Echano vs.

Suñga
A.M. No. 1578-CFI. February 20, 1981

Respondent judge was charged of serious misconduct in office and in during a court stenographer to falsify a
court record in connection with the proceedings in a civil case before his sala, where, after ruling that the case
was submitted, he uttered the words "Buntalin kita dian" and "Do not take that" when complainant lawyer, who
was opposing the motion before the court, insisted that they had very good argument to advance and branded
the court's ruling as a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court admonished the respondent to be more prudent and restrained in his judicial behaviour,
finding that he did not comfort himself in a manner that befits one who holds the exalted office of dispenser of
justice which requires serenity and the ability to keep one' cool.

In re: Marcos
A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC. July 6, 2001

Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos and her children, Joshua Marcos and Hazel Faith Marcos Barliso, sent a
handwritten letter addressed to Chief Justice Andres Narvasa complaining that Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of
the Regional Trial Court, was not giving them adequate financial support as his legitimate family. They prayed
then that all the remuneration from the Supreme Court due to Judge Marcos be directly released to Mrs.
Marcos to prevent his mistress from getting them. In his comment, Judge Marcos denied his failure to support
complainants. He also denied having a mistress. And he further alleged that his wife and children had already
signed a letter withdrawing their letter/complaint against him and that he signed a letter of undertaking to give
all the checks due him from the Supreme Court to his wife. Thus, he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint
against him. When the matter was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrator
Bernardo P. Abesamis recommended that the complaint be considered closed and terminated. However, the
recommendation was not approved by the Court Administrator and the latter did not report the matter to the
Court En Banc. The case remained suspended until Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. reported to the Court
En Banc the scandalous incident he witnessed at the Fun Run sponsored by the Philippine Judges Association
held, that is, when Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos attended the said occasion, he was accompanied by his
querida, which Judge Marcos even admitted to him. In view of his admission, the Chief Justice recommended
the referral of the case for investigation to the Office of the Court Administrator and the suspension from office
of Judge Marcos. Consequently, the Court suspended Judge Marcos from office until further orders. In relation
thereto, Justice Romulo S. Quimbo conducted an investigation. During the hearing, Mrs. Rotilla Marcos
testified about the infidelity of her husband. She presented documents to support her claims. The matter of the
illicit relationship between Judge Marcos and Maydelane Tacaldo was even published in the newspaper. On
the other hand, Judge Marcos denied every allegation of his wife.

As held in GALANG VS. SANTOS, the personal behavior of a judge should be free from the
appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only in the bench and in the performance of judicial
duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach. In LEYNES VS. VELOSO, it was held that if
good moral character is required of a lawyer, with more reason is the requirement exacted of a member of the
judiciary who at all times is expected to observe irreproachable behavior and is bound not to outrage public
decency.
The Court ruled that keeping a mistress is certainly not an act one would expect of a judge who is
expected to possess the highest standard of morality and decency. If a judge fails to have high ethical
standards, the confidence and high respect for the judiciary diminishes as he represents the judiciary. Judge
Ferdinand J. Marcos has demonstrated himself to be wanting of moral integrity. He has violated the Code of
Judicial Conduct which requires every judge to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and
independence and to avoid the appearance of impropriety in all activities as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
The charge of immorality proven against respondent judge demonstrates his unfitness to remain in
office and continue to discharge the functions and duties of a judge. Having tarnished the image of the
Judiciary, respondent must be meted out the severest form of disciplinary sanction — dismissal from the
service.
Sabitsana vs. Villamor
202 SCRA 405

Fernandez vs, Hamoy

Facts:
Complainant Jose E. Fernandez is the counsel for plaintiff in 2 Civil Cases both of which were filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 15, then presided by respondent Judge. Despite the lapse
of more than ten years, respondent Judge failed to render judgment in the said cases. Complainant wrote a
letter to the Court Administrator seeking help in the speedy disposition of his clients’ cases.
The Judge alleged that he misplaced the records of the Civil Cases; that his Utility Aide in Caloocan
City mixed up the records of the said cases with the records of cases assigned to the Caloocan court; that the
missing case records were found only when the old records were transferred to the newly-acquired
storage/filing cabinets; that he was unable to act on the cases notwithstanding the discovery of the records
because he had to attend to the many family-related cases, being then the only designated Family Court; that
his docket became more congested when the other courts forwarded to his sala cases falling under the
jurisdiction of the Family Court; and that he had no intention of disregarding the directives of the Court
Administrator or of this Court.

