JUDGE MONA LISA T.

TABORA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial

Court, San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 26, complainant, vs.
(Ret.) JUDGE ANTONIO A. CARBONELL, former Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 27,
respondent.

Facts:

Some Caridad Tabisula and Rang-ay Rural Bank was involved in a

case raffled to the sala of the herein complainant, the former being the
complainant therein and the latter being the respondent. The complainant
was absent for prolonged time because of illness while on the pendency of
the case filed by Tabisula. Judge Carbonell, herein respondent, as a pairing
judge took over the case. After several months, Judge Tabora was back in
court after relieve from sickness and three days later, Judge Carbonell still
rendered judgement in the case in favor of the therein petitioner. Tabisula
was furnished a copy of order personally by Judge Carbonell after the
former’s request was not granted by the OIC-BCOC Lacsamana.
Judge Tabora, in performance of her duties the furnished a separate
order in the case, this time against Tabisula.
Tabisula then filed administrative case against Judge Tabora for
maliciously and deliberately changing, altering and reversing a validly
rendered decision of a court of equal and concurrent jurisdiction. Tabisula
also charged Lacsamana for alleged manifest partiality, evident bad faith,
and gross inexcusable negligence for refusing to furnish a copy of the
decision rendered by Judge Carbonell despite several verbal and written
demands.
In Tabora’s explanation, she carefully studied the entire records of
the case and found out that Judge Carbonell’s decision was not in
accordance with the facts of the case and the applicable law and appeared
to have unjustly favored Tabisula. Also, according to her, even though the
pairing judge have heard the case from the beginning to the end, the
decision still rests on the presiding judge. In addition, Judge Tabora said
that Judge Carbonell’s decision was not validly promulgated and released
to the parties as also the court records show and that in no way should’ve
Tabisula get a copy of his decision but through Carbonell only.
Lacsamana reasoned that he was not the person in charge of
releasing decisions, orders, and other documents relative to a pending case
and it was not within his functions to release a decision without the
presiding judge’s authority.
Judge Carbonell, however, though admitting to give Tabisula a copy
of his decision, reason that the act of filing the decision with the clerk of
court, Lacsaman, already constituted a rendition of judgment or
promulgation and not its pronouncement in open court or release to the
parties.
OCA dismissed the petition against Tabor and Lacsamana for lack of
credit but found guilty the Judge Carbonell of simple misconduct for
violating Section 2, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Issue:
Whether or not Judge Carbonell is guilty of simple misconduct for
violating Section 2, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:
Yes. Canon 3, Section 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides
that judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court,
maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession
and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
It is evident in his actions that Judge have manifested acts of
impartiality when he bypassed the duty of the clerk of court to furnish
copies of the decision in a case. The decision, aside for being invalid due to
that he’s not authorized to decide as such because he is just a pairing
judge and have not extended such approval of the presiding judge for that
decision, shouldn’t have been issued to the litigant until its official
promulgation. Such action is a brazen challenge to the integrity and
confidentiality of the court.
Any court should strictly observe not to do impartial and not to
appear as such. Especially the lower courts. Lower courts act as the
frontline of the judiciary as to which does most interactions to the public
which shouldn’t perceive it as impartial and lacking integrity. The
commission of such violations is applied more sternly to judges at this
level.
Court denied the charges filed by Caridad S. Tabisula for lack of merit
and finds respondent Judge Antonio A. Carbonell, former Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 27, guilty of
simple misconduct and fines him P10,000.00, to be deducted from his
retirement benefits.

RE: INHIBITION OF JUDGE EDDIE R. ROJAS, RTC-Branch 39,

Polomolok, South Cotabato in Crim. Case No. 09-5668.

Facts:
Judge Eddie R. Rojas was a prosecutor of a criminal case initially
tried in the RTC. Upon appointment as the presiding judge for RTC-Branch
of Polomolok, South Cotabato, the same case was raffled to his sala. It was
only after a series of orders of postponements for the case for various
reasons and allegedly late transmission of the TSN to him that he recalled
that he was previously involved in this case. Judge then inhibited himself
from the case.
When this court required Judge to comment as to why he should not
be administratively liable for failure to inhibit himself from the beginning,
Judge commented that upon admission of this case to his sala, the former
counsel when asked by the Judge if the counsel will interpose objection on
his continuing sitting on the case, the latter did not mind. He also
contended that he shouldn’t be liable because he didn’t really fully-blown
tried the case, instead he just issued series of orders for postponement.

Issue:
Whether or not, Judge Rojas was liable for violation of Rule 137,
Section 1 of Rules of the Court.

