CANON 2 - Integrity

Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Estacion, Jr. AM No. RTJ-87-104 (247 SCRA 503)

Facts:

On January 11,1990 per curiam decision dismissed respondent dumaguete City regional trial court Judge
jose. M Estacion jr. from his service for gross misrepresentation. Due to the fact that he concealed from the
appointing authority at the time he applied for the judicial post until his appointment, information regarding the
criminal charges for homicide and attempted homicide filed against him, Such fact would have totally eluded
the Court had it not been complained of by one Mrs. Ruth L. Vda. de Sison who, incidentally, is the mother of
one of the victims. The Court has thrice denied respondent's motions for reconsideration of his dismissal. And
now comes his "Motion To Request For Clemency, Compassion and Mercy With Leave" highlighting his active
membership and involvement in certain religious and civic organizations/activities (such as being the Chairman
of the Guihulngan United Community Church, and Worshipful Master of San Carlos City's Free and Accepted
Masons) and at the same time invoking some chosen passages from the Scriptures all in support of his
insistent plea for reinstatement.

Issue:

Whether or not he violated canon 2 of the judicial ethics

Held:

Yes, Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal
demeanor of judges. Given the arguendo that he actively participates religious and civic activities. He still
concealed and did not honestly divulge all that the appointing authority ought to know to correctly discern
whether he is indeed fit for the judicial post. He continuously suppressed vital information on his personal
circumstances under the false belief that he can mislead the Court and get away with it for good. What
respondent did, or omitted to do, was a calculated deception committed not only against the Court but against
the public as well, clearly indicative of his lack of moral rectitude to sit as magistrate, and sufficiently repulsive
that it detracts from public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Be it stressed that judges are held to
higher standards of integrity and ethical conduct than attorneys or other persons not invested with the public
trust. respondent's "Motion For Clemency, Compassion and Mercy" is DENIED.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1483 September 17, 1999

(OCA-IPI No. 98-578-RTJ)
ATTY. LAURO D. GACAYAN and NOEL SAROL, complainants, vs. Hon. FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN in his capacity as
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Baguio City, respondent.

Facts:

Noel Sarol is the accused in Criminal Case No. 14549-R, for Homicide, which was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
3, Baguio City. He was arraigned and thereafter, trial followed.

After the prosecution rested its case, the then Presiding Judge Hon. Joven Costales, directed the accused to present his
evidence on March 2, 1998 at 8:30 in the morning. However, complainant through counsel instead of presenting his evidence,
filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence with the Demurrer to Evidence already attached to said Motion.

On March 2, 1998, the Demurrer to Evidence was scheduled for hearing. The Trial Prosecutor, however, asked for ten (10) days
within which to submit his Opposition thereto. Meanwhile, the Honorable Fernando Vil Pamintuan took over as the Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Baguio City. Respondent all of a sudden reopened the case. He subpoenaed
witnesses to appear before him in his own initiative and directed them to testify on what they know about the case. This he made
because of the fact that there lies a dead victim and he is to determine who is responsible thereof.

Atty. Cagayan manifested his objections to the procedure being followed by the Honorable Respondent judge considering that
the prosecution had long rested its case.

On June 17, 1998, respondent Judge ordered the arrest of one Mirriam Dominguez whom he described as an "eyewitness" to
the incident without any motion from the Prosecution. Thereafter respondent Judge talked alone to said witness in his chambers.

Respondent Judge in his comment explained the procedures he had taken and alleged that as a newly appointed judge he
would need time to examine the testimony of the witnesses and other evidence already on record.

Issues:

1. The issue before us is whether or not a Judge can motu proprio order the case to be re-opened without being perceived
as partial in favor of the prosecution.

2. Whether or not the respondent Judge was violative of Canons 2 and 3 of Judicial Ethics

Held:

1. The re-opening of the case by a court on its own motion was largely a matter in its discretion and for the orderly
administration of justice. There is no specific provision in the Rules of Court governing motion[s] to re-open a case for
the reception of evidence after a case has been submitted for decision but before judgment.