Held:
Respondent is administratively liable for gross inefficiency, dereliction of duty and violation of Canon 3,
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In his Comment, respondent Judge attributes the delay in the resolution of Civil Cases Nos. 2744 and
3645 to the mix-up of the records with those of the other cases assigned to his court.
Such an excuse hardly merits serious consideration. Respondent Judge cannot be absolved from
liability for the inefficiency of his court personnel. Judges are charged with the administrative responsibility of
organizing and supervising his court personnel to secure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business,
requiring at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity. Indeed, he is ultimately
responsible for ensuring that court personnel perform their tasks and that the parties are promptly notified of
his orders and decisions. It is his duty to devise an efficient recording and filing system in his court to enable
him to monitor the Low of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition.
Members of the judiciary have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. A judge who
failed to do so has to suffer the consequences of his omission. Any delay in the disposition of cases
undermines the people’s faith in the judiciary.
 In the Judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity. Respondent Judge must
bear in mind that the exacting standards of conduct demanded of judges are designed to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of
the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and
impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself.

Macalintal vs Teh
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1375. October 16, 1997.

Facts:
Complainant lawyer in this administrative case questioned the actuation of respondent, the Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Rosario, Batangas, relative to Election Case No. R-95-001.
Respondent Judge issued a resolution adverse to the client of complainant. The latter questioned the
resolution via petition for certiorari, before the Commission on Elections. While the case was pending at the
Comelec, respondent actively participated in the proceedings by filing his comment on the petition and, still
later an urgent manifestation. Complainant filed a motion for respondent's inhibition in the election case.
Instead of acting on the motion respondent hired his own lawyer, filed his answer to the motion before his own
court, and forthwith denied the same, ordering, at the same time, the complainant to pay P100,000.00 by way
of attorney's fees and litigation expenses for compelling the respondent Judge to engage the services of
counsel.

Held:
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Respondent's active
participation in the certiorari proceedings, being merely a nominal or formal party, is not called for. Respondent
Judge acted both as a party litigant and as a judge before his own court. Respondent's gross deviation from
the acceptable norm for judges is clearly manifest.
Respondent Judge is dismissed from the service.
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur , the Court may impose its authority upon erring judges whose
actuations, on their face, would show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law or misconduct. The active
participation of respondent judge, being merely a nominal or formal party in the certiorari proceedings, is not
called for. In Turqueza vs. Hernando, the Court has explained: . . . (U)nder Section 5 of Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, a judge whose order is challenged in an appellate court does not have to file any answer or take active
part in the proceeding unless expressly directed by order of this Court. It is the duty of the private respondent
to appear and defend, both in his/her behalf and in behalf of the Court or judge whose order of decision is at
issue. The judge should maintain a detached attitude from the case and should not waste his time by taking an
active part in a proceeding which relates to official actuations in a case but should apply himself to his principal
task of hearing and adjudicating the cases in his court. He is merely a nominal party to the case and has no
personal interest nor personality therein."
When complainant filed a motion for respondent's inhibition in Election Case No. R-95-001, the latter,
instead of acting thereon in accordance with Section 2, Rule 137, of the Rules of Court, hired his own lawyer,
filed his answer to the motion and forthwith denied the same, ordering, at the same time, Atty. Macalintal to
pay P100,000.00 by way of attorney's fees and litigation expenses "for compelling the respondent Judge to
engage the services of counsel who prepared the Answer to the Motion for Inhibition." Respondent Judge, in
fine, acted both as a party litigant and as a judge before his own court.
In the Court's resolution of 12 March 1997, respondent was directed to act on the motion for inhibition
in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 2, Rule 137, 9 of the Rules of Court. Respondent
Judge either misunderstood or chose to misunderstand the directive for, in his order, dated 17 April 1997, he
granted the motion for inhibition "in compliance with the resolution" of the Court. Clearly, the Court, in its
resolution of 12 March 1997, merely required respondent Judge to act on the motion for inhibition in
accordance with the Rules, i.e., "to either proceed with the trial, or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his
determination of the question of his disqualification." Certainly, he was not directed by the Court either to grant
or deny the motion.