MANEJO EN PACIENTE CON CANCER COLORRECTAL ESTADIO TEMPRANO

The Clerk of the City Court testified that when the ejectment case was called for hearing, the Trial Judge asked LAPATHA if she admitted the indebtedness alleged in the complaint filed by FLORO to which LAPATHA answered in the affirmative. It was then that the word “Confess Judgment” was written on the expediente which was afterwards signed by both ATTY DE GUZMAN and LAPATHA. This testimony of the Clerk of court deserves credit because the Clerk was present at the said hearing and is substantiated with the ruling of the City Judge who, sans evidence to the contrary, is presumed to have regularly performed his official duty.

The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that in the instant case, evidence is wanting to sustain a finding that ATTY DE GUZMAN committed any deceit or misconduct. As held in Go v Candoy, it is elementary in disbarment proceedings that the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and that to be made the basis for suspension of disbarment, such proof must be convincing. In the case at bar, LAPATHA failed to provide such convincing proof.

Hence, the administrative complaint is dismissed and ATTY DE GUZMAN exonerated of the charge. 166 LACHICA v FLORDELIZA

Facts:

- One day, Dr. Amparo Lachica, the Municipal Health Officer of Jose Abad Santos, Davao del Sur, was approached by Dina Masaglang and Norma Ruton, who were asking Dr. Lachica to sign a death certificate. Dr. Lachica refused to sign saying that the attending physician in Gen. Santos should be the one to sign.

- Later in the day, Dr. Lachica met the two again and the two told her that Judge Rolando Flordeliza, MTC judge, was ordering her to sign the death certificate. Dr. Lachica again refused.

- Later in the evening, at the Municipal Employees’ Night Party, Judge Flordeliza, who was drunk, asked Dr. Lachica to sit beside him. Judge Flordeliza then said to Dr. Lachica, in an angry manner, “Bakit hindi mo pinirmahan and death certificate?” Dr. Lachica then tried to explain but to no avail, this is when Judge Flordeliza threatened to bring an administrative complaint against Dr. Lachica.

Issue:

- W/n Judge Flordeliza should be penalized. Held:

- SC says YES, Judge Flordeliza is fined 10,000

- The SC was convinced that the charge of misconduct against the respondent judge was established by substantial evidence. Dr. Lachica presented the testimony of certain witnesses confirming that Judge Flordeliza was indeed drinking that night. There was also testimony debunking Judge Flordeliza’s excuse that he could not have acted in such a manner because the mayor was sitting with them (the testimony proved that the mayor was not with them). The Court believed that Judge Flordeliza did threaten Dr. Lachica in order to coerce the latter to sign the death certificate.

- Also, his inebriated demeanor and incoherent behavior during the festivities, as attested to by a witness, is reprehensible in a judge. Allowing himself to get intoxicated is not the conduct expected of a judge. 167 ESTOYA v ABRAHAM-SINGSON

Facts: A complaint signed by 47 employees and officers of several branches of the RTC Antique was filed with the SC. The signatories allege that Judge Singson "treats her staff in a dictatorial and terroristic manner without regard to the basic dignity and self-respect of the individual," making the "working atmosphere… entirely dependent on her moods on the particular day which most often fluctuates with the moon…" The signatories allege that they could not understand the judge’s bizarre actuations and that sometimes she is excessively generous but in most occasions she is "oppressive, dictatorial, despotic, and unbearable, if not hysterical."

The judge was further accused of gross and culpable incompetence for having delegated her authority to the Clerk of Court by requiring the latter to make orders or resolve or decide cases for her.

Several persons testified regarding her attitude towards her workers (refer to P. 9).

The lower court adjudged her to lack the temperament required of a judge. Her acts, according to the lower court, were not mere admonitions to correct the employee’s wrongdoings.

Issue: W/N judge is guilty of gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.

Held: The judge is guilty of gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law. On gross ignorance of the law:

She is grossly ignorant of the law because she considered unlawful aggression as a mitigating circumstance. She also made errors in the implementation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. She also allowed the release on bail of several accused individuals without giving the prosecution to prove if the evidence of guilt is strong (on the fact that the crime committed by the accused individuals).

A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. It is imperative that that he be conversant with basic legal principles. A judge owes it to the legal profession he belongs and to the public who depends on him to know the law which he is called to interpret and apply.

On gross incompetence:

According to the canons, a judge should organize his court with a view to a prompt and convenient dispatch of its business and he should not tolerate abuses and neglect by clerks. To be a good manager, one must be a good leader. The judge

does not possess the virtues, qualities, temperament, aptitude, and skill of a good manager of court employees. She is tyrannical. (Please refer to the lengthy testimonies to have an idea of her tyrannical behavior.)

168 CUARESMA v AGUILAR