After the parties have produced their respective direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only, but, it
has been held, the court, for good reasons, in the furtherance of justice, may permit them to offer evidence upon their
original case, and its ruling will not be disturbed in the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. 6 So,
generally, additional evidence is allowed when it is newly discovered or where it has been omitted through inadvertence
or mistake or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered. 7

Thus, respondent Judge may in his own initiative order the reopening of a case or upon motion of one of the parties for
the orderly administration of justice. It must not, however, be done whimsically, capriciously and/or unreasonably.
However, there was no "paramount interest of justice" to speak of in this case which would have justified the actuations
of respondent in reopening the case. The prosecution was given all the opportunity to present its evidence and to order
anew the presentation of additional evidence is but a superfluity, especially so that the same will not materially affect the
position of the prosecution.
 2. Yes. The people's confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the
diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are
expected to possess. 10 It is towards this sacrosanct goal of ensuring the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary
that the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates the following:

CANON 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL
ACTIVITIES.

RULE 2.01 A judge should so behave at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.

CANON 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND
DILIGENCE.

RULE 3.01 A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.

RULE 3.02 In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law
unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

The Canons of Judicial Ethics further provides that: "[A] judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of
impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also his everyday
life should be beyond reproach.

A judge is not only required to be impartial; he must appear to be impartial. 15 Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this
appearance. 16 It was, thus, held that it is improper for a judge to meet privately with the accused without the presence of the
complainant. 17 Talking privately alone to an alleged eyewitness to the incident in the seclusion of his chambers, as what
transpired in this case, likewise taints this image much more so considering the circumstances surrounding the production of
said witness.

The high-handed manner in which the respondent resolved the motion seeking his inhibition vis-a-vishis manifest partiality in
favor of the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 14549-R. A Judge should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith in
the Courts of Justice is not impaired. The better course for the judge under such circumstances is to disqualify himself. That way,
he avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved. What is more important, the ideal of
impartial administration of justice is lived up to. 26

In view of the prevailing circumstances in this case, the Court deems it the better course for respondent Judge to inhibit himself
from further hearing Criminal Case No. 14549-R. In that way, he avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved. Most important of all, the ideal of impartial administration of justice is lived up to. 38

WHEREFORE, for violations of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics which
amount to grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of an officer of the Judiciary and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of
the service, respondent Judge FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Baguio City, is
hereby FINED the amount of P10,000.00. He is likewise REPRIMANDED and sternly WARNED that a repetition of the foregoing
or similar transgressions shall be dealt with more severely. Finally, he is ORDERED to inhibit himself from further hearing
Criminal Case No. 14549-R. The Executive Judge is ordered to re-raffle the case with dispatch to another sala.1wphi1.nt
City of Tagbilaran v. Hontanosas, AM No. MTJ-98-1169, November 29, 2002

FACTS:

It is a matter of common knowledge among lawyers in Bohol and the general public in
Tagbilaran that Respondent Judge Hontanosas goes to Cebu on the afternoon fast boat and
comes back on the early trips from Cebu to Tagbilaran. He does this 3 to 4 times a week. He
goes to the Casinos in Cebu and spends the whole night in the casinos. Also on Sundays, and in
every so-called Derby cockfights, Judge Hontanosas is seen in the cockpits of Tagbilaran and the
nearby towns. He denies that he gambles in the casinos of Cebu, but admits that he would
sometimes go to Nivel Hills Casino in Cebu to accompany his wife who want[ed] to have some
excitement and recreation in said casino playing only the slot machines. He also admits that he
goes to the cockpits during Sundays and holidays and even gamble a little on these occasions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Jucicial Ethics

HELD:

The Court Administrator finds that for being present in casinos and for gambling in
cockpits respondent Judge violated (1) Supreme Court Circular No. 4 dated 27 August 1980,
which prohibits judges of inferior courts and court personnel from playing or being present in
gambling casinos; and (2) Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which requires that the
judges official conduct and personal behavior be free from the appearance of impropriety. He
then recommends that respondent Judge be directed to refrain from frequenting casinos,
cockpits and other gambling places.

Such transgression of gambling is also a violation of Paragraph 22 of the Canons of Judicial

Ethics, which provides: The judge should be studiously careful himself to avoid the slightest
infraction of the law, lest it be a demoralizing example to others. Even granting arguendo that
respondent did not gamble or personally play the slot machine, his mere presence in a casino
constituted a violation of Circular No. 4 and, more specifically, Paragraph 3 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics.

