated
March 2, 2017 (Complaint for Injunction) with the respondent
Judge to enjoin the BOC and complainant Commissioner
Faeldon, among others, from conducting illegal raids or
inspection on the basis of BOCs LOAs now or hereafter issued
upon an unverified complaint, thus.4 Mighty Corporation
likewise prayed for the return of all the seized property. A copy
of the Complaint for Injunction dated March 2, 2017 is attached
as Annex E.

2.8. On March 7, 2017, the BOC and complainant

Commissioner Faeldon receive the Order March 6, 2017 issued
by the respondent Judge granting Mighty Corporations
application for the issuance of a TRO. Notably, this was done
in clear violation of the long-established rule that judges of
regular courts, such as respondent Judge, are prohibited from
and do not have jurisdiction to enjoin orders and decisions of
the BOC, most especially seizure and forfeiture proceedings.
Worse, the TRO was also overbroad, practically prohibiting the
BOC from exercising its mandate over Mighty Corporation
since in enjoining the BOC from conducting inspection and
raids against Mighty Corporation not only on the basis of the
Mission Orders and Letters of Authority subject of the case, but
also on the basis of other Letters of Authority which are now
or hereafter issued which are not subject of the case. A copy
of the Order dated March 6, 2017 granting the prayer for the
issuance of a TRO is attached as Annex F.

2.9. This issuance by respondent Judge clearly

constitutes gross ignorance of the law tantamount to gross
misconduct and shows the manifest bias or partiality of
respondent Judge.

2.10. Hence, the instant Complaint.

GROUNDS

4 At p. 8 of the Complaint for Injunction.

8
 RESPONDENT JUDGE SHOULD BE HELD
ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR GROSS
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW TANTAMOUNT TO
GROSS MISCONDUCT CONSIDERING THAT SHE
ISSUED THE ORDER DATED MARCH 6, 2017
DESPITE THE CLEAR AND UNQUESTIONABLE
FACT THAT SHE HAD NO AUTHORITY NOR
JURISDICTION TO DO SO.

II

RESPONDENT JUDGE SHOULD BE HELD

ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR COMMITTING
GROSS VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW CODE OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR EXHIBITING
UNQUESTIONABLE BIAS AND PARTIALITY IN
FAVOR OF MIGHTY CORPORATION TO THE
PREJUDICE OF THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL
THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER
DATED MARCH 6, 2017.

DISCUSSION

I. Respondent Judge Should Be Held

Administratively Liable For Gross
Ignorance Of The Law Tantamount
To Gross Misconduct Considering
That She Issued The Order Dated
March 6, 2017 Despite The Clear
And Unquestionable Fact That She
Had No Authority Nor Jurisdiction
To Do So.

3.1. Respondent Judge clearly acted in violation of the

New Code of Judicial Conduct when she issued the Order dated
March 6, 2017 in blatant violation of the well-established
doctrine that regular courts do not have jurisdiction over
seizure and forfeiture proceedings of the BOC.

3.2. Section 3, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial

Conduct mandates that judges hone their skills in order to
ensure proper performance of their judicial duties:

9
 CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Competence and diligence are prerequisites to

the due performance of judicial office. x x x

SECTION 3. Judges shall take reasonable

steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge,
skills and personal qualities necessary for the
proper performance of judicial duties, taking
advantage for this purpose of the training and
other facilities which should be made available,
under judicial control, to judges. [Emphasis
supplied]

3.3. In Heirs of Simeon Piedad, et al. vs. Estrera, et

al., 608 SCRA 268 (2009), the Supreme Court held that judges
must know and apply fundamental legal principles otherwise,
he shall be held liable for gross ignorance of the law:

As members of the judiciary, respondents-

judges ought to know the fundamental legal
principles; otherwise, they are susceptible to
administrative sanction for gross ignorance of the
law, as in the instant case. As held in Mactan Cebu
International Airport v. Hontanosa, Jr.:

As a judge, the respondent must

have the basic rules at the palm of his
hands as he is expected to maintain
professional competence at all times.
Judges should be diligent in keeping
abreast with developments in law and
jurisprudence, and regard the study of law
as a never-ending and ceaseless process.
Elementary is the rule that when laws or
rules are clear, it is incumbent upon the
respondent to apply them regardless of
personal belief and predilections. To put it
differently, when the law is unambiguous
and unequivocal, application not
interpretation thereof is imperative.
Indeed, a judge is called upon to exhibit

10
 more than just a cursory acquaintance
with statutes and procedural rules. He
must be conversant with basic legal
principles and well-settled doctrines. He
should strive for excellence and seek the
truth with passion. The failure to observe
the basic laws and rules is not only
inexcusable, but renders him susceptible
to administrative sanction for gross
ignorance of the law from which no one is
excused, and surely not a judge.

