While the reprimand is in order for ATTY MANUEL‘S mistake, the mistake is no sufficient ground for the non-payment of the fees he lawfully earned
Duty of the courts is not alone to see that lawyer‘s act in a proper manner but also that they are paid their just and lawful fees
JUDGE BELLO justifies his order for return of the P200 on the ground that ATTY MANUEL is below average standard of a lawyer
However, the opinion of the judge as to the capacity of the lawyer is NOT the basis of the right to a lawyer‘s fees but rather the contract between the lawyer and his client
In the case at bar, P200 is the amount admitted by the guardian TIMOTEA as due ATTY MANUEL
ISSUE W/N ATTY MANUEL’S CONDUCT WAS ANOMALOUS
HELD NO, GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WAS THE PROPER REMEDY
RATIO
Wards were indebted to UMANGAY but they had no money with which to pay the debt thus the only way to settle was to sell the nipa land
However, the nipa land could not be sold without the intervention of the guardian
Hence, ATTY MANUEL was justified in instituting the guardianship proceedings in order to sell the nipa land, it being the proper remedy
ISSUE W/N THE DESIRE OF THE JUDGE TO HAVE PORTIONS OF ATTY MANUEL’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE STRICKEN OUT FOR EMPLOYING STRONG LANGUAGE SHOULD BE GRANTED
HELD NO, JUDGE BELLO STARTED IT RATIO
JUDGE BELLO used language such as calling the act of ATTY MANUEL ―anomalous and unbecoming‖ and charging ATTY MANUEL of obtaining his fee ―through maneuvers of documents from the guardian‖
If any one is to be blamed for the language used by ATTY MANUEL, it is JUDGE BELLO himself who has made insulting remarks in his orders which provoked ATTY MANUEL
If a judge desires not be insulted, he should start using temperate language himself… he who sows the wind will reap a storm!
176 TE v CA
Facts:
- Arthur Te civilly married Liliana Choa. They did not live together but occasionally met until Choa gave birth to a girl, which was when Te stopped seeing her.
- Choa then found out that Te married another woman (Santillo).
- Thus, upon the complaint of Choa, a criminal case was filed against Te for bigamy.
- On the other hand, Te filed a case for annulment in the RTC. - Choa also filed administrative complaints against Te and
Santillo with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) to revoke their engineering licenses on the ground that they committed acts of immorality.
- Te filed a demurrer and motion to inhibit (directed at the Judge) in the criminal case. Both were denied. Thus, Te filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
- Te also filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the PRC, which was also denied. Te also filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
- CA consolidated the two petitions and denied both. Issues:
- W/n the civil case constituted a prejudicial question to the criminal case and administrative case.
- (More Important) W/n the motion to inhibit Judge Peralejo (on the ground of bias and prejudice) in the criminal case should be granted.
Held:
- SC says that there was no prejudicial question. The validity of the marriage of Te to Choa was considered valid at the time he contracted the marriage with Santillo even is Te alleges that it was void ab initio. This is because jurisprudence at that time say that there has to be a declaration of nullity before a marriage can be considered as void. Without such declaration, the marriage is presumed valid.
- SC says that the motion to inhibit should not be granted. The grounds raised by petitioner against Judge Peralejo did not conclusively show that the latter was biased and had prejudged the case. While bias and prejudice have been recognized as valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of a judge, the rudimentary rule is that the mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. The test for determining the propriety of the denial of said motion is whether petitioner was deprived a fair and impartial trial.http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2 000/126746.htm - _edn40 The instances when Judge Peralejo allegedly exhibited antagonism and partiality against petitioner and/or his counsel did not deprive him of a fair and impartial trial. As discussed earlier, the denial by the judge of
petitioner‘s motion to suspend the criminal proceeding and the demurrer to evidence are in accord with law and
jurisprudence. Neither was there anything unreasonable in the requirement that petitioner‘s counsel submit a medical certificate to support his claim that he suffered an accident which rendered him unprepared for trial. Such requirement was evidently imposed upon petitioner‘s counsel to ensure
Page 184 of 203
that the resolution of the case was not hampered by unnecessary and unjustified delays, in keeping with the judge‘s duty to disposing of the court‘s business promptly.
177 MANTARING v ROMAN
Facts:
Mantaring filed an administrative complaint against Judge Roman charging the latter of conduct unbecoming of members of the judiciary. Thereafter, Judge Roman issued a warrant of arrest against Mantaring and his son. The Judge alleges that the warrant was issued against Gamo and it just so happened that the place where the illegal firearms were seized was owned by Mantaring; hence, Mantaring
and his son were arrested for they were in constructive possession of the illegal firearms. Mantaring now comes before this court alleging that it was improper for the Judge to take cognizance of the application of the arrest warrant. According to Mantaring, the Judge should have inhibited himself for there was a pending administrative case which involved him and Mantaring. Mantaring claims that the judge
issued the warrant of arrest as a form of revenge against Mantaring and his son for filing the administrative case.
Issue:
W/N the judge should have inhibited himself from taking cognizance of the application for the warrant of arrest.
Held:
Yes, the judge should have inhibited himself. For the judge's failure to inhibit, he is reprimanded and warned that commission of the same act shall be severely dealt with in the future.
It is true that the court had consistently held that mere filing of an administrative complaint against a judge does not constitute a ground for the disqualification of the judge. However, the factual milieu of these cases is different from the case at hand. In those cases, the
administrative complaint was filed during the pendency of the criminal case. In the case at hand, however, the admiinistrative
complaint was filed before the involvement of the judge in the criminal case against Mantaring. It cannot be otherwise concluded that the judge's action in this case was dictated by a spirit of revenge against Mantaring for having filed the administrative complaint. This circumstance should have underscored for the judge the need of steering clear of the case because he might be perceived to be suceptible to bias and partiality.