Respondent is also administratively liable for going to cockpits and placing bets in
cockfights. The fact that the cockpits where he used to go were licensed and the cockfights were
conducted on authorized days will not absolve him. While such gambling was not illegal, he
openly and deliberately disregarded and violated Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
quoted in Circular No. 4. Verily, it is plainly despicable to see a judge inside a cockpit and more
so, to see him bet therein. Mixing with the crowd of cockfighting enthusiasts and bettors is
unbecoming a judge and undoubtedly impairs the respect due him. Ultimately, the Judiciary itself
suffers therefrom because a judge is a visible representation of the Judiciary. Most often, the
public mind does not separate the judge from the Judiciary. In short, any demeaning act of a
judge or court personnel demeans the institution he represents.

The Court hereby Resolves to dismiss the charge against respondent Judge Agapito L.
Hontanosas, Jr., of open defiance of a lawful order of a superior court; and impose upon him a
fine of P12,000 for violation of Circular No. 4 dated 27 August 1980 and, more specifically, for
violation of Section 5(3-b) of P.D. No. 1067-B and Paragraphs 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics. He is STERNLY WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt
with more severely.

ALUMBRES V. CAOIBES

AM No. RTJ-99-1431

January 23, 2002

FACTS: Respondent Caoibes, as the presiding judge of Branch 253 of the Regional Trial
Court of Las Pias City, had the privilege of recommending to the Supreme Court the
appointment of employees of his own choice. Complainant Alumbres took this
opportunity to secure employment for his son. Learning that Caoibes office furniture
had yet to be delivered by the Supreme Court, Alumbres lent an executive table to the
former for his temporary use.

Alumbres proposed to Caoibes that the latter recommend his son to work as
process server for Branch 253. Caoibes agreed. Alumbres, as the then executive judge
of the court, endorsed the appointment of his son, as recommended
by Caoibes. However, his son was not appointed as process server because the Court
Administrator did not allow it.

When Alumbres was replaced as executive judge by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda,
he asked his replacement to favorably endorse his sons appointment as process server
of Branch 253. Judge Maceda did so. However, Caoibes withdrew his recommendation
of Alumbres son and, instead, recommended David Cario.

Alumbres went to chambers of Caoibes to reclaim the executive table he borrowed

from the former. Caoibes did not answer so Alumbres reiterated his request.
Caoibes saw Alumbres, with hands on his hips, standing along the
hallway. Caoibes greeted Alumbres Hoy, anoba ang atin? The latter replied in an angry
tone Joey, kukunin ko na ang table ko. Akin naman iyun, eh. In response, Caoibes put
his left arm around Alumbres shoulder, extended his right hand to shake the latters
right hand, at the same time saying Huwag naman. Halika, pag-usapan natin dine.
Despite the cordial gesture, Alumbres held Caoibes right wrist and forcefully jerked it.
Incensed at the fierce reaction of Alumbres, Caoibes shouted Tarantado ito, ah, and
swung his left arm towards Alumbres, hitting him on the right temple. Caoibes also
delivered a right hook, grazing Alumbres lower jaw. The latter felt dazed and the right
lens of his eyeglass dropped to the floor. Before the incident could worsen, Judge
Maceda, who had just emerged from his chambers, and one of the deputy sheriffs,
placed themselves between the two. Alumbres swung at Caoibes while the latter was
being led away by Judge Maceda but the blow missed. The incident, involving as it did
members of the judiciary, was given extensive coverage by the media.

Alumbres had the incident blottered with the Las Pias Police Station. He prayed
that criminal charges be filed before the Sandiganbayan against the respondent.

In his defense, Caoibes denied having dealt fistic blows to Alumbres.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Caoibes is guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.

HELD: Yes. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that A judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. In amplification, Rule
2.01 provides that A judge should behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Judge Caoibes has failed to live up to the standards of morality and uprightness
demanded of a judge. Caoibes use of physical violence against a colleague reveals a
marked lack of judicial temperament and self-restraint, traits not only desirable, but
indispensable, for every judge to possess besides the basic equipment of learning in the
law. Such behavior puts the judiciary into disrepute.

In fine, the Court find the infliction by Judge Caoibes of fistic blows on
Judge Alumbres to be acts of serious impropriety unbecoming a judge, in violation of
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Section 2 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies administrative charges as

serious, less serious, or light. Section 3 of Rule 140 considers violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct to be serious charges.

While the Court is convinced that, based on the evidence on record,

Judge Caoibes is culpable of a serious charge, it is likewise clear that he was provoked
into the fracas that ensued. This circumstance leads the Court to temper the penalty
imposable.
 WHEREFORE, Judge Jose F. Caoibes Jr. is found GUILTY of violating the Code of Judicial
Conduct and imposed upon him a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), with
a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.