3.4. As will be shown in detail below, respondent Judge is

guilty of gross ignorance of the law when he issued the Order
March 6, 2017.

Violation of Supreme Courts OCA

Circular No. 79-03

3.5. Respondent Judge should not have issued the Order

dated March 6, 2017 for the sole reason that the RTC Manila
does not have jurisdiction over the case.

3.6. The Supreme Courts OCA Circular No. 79-03 dated

June 12, 2003,5 expressly prohibits regular courts, such as the
RTC Manila wherein respondent Judge presides, from issuing
TROs against orders of the BOC:

Administrative Circular No. 07-99, issued by

the Supreme Court on 25 June 1999, stated, Despite
well-entrenched jurisprudence and circulars
regarding exercise of judiciousness and care in the
issuance of temporary restraining orders (TRO) or
grant of writs of preliminary injunction, reports or
complaints on abuses committed by trial judges in
connection therewith persist. . . .

5 Reminding Judges to Exercise Utmost Caution, Prudence and Judiciousness in

Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders and Writs of Preliminary Injunctions, 12
June 2003.

11
 Despite the issuance of said circular, and the
passage of several laws prohibiting the issuance of
TRO or the grant of writs of preliminary injunctions,
complaints against judges with respect to issuance of
TROs remain unabated. Records of the Office of the
Court Administrator show numerous complaints
against judges for arbitrary issuance of TRO and
injunctive writ and for violation of the various laws
and Supreme Court circulars that prohibit such
issuance. Records likewise show that there were
judges that were in fact administratively
sanctioned for such offense.

Hence, trial judges are once again cautioned

regarding the improvident or irregular issuance of
TRO or the grant of writs of preliminary
injunction, and are reminded to be aware of the
cases wherein the issuance of TRO or the grant of
preliminary injunction is proper, as well as the cases
wherein they are not.

For the guidance of the trial judges, the

following is a list of cases wherein courts are not
allowed to issue TRO or writs of preliminary
injunction:

xxx

12. Orders or Decisions of the Bureau of

Customs

In the case of Bureau of Customs and the

Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB)
vs. Ogario and Montelibano, G.R. No. 138081, March
30, 2000, the Supreme Court held that Regional Trial
Courts have no jurisdiction to enjoin forfeiture
proceedings in the Bureau of Customs. Thus, the
Court declared:

There is no question that Regional Trial Courts

are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity
or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings
conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or
otherwise interfere with these proceedings. The
Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture
proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
determine all questions touching on the seizure and

12
 forfeiture of dutiable goods. The Regional Trial
Courts are precluded from assuming cognizance over
such matters even through petitions of certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus.

xxx xxx xxx

The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no

review powers over such proceedings is anchored
upon the policy of placing no unnecessary hindrance
on the governments drive, not only to prevent
smuggling and other frauds upon Customs, but more
importantly, to render effective and efficient the
collection of import and export duties due the State,
which enables the government to carry out the
functions it has been instituted to perform.

Even if the seizure by the Collector of Customs

were illegal, which has yet to be proven, we have said
that such act does not deprive the Bureau of
Customs jurisdiction thereon. [Emphasis and
underscoring supplied]

3.7. Simply put, OCA Circular No. 79-03 expressly

prohibits the issuance of any TRO against Orders or Decisions
of the Bureau of Customs. Considering that the subject Mission
Orders and Letters of Authority, and BOCs LOA now and
hereafter issued are undeniably orders of the BOC, respondent
Judge was devoid of jurisdiction to issue the Order dated March
6, 2017 and the resultant TRO.

3.8. Even assuming that the prohibition in the foregoing

OCA Circular No. 79-03 does not cover all orders or decisions
of the BOC, nevertheless, there was still gross ignorance of the
law on the part of respondent Judge since the proceedings
enjoined clearly involve seizure or forfeiture proceedings has
repeatedly been acknowledged by the Supreme Court cannot be
enjoined by regular courts.

