Efectos de la aplicación de un campo magnético

ANS. -No. As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. (Morada vs. Judge Tayao, 48 SCAD 131, 229 SCRA 723, citing Louis Vuitton S.A. vs. Judge Villanueva, 216 SCRA 121; Mendoza vS. Villaluz, 106 SCRA 664). As has been stated in the recent case of Santos vs. Judge Jose Orlino, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1418, September 25, 1998, 98 SCAD 752:

"The fundamental propositions governing responsibility for judicial error were more recently summarized in 'In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo,' 59 SCAD 1 [1995J, 241 SCRA (1995). There the Court stressed inter alia that given the nature of the judicial function and the power vested in the SC and the lower courts established by law, administrative or criminal complaints are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial remedies where such are available, and must wait on the result thereof Existing doctrine is that judges are not liable for what they do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction. (Alzua, et al. vs. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308, 326; Sec. 9, Act No. 190). Certain it is that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. (Rodrigo

vs. Quijano, 79 SCRA 10). To hold, otherwise, would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. (See Lopez vs. Corpuz, 78 SCRA 374; Pilipinas Bank vs. Tirona- Liwag, 190 SCRA 834). The error must be gross or patent, deliberate and malicious or incurred with evident bad faith. (Quizon vs. Baltazar, Jr., 65 SCRA 293)."

If an alleged error of a judge cannot amount to gross misconduct and bereft of any persuasive showing of deliberate or malicious intent to cause prejudice to any party, the administrative complaint against him insofar as the charge for gross misconduct is concerned, must be dismissed for want of factual basis. (Jewel F. Canson vs. Hon. Francis F. Garchitorena, et al., SB-99-9-J, July 28, 1999).

Q - An applicant for a position was told by the judge that in exchange for his signature on her employment, she would become his girlfriend. Thereafter, he went on to kiss her against her will. After learning that her application had been approved, he called her to his chamber and said that she was already his girlfriend. He went on to embrace her, kiss her, and touch her right breast. Can the judge be punished? Why?

________________________________________________________________

the judiciary, he even transgressed to ordinary norms of decency expected of every person. The conduct of a judge, whether official or private, must be beyond reproach and above suspicion. A member of the Bench must not only be a good judge; he or she must also be a good person. (Dawa vs. De Asa, 96 SCAD 373, 292 SCRA 703). This is necessary so as not to erode the faith and confidence of the public in the judiciary. (Naval vs. Panday, 84 SCAD 691, 275 SCRA 654). In the final analysis, such faith and confidence is anchored on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness that judges are expected to possess. As ruled in Junio vs. Rivera, Jr., 44 SCAD 308, 225 SCRA 688:

"All judges on all levels of the judicial hierarchy, from this Court down to the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts, are bound to observe the above exacting standards. There is however, a special reason for requiring compliance with those standards from those who are front liners of the judicial department. As such, a judge is the most visible living representation of the country's legal and judicial system. He is the judicial officer who on a day-to-day basis deals with the disputes arising among simple, rural people who comprise the great bulk of our population. He is the judicial officer who comes into closest and most frequent contact with our people. The judiciary as a whole and its ability to dispense justice are inevitably measured in terms of the public and private acts of judges in the grass roots level. It is essential, therefore, if the judiciary is to engage and retain the respect and confidence of our nation, that this Court insist that municipal judges and all other judges live up to the high standards demanded by our case law and the Code of Judicial Conduct, and by our policy."

The judge's lustful conduct was aggravated by the fact that he was the superior of the complainant. Instead of acting in loco parentis toward his subordinate employee, he took advantage of his position and preyed on her. (Ana May M. Simbajon vs. Judge Rogelio M. Esteban, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162, August 11,1999, citing Talens-Dabon vs. Arceo, 72 SCAD 527, 259 SCRA 354).

Q - Will the retirement of a judge preclude the finding of any administrative liability on his part? Why?

ANS. - No. The retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from the service does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable. In Gallo vs. Cordero, 61 SCAD 956, 245 SCRA 219, it was said that since the court had this jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint it was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare

________________________________________________________________

him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation. (Villa Macasasa, et at. vs. Judge Fausto H. Imbing, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1470, August 16, 1999).

Q - A judge should act beyond reproach and suspicion. Does this mandate include his personal behavior? Why?

ANS. - Yes. A judge should conduct himself beyond suspicion and reproach, and be free from appearance of impropriety in his personal behavior, not only in his official duties, but also in his everyday life. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the judiciary. A judge must be the epitome of integrity and justice. (Assn. of Court Employee vs. Tupas, July 12, 1989).

Q - State how a judge should conduct himself in the performance of his duties and in his dealings with others.

ANS. -The court exists to promote justice (Canon 2, Canons of Judicial Ethics); accordingly, the judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach. (Canon 3, id.). He is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gines, 43 SCAD 76, 224 SCRA 262 [1993]; Inciong vs. De Guia, 154 SCRA 93 [1987]; Dela Paz vs. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540 [1975]). 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 depositary power, but a judge under the sanction of law. (Canon 18; Guillen, et al. vs. Judge Nicolas, A.M. MTJ-98-1166, 101 SCAD 397, December 4, 1998, citing Caamic vs. Galapon, 56 SCAD 14, 237 SCRA 390).

Q -Describe the duty of a judge whenever an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense.