Ruling:
Yes. The Judge’s contention that he merely ‘sat’ on the case is
unmeritorious. According to Rule 137, Section 1 of Rules of the Court, no
judge or judicial officer shall ‘sit’ in any case in which he has been counsel
for a party without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by
them and entered upon the record. His contention that he merely sat on it,
because apparently no presentation of evidences from both parties have
been laid yet is wrong. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, to ‘sit’ in a case
means to hold court; to do any act of a judicial nature. To hold a session,
as of a court, grand jury, legislative body, etc. To be formally organized
and proceeding with the transaction of business. Thus, his actions on
issuing orders of postponements indeed are judicial in nature, tracing back
to the fact that he officially sat as judge in the trial he was previously
acquainted to. His reason that the former counsel of the defense did not
object was also not to be given credit. It was expressly stated in Rule 137,
Section 1 that he has to have written consent from bot parties and the
same must be put on record of the case. He just sought an unrecorded
verbal opinion from one side which does not fall within the requirements of
the Rule.
His excuse that he knew only that he has been part of the case when
he was still a prosecutor after he read the delayed TSN was also not
accepted for it conflicts his comment that he asked the counsel of the
defense for objection. He couldn’t’ve asked defense counsel if he did not
recognize his share on the case.
Judge Rojas should have kept in mind that a judge should not do not
appear as practicing impropriety. His late action of inhibition could not
exculpate him for what he already done.
This court finds, Judge Rojas, guilty for for violation of Rule 137,
Section 1. He is warned that repetition of the same or similar acts will be
dealt with more severely.
NICOLAS FECUNDO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON BERJAMEN,
Presiding Judge RTC, Branch 20 and JULIUS SALCEDO,
respondents.

Facts:
Nicolas Fecundo, herein petitioner won mayoralty against Julius
Salcedo with a vote deficit of only 100 votes. Salcedo the filed electoral
protest and the said complaint was raffled to the sala of Judge Berjamen,
herein respondent. The Judge then issued an order directing the Municipal
Treasurer to deliver to court the ballot boxes that are subject of protest.
However, the Municipal Treasurer wrote a letter to the judge saying that
she cannot execute the order, because the ‘Municipal Mayor and his
cohorts’ are preventing and threatening me if I insist to bring the ballot
boxes mentioned in your order to your court.
A TRO was then filed by the petitioner herein to prohibit respondent
court from proceeding with the election case but was denied for failure to
show grave abuse of discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction for the
order to deliver ballot of respondent court being in accordance with law
and conducive to the expeditious disposition of the election contest.
Petitioner then filed a motion for inhibition of the judge set two days
after its filing. The Judge then denied the motion for noncompliance with
the three day notice rule.
Petitioner claims that they didn’t file anymore motions due to the
judge’s remarks in open court saying, “…so, if you file another one, the
Court will just deny when it received it.” They also further strengthen their
claim to partiality when said counsel of the petitioner wasn’t sent a copy of
the resolution pertaining to the delivery of ballot boxes to the court.
Salcedo is certain that the inhibition attempt arose from Fecundo’s
failed attempt to get a TRO from further investigation. Now that it is
apparent that Fecundo will lose the election case, they moved to inhibition
of the judge.
Fecundo claims in his petition of inhibition of the respondent judge
that he manifests partiality in favor of Salcedo, seen in his use of phrase
‘Mayor and his cohorts,’ ‘rascals’ and ‘savages’ to describe him and his
supporters. It was also alleged that the respondent humiliated the assistant
of his counsel when it tried to file petition on behalf of his counsel and that
he acquired personal interest when he inquired to one of the electoral
commissioners about their procedural maneuver, and that the Judge
beholds gratitude to a Congressman who supports the petitioner.

Respondent judge, for his part, denies all the accusations, imputing them
to petitioner’s wild imagination, political immaturity and childish mentality.
The utterance of such words protested against by the petitioners are
according to him are just excerpts from the letter of the Municipal
Treasurer. This is just to delay the disposition of the election case in
violation of the Election Law. He refuted that his relationship with the
Congressman who was allegedly he owes a favor to has nothing to do with
his will be decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the Respondent Judge be inhibited for his partiality to
one party.

Ruling:
Yes. Although the previous act of the judge to deny the motion of the
petitioner because of its non-compliance with the three-day notice rule as a
requirement of sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court, it
does not on its own exculpate him from the degree of obviousness of the
face of his partiality.
The language employed by the respondent judge in his orders and
comments on the petition at bar, manifests exasperation bordering on
indignation at petitioner and his tactics, which shows his partiality in
deciding the election case at hand. A spotless dispensation of justice
requires not only that the decision rendered be intrinsically fair but that the
judge rendering it must maintain the appearance of fairness and
impartiality. His language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and
measured, lest the best of intentions be misconstrued.
To erase any doubt to the court’s bias against petitioner in the case
at bar, the Court believes it prudent and better to serve the ends of justice
to transfer the said case to another branch.
The petition for inhibition is granted. Let this election case be
tranferred from Branch 20 to Branch 21, Mambusao, Capiz, presided over
by Judge Julius L. Abella who shall terminate proceedings therein and
decide the case within three months from notice of this decision.