3.9. In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs.

Navarro, 77 SCRA 264 (1977) the Supreme Court explained the
rule that regular courts should yield to the jurisdiction of the
BOC when it comes to seizure and forfeiture proceedings, thus:

13
 [S]uch jurisdiction of the customs authorities
is exclusive was made clear in Pacis v. Averia,
decided in 1966. This Court, speaking through
Justice J. P. Bengzon, realistically observed: This
original jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance, when exercised in an action for
recovery of personal property which is a subject
of a forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of
Customs, tends to encroach upon, and to render
futile, the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs
in seizure and forfeiture proceedings. The court
should yield to the jurisdiction of the Collector
of Customs. x x x [Emphasis and underscoring
supplied]

3.10. In fact, in recognition of this rule prohibiting regular

courts from issuing TROs and writs of preliminary injunction
against seizure and forfeiture proceedings of the BOC, the
Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Administrative Circular
No. 7-99 dated 25 June 1999,6 where the Supreme Court
reminded judges, such as respondent Judge, that they are
expected to observe utmost caution, prudence and
judiciousness in the issuance of TRO and in the grant of
writs of preliminary injunction to avoid any suspicion that
its issuance or grant was for considerations other than the
strict merits of the case. The Supreme Court further cited the
case of Mison vs. Natividad, 213 SCRA 734 (1992), thus:

[b]y express provision of law, amply supported

by well-settled jurisprudence, the Collector of
Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure
and forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts
cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or stifle
or put it to naught. [Emphasis and underscoring
supplied]

3.11. It is clear that the subject Mission Orders and Letters

of Authority involve seizure and forfeiture proceedings of the
BOC, which the respondent Judge, does not have the authority

6 Exercise of Utmost Caution, Prudence, and Judiciousness in Issuance of Temporary

Restraining Orders and Writs of Preliminary Injunctions

14
to enjoin. This is clearly seen by the fact that in the subject
Mission Orders, it expressly provides that properties can be
seized by agents of the BOC:

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 214 (a)

and (b), of R.A. No. 10863, otherwise known as the
Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA), you
are hereby directed to conduct the following activities
in the area herein specified:

AREAS: Warehouses inside San Simon Industrial

Park, Quezon Road, San Simon,
Pampanga which are being used as
storage of cigarettes

ACTIVITIES: 1. To inspect all warehouses that

are being used as storage of
cigarettes inside San Simon
Industrial Park, Quezon Road, San
Simon, Pampanga:

2. To inspect, search and locate

counterfeit and smuggled cigarettes
or goods in the said area/s;

3. To seize cigarettes or goods which

are found to be counterfeit and/or
smuggled and immediately turn-
over the seized items to the
Bureau of Customs;

4. To conduct such other activities as

may be necessary for the
implementation of this Order, in
accordance with existing laws, rules
and regulations.

A report hereon must be submitted to the

undersigned within five (5) days after the end of the
conduct of the above activity. [Emphasis supplied]

3.12. In fact, even the respondent Judge recognized the

nature of the subject Mission Orders and Letters of Authority to
involve seizure and forfeiture proceedings of the BOC in its
Order dated March 6, 2017, which provides in pertinent part:

15
 The Mission Orders (Exhibit A) and Letter of
Authority (Exhibit B) were issued for the purpose of
the inspection of all warehouses that stored
cigarettes which are allegedly counterfeit and
smuggled and to seize it. [At p. 5 of the Order]

3.13. Moreover, even Mighty Corporation recognizes that

the subject Mission Orders and Letters of Authority involve
seizure proceedings when in its Complaint for Injunction, it prays
for the return of the goods seized:

b) After due proceedings, judgment be

rendered prohibiting defendants and all others acting
upon its directions or instructions or those
representing other agencies of government including
the BIR from continuing with the acts complained of
above and for which the TRO/Writ of Preliminary
Injunction was issued, and returning the items
illegally seized from the above-mentioned
warehouses of the plaintiffs; xxx

3.14. Thus, from the Mission Orders themselves, to the

acknowledgement of respondent Judge to the admission of no
less than Mighty Corporation itself, there was a seizure of goods.
Since goods were seized, the same necessarily involves seizure
proceedings of the BOC which the Honorable Court cannot
enjoin being prohibited and bereft of jurisdiction to do so.

3.15. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that judges who
violate the foregoing established precepts, such as the
respondent Judge, are liable for gross ignorance of the law.

3.16. The facts of the case of Zuo vs. Cabredo, 402 SCRA
75 (2003) (the Cabredo Case) fall squarely with the instant
case. In the Cabredo Case, supra, Judge Cabredo issued a
temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining the Deputy
Collector of Customs from detaining the subject bags of rice
allegedly for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code. The
Supreme Court held that Judge Cabredo went against a settled
doctrine, an act constituting gross ignorance of the law. The
Supreme Court pointed out that if the law is so elementary, not
to know it or to act if one does not know it, constitutes gross
ignorance of the law. In the Cabredo Case, supra, the Supreme
Court thus ordered the dismissal of Judge Cabredo, thus:

16
 What is involved here is a fundamental and
well-known judicial norm. If the law is so elementary,
not to know it or to act if one does not know it,
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Gross
ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules
and settled jurisprudence. Failure to know the
basic principles is an inexcusable offense.
Respondent's actuation in this case is
tantamount to grave misconduct.