ANS. -Trial courts must exercise meticulous care in accepting a plea of guilty in a capital offense. Judges are duty-bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of his inevitable conviction. (People vs. Gonzaga, 127 SCRA 158). Courts must proceed with more care where the possible punishment is in its severest form, like death, for the reason that the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable. Experience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. (People vs. Albert, 66 SCAD 456, 251 SCRA 136). Only a clear, definite and unconditional plea of

________________________________________________________________

guilty by the accused must be accepted by trial courts. (ibid.). There is no such rule which provides that simply because the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction should automatically follow. (People vs. Mendoza, 42 SCAD 118,231 SCRA 264). A judge should always be an embodiment of competence. (Rule 1.01, Canon1, Code of Judicial Conduct). As an administrator of justice, it is imperative that the trial judge carry out his duties ably and competently so as not to erode public confidence in the judiciary. (People vs. Sevillano, et al., G.R. No. 129058, 105 SCAD 296, March 29, 1999).

Q - In a criminal case for falsification and use of falsified document, the judge was charged with impartiality for having failed to inhibit himself despite the fact that he was related to the accused within the fourth degree of affinity, thewife of the accused being the first cousin of the judge. Was the act of the judge proper? Explain.

ANS.-No. Under Rule 137, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court, ajudge who is related within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity to a party in a case is disqualified from sitting in the case without the consent of all parties, expressed in writing, signed by them, and entered upon the record. This prohibition is not limited to cases in which he acts by resolving motions and issuing orders as respondent judge has done in the subject criminal case. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned (Canon 3, Rule 3.12) and he should administer justice impartially and without delay. (Canon 1, Rule 1.02; Lazo vs. Judge Antonio Tiong, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1173, December 15, 1998, 101 SCAD 692).

Q - A judge was caught in the act of demanding and receiving money from a party-litigant. Is the act sufficient to remove him? Why?

ANS. -Yes. A judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. (Yuson vs. Noel, 45 SCAD 116,227 SCRA 1). The conduct of respondent judge shows that he can be influenced by monetary considerations. His act of demanding and receiving money from a party- litigant constitutes serious misconduct in office. It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount involved on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the law and rendering justice quickly, which erodes the respect for law and the court. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gaticales, 208 SCRA 508).

The respondent judge tainted the image of the Judiciary to which he owes fealty and the obligation to keep it at all times unsullied and worthy of the people's trust. (Garcia vs. Dela Penia, 48 SCAD 171, 229 conduct.

________________________________________________________________

He violated the established norms of judicial behavior and the best interest of the judiciary demands that he be dismissed from service.

Q - What are some of the grounds for the dismissal of a judge? State the reasons.

ANS. - Some acts that may warrant dismissal of a judge: (c) acceptance of bribe;

(d) holding office and conducting hearings at his residence;

(c) use of physical violence against the personnel of his court who failed to deliver the entire volume of nipa ordered by him for the roof of his house; (lmpao vs. Makilala, A.M. No. MTJ-88-184, October 13, 1989, 178 SCRA 541).

(d) receiving money from litigants and borrowing from them without paying back;

(f) ordering a litigant to install an air-conditioning unit for the car of his wife. (Ompoc vs. Torres, Sept. 17, 1989).

Reasons:

Members of the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but at all times conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion. The respect and confidence of the public may justifiably be eroded if the conduct of an erring judge is condemned. (Paredes vs. Buduha, Dec. 7, 1989).

Q - An RTC judge was fined and required to pay an amount equivalent to three (3) months salary. He dismissed six informations for violation ofBP BIg. 22 because the checks were undated,hence, were mere promissory notes; the issu- ance did not constitute criminal acts; that their collection can be properly made in a civil case. Was the act of the judge proper? Why?

ANS. -No, in fact, the judge was fined for ignorance of the law. His opinion that the checks were invalid because they were not dated also revealed his unfamiliarity with Sec. 6 of the Negotiable Instrument Law. (Torres vs. Pedrosa, Aug. 22, 1989). It is the duty of a judge to keep abreast with the law and jurisprudence.

Q -Maya judge be subjected to disciplinary action in case of mis appreciation of evidence? Is the rule absolute? Explain.

________________________________________________________________

that mere error in the appreciation of evidence, unless so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge unknowingly rendered an unjust judgment, are irrelevant in administrative proceedings against the judge. A judge is not infallible in his judgment. All that is expected of him is that he follows the rules prescribed to ensure fair and impartial hearing.

A judge may not be administratively liable for erroneous ruling.

Q - If a party filed an administrative case against a judge, will this incident constitute a ground to disqualify the judge from trying the case? Why?

ANS. - No. In Aparicio vs. Andal, July 25, 1989, the Supreme Court said that the mere filing of an administrative case does not constitute a ground to disqualify a judge from hearing the case, otherwise, many cases would have to be kept pending or there might not be enough judges to handle all the cases pending in all courts. There must first be a showing of arbitrariness or prejudice before the judge can be considered partial or bias.

Hence, if a judge denies the motion to inhibit him, his continued cognizance of the case pending before him is proper, if no TRO or injunction is issued against him.

Q - State the effect if a judge shows signs of partiality and pre- judgment in a case. Why?

ANS. - The judge can be inhibited from further trying the case.

Partiality and pre-judgment can be just and valid reasons for the judge to voluntarily inhibit himself. But mere suspicion that he is partial is not enough. There must be evidence to prove the charge. (Fecundo vs. Benjamin, Dec. 18, 1989). A litigant is entitled to the fairness and cold neutrality of an impartial judge.

Q - Madam C sought the assistance of a judge in expediting the intestate estate proceedings of her deceased common-law husband. He, however, took advantage of her helplessness and state of material depredation and took her as his mistress. Was the act of the judge proper? Why?

ANS. -No, because a judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honesty in public service. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private life should be above suspicion. The exploitation of women becomes reprehensible when the offender commits injustice by the brute force of his position of power and authority. (Calanog case).

________________________________________________________________