178 HECK v SANTOS
Facts:
-In a previous case entitled ―Flor v. Heck‖ which was lodged at the Regional Trial Court, defendants therein, including Heck, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction since the case involved an intra-corporate matter which was within the jurisdiction of the SEC.
-The motion was denied by Judge Santos.
-Counsel for therein defendants, Atty. Jardin, subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel which was granted by Santos, who reset the hearing date from April 1 to June 10.
-As the defendants never received a copy of the order granting Jardin‘s motion to withdraw, neither defendants nor their counsel appeared at the hearing on June 10.
-At the said hearing, Santos admitted the evidence of the plaintiff and considered the defendants as having waived their right to present evidence.
-The judge then authorized the counsel for the plaintiffs, Atty.Singson, to draft the decision. The defendants did not receive a copy of such order. -In October, Santos rendered a decision which was copied verbatim from the draft decision submitted by Atty. Singson.
Issue: W/N Judge Santos‘ act of ordering the counsel for one of the parties to draft a decision warrants disciplinary sanction.
Held:YES.
-Santos violated Canons 2* and 3** of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Section 1 Rule 36 (―A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge…‖) of the Revised Rules of Court.
-By such order, the judge abdicated a function exclusively granted to him by the Constitution. Decision making is the most important duty of a judge. He must use his own perceptiveness in analyzing the evidence before him and his own discretion in determining the proper action. -Lack of malice or bad faith in issuing the questioned order is not an excuse.
-Such act falls under the classification of a serious charge. The sanctions provided by Rule 140 Sec.10 are 1) disbarment 2) suspension for 3 mos, or 3) fine P20,000 – 40,000.
-Since Santos had already retired, his dismissal or suspension is no longer feasible. He is thus ordered to pay a fine of P20,000 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
*A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
**A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence adjudicative responsibilities.
179 AVANCEÑA v JUDGE LIWANAG
FACTS:
- Avancena charged judge Liwanag of the MTC of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- Avancena is the accused in a criminal case for violation of BP 22
- Her counsel filed a Motion to Postpone promulgation and to Re-Open Trial to Allow Accused to Present Further Evidence‖ but the judge denied the motion on the ground that she was able represented by her counsel during the trial of the case - Prior to the dismissal of her motion, Liwanag summoned
Avancena to his chamber and told her that she will be convicted unless she pay P1M.
- Avancena refused to pay since her unpaid balance was only P140,000 and there is no reason for her to pay P1M
- Liwanag summoned Avancena again and told her to raise only P500,000 if she could not afford the P1M
Page 185 of 203
- Also, Liwanag sent Raymunda Flores a common friend of Avancena and Liwanag who was tasked to bring Avancena to the chambers of Liwanag but Avancena refused
- Liwanag also made Cora Espanola, a court interpreter, to telephone Avancena and tell her that the Judge is waiting for her until 4:30pm
- Judge Liwanag denied the allegations of Avancena and argued that all the contentions of Avancena are lies and fabricated.
- The case was referred to Executive Judge Herrera of the RTC Malolos, Bulacan for investigation, report and
recommendation
- Judge Herrera gave more weight to the testimonies of Avancena and concluded that the charges against Liwanag are true. But he did not recommend a specific penalty to be meted out to respondent
ISSUE:
- W/N Liwanag is guilty HELD:
- YES! And Judge Liwanag is dismissed from service with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency and GOCC with the forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits
- The period of almost 4 months which elapsed form May 7, 1999, the date originally set for the promulgation of the decision of the criminal case and August 27,1999, the date it was actually promulgated indicates a deliberate effort on the part of the Judge to delay the promulgation of the decision in order to give complainant more time to raise the money demanded by him
180 CITY OF TAGBILARAN v HONTANOSAS
Facts:
City of Tagbilaran is charging Judge Hontanosas with (1) open defiance of a higher court ordering his inhibition from a case and (2) open and notorious habitual gambling in casinos.
1st charge:
o RTC ordered MTC Judge Hontanosas to inhibit himself from a criminal case filed by the city against Ong.
o Hontanosas forced the fiscal to rest its case and rendered a judgment of acquittal despite the order for him to inhibit
2nd charge:
o Hontanosas goes to Cebu on the afternoon and goes back to Tagbilaran early the next day in order to go to the casinos in Cebu
o Every Sunday, Hontanosas can be seen around cockpits
o That a favorable judgment can be bought from Hontanosas with prices ranging from P500 – P5K
Hontanosas‘ answer to 1st charge:
o The order of the RTC was unlawful due to lack of hearing and failure to include the real parties in interest
o Order was issued in connection with a petition for certiorari which is a prohibited pleading in cases covered by rules on summary procedure
Hontanosas‘ answer to 2nd charge:
o He is merely accompanying his wife to Cebu. That his wife just wants some excitement and recreation. o He admits that he goes to the cockpits on Sundays
and holidays and gambles sometimes on this occasions.
Issue:
W/N Hontanosas should be sanctioned for disobeying the order that he inhibit himself
Held:
No. The order was merely mandatory.
Rules of Court provide instances when a judge is under obligation to inhibit himself from hearing a case. The judge‘s case does not fall under any of those mentioned in the provision.
His case falls under the 2nd paragraph which leaves it to his
discretion whether or not to inhibit himself. Issue:
W/N Hontanosas should be sanctioned for gambling in casinos and cockpits
Held:
Yes. Fine of P12K for violation of Circular No. 4 of August 1980.
That circular prohibits actual gambling and mere presence in gambling casinos.
Bases for the circular was PD 1067-B and Par. 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.