It is a basic principle that the Collector of

Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure
and forfeiture proceedings of dutiable goods. A
studious and conscientious judge can easily be
conversant with such an elementary rule.

Finally, in issuing orders and rendering

decisions, judges must make sure that the same are
not only just, correct, and impartial, but also done in
a manner free from any suspicion of unfairness and
partiality. As aforestated, Administrative Circular No.
7-99 reminds judges that their issuance of TROs and
grants of writs of preliminary injunction in seizure
and forfeiture proceedings before the Bureau of
Customs may arouse suspicion that said issuance or
grant was for considerations other than the strict
merits of the case. The said administrative circular
seeks to reiterate that they should embody the image
of equity and justice in the eyes of the public.

Respondent Judge's order is of the kind that

erodes the public's confidence and faith in the
courts. Judges are to avoid not just impropriety, but
even the appearance of impropriety. They must give
no ground for reproach in order to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary. No position exacts a greater demand for
moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in
the judiciary.

WHEREFORE, Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo is

found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. The Court
imposes on him the penalty of DISMISSAL from
the service with forfeiture of all benefits,
excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to

17
 re-employment in any branch or agency of the
government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations. [Emphasis and
underscoring supplied]

3.17. Without a doubt and applying the Supreme

Courts pronouncement in the Cabredo Case, supra, the
respondent Judge should be held administratively liable for
gross ignorance of the law tantamount to gross misconduct
considering that she issued the Order dated March 6, 2017, and
the resultant TRO enjoining the acts of the BOC despite the
express prohibition under OCA Circular No. 79-03 and despite
her lack of jurisdiction to issue the same.

II. Respondent Judge Should Be Held

Administratively Liable For
Committing Gross Violations Of
The New Code Of Judicial Conduct
For Exhibiting Unquestionable
Bias And Partiality In Favor Of
Mighty Corporation To The
Prejudice Of The Public In General
Through The Issuance Of The
Order Dated March 6, 2017.

3.18. The New Code of Judicial Conduct states in pertinent

part:

CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the

rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify
judicial independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.

SECTION 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial

function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with a
conscientious understanding of the law, free of any
extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat
or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or
for any reason. x x x

18
 SECTION 6. Judges shall be independent in
relation to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate. x x x

SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote

high standards of judicial conduct in order to
reinforce public confidence in the judiciary,
which is fundamental to the maintenance of
judicial independence. x x x

CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge

of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision
itself but also to the process by which the decision is
made.

SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their

judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.

SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her

conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary. x x x [Emphasis supplied]

3.19. Judges are required at all times to be impartial in

cases submitted for their adjudication. In fact, judges should
not only be impartial, independent and honest but should be
perceived to be impartial, independent and honest as well.7

3.20. In the instant case, respondent Judge is guilty of

gross misconduct for failing to comply with the above
requirements of the New Code of Judicial Conduct because the
act of issuing the Order dated March 6, 2017 unquestionably
demonstrates her manifest bias and partiality in favor of Mighty
Corporation, or at the very least, an appearance of her bias and
partiality.

7 Bunyi vs. Caraos, 330 SCRA 701 (2000).

19
 3.21. The manifest bias and partiality of respondent Judge
in gross violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct was
immediately apparent the moment she issued the Order
granting the TRO prayed for by Mighty Corporation.

4.1. To recall, in its Complaint for Injunction, Mighty

Corporation sought to enjoin the BOC from conducting illegal
raids or inspection on the basis of BOCs LOAs now or hereafter
issued upon an unverified complaint.8 Stated simply, Mighty
Corporation audaciously asked respondent Judge to enjoin, not
only the Mission Orders and Letters of Authority already issued
in the Injunction Case, but even those that the BOC may issue
in the future. This, despite the fact that such future mission
orders or letters of authority will be based on entirely new
circumstances.

3.22. If only to highlight the audacity, pushed to its logical

conclusion, Mighty Corporation asked respondent Judge to
prevent any and all interference of BOC with its operations.
Mighty Corporation prayed that the BOC forever relinquish its
right to issue any mission orders or letters of authority against
Mighty Corporation. Such an all-encompassing relief practically
prevents the BOC from performing its mandate under the law.

3.23. Despite the foregoing, respondent Judge showed

manifest bias and undue partiality in favor of Mighty
Corporation when she issued the Order dated March 6, 2017
and granted the issuance of the TRO.

3.24. The TRO that was issued against BOC effectively

prevented the latter from exercising its powers and mandate,
now and in the future, against Mighty Corporation even in the
absence of a factual allegation. Simply put, the temporary
restraining order not only seeks to enjoin raids and inspections
on the basis of facts subject of the instant case, but instead, it
goes beyond and prohibits any form of raid or inspection against
Mighty Corporation by BOC in the future.

8 At p. 8 of the Complaint for Injunction.

20
 3.25. What makes this more dastardly is the fact that the
respondent Judge does not even know of any future Letters of
Authority of the, and yet, she has already prejudged even these
future Letters of Authority and as early as now, already enjoins
raids or inspections arising therefrom.

3.26. Respondent Judge, by issuing the temporary

restraining order, effectively made Mighty Corporation
untouchable immune from any and all acts of the BOC, be
it regulatory, visitorial, or penal. It becomes unavoidable to
think of respondent Judge as the coddler of Mighty Corporation
by protecting the latter from any form of regulatory action of
BOC regardless of the circumstances.

3.27. Undeniably, these circumstances lead to no other

conclusion but that the respondent Judge is manifestly biased
and partial in favor of Mighty Corporation, to the damage not
only of the BOC, but to the public in general who are: (i) exposed
to the danger of using counterfeit cigarettes; and (ii) deprived of
millions, if not billions, of pesos in tax collections due to the
counterfeit and smuggled cigarettes being sold by Mighty
Corporation.9

3.28. Even assuming that respondent Judge is not biased

nor partial, her acts of unconditionally granting undue favor for
Mighty Corporation, without even having established any legal
right, creates the impression of partiality.

3.29. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that a
judge must not be impartial but must likewise appear impartial:

9 See Tax evasion case vs Mighty eyed, located at

http://business.inquirer.net/225516/tax-evasion-case-vs-mighty-eyed, last
accessed on March 3, 2017; Mighty Corp tax payments under BIR scrutiny, located
at http://www.rappler.com/business/governance/59397-mighty-corp-cigarettes-
bir-tax-payments, last accessed March 3, 2017; and Dominguez orders BOC, BIR to
sue cigarette tax evaders, located at
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/877646/dominguez-orders-boc-bir-to-sue-cigarette-
tax-evaders, last accessed on March 3, 2017.

21
 Respondent judge violated Canon 1 and Rule
1.02, as well as Canon 2 and Rule 2.01 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct. Thus, he must be sanctioned. In
this connection, we have said: Well-known is the
judicial norm that judges should not only be
impartial but should also appear impartial.
Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are
entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality
of an impartial judge. The other elements of due
process, like notice and hearing, would become
meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered
by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not only
render just, correct and impartial decisions, but
must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as
to their fairness, impartiality and integrity. This
reminder applies all the more sternly to municipal,
metropolitan and regional trial court judges like
herein respondent, because they are judicial front-
liners who have direct contact with the litigating
parties. They are the intermediaries between
conflicting interests and the embodiments of the
peoples sense of justice. Thus, their official
conduct should remain free from any appearance
of impropriety and should be beyond
reproach. [Rallos vs. Gako, A.M. No. RTJ-99-
10

1484 (A), March 17, 2000; emphasis and

underscoring supplied]

3.30. In sum, through her acts, it is clear in the instant

case that respondent Judge exhibited manifest bias and
partiality in favor of Mighty Corporation, to the prejudice of BOC
and the public in general.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that respondent

JUDGE TITA BUGHAO ALISUAG be administratively
sanctioned for gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law,

10 cf. Requierme vs. Yuipco, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1427, 27 November 2000.

22
and for violating the Supreme Courts rules, directives, and
circulars.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila, March 13, 2017.

NICANOR E. FAELDON
COMMISSIONER
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
OCOM Building, BOC
Port Area, Manila City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING

I, NICANOR E. FAELDON, Filipino, of legal age, with

address at the Bureau of Customs, OCOM Building, BOC, Port
Area, Manila City after having been duly sworn in accordance
with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the complainant in the instant case.

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of

the above Complaint. I have read the above Complaint
and attest that the factual allegations therein are
true and correct of my own personal knowledge
and/or based on authentic records.

3. I hereby certify that I have not commenced

any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein. If I should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending I shall report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the Honorable
Court.

23
 NICANOR E. FAELDON
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day

of March 2017 at ___________ City, Metro Manila, affiant
exhibiting to me competent evidence of his identity, Drivers
License/Passport No. ______________________ with expiry date
on ______________________ issued by the Land Transportation
Office/Department of Foreign Affairs.

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2017.

24