You are on page 1of 6

JUDGE SIMBULAN v.

JUDGE BARTOLOME

A.M. NO. MTJ-05-1588 – JUNE 5, 2009

PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

Complainant judge charged respondent judge and his acting and retired clerks of court with grave errors
and discrepancies for processing surety bond for a certain accused Mercado.

Respondent judge’s RTC branch received an indorsement for warrant of arrest for the accused. Accused
then posted bail.

Investigations were duly had, and it was discovered that respondent judge issued an order of release
without a certificate of detention and warrant of arrest attached to the records.

Judge blamed his clerk of court. This was not appreciated by the investigating public prosecutor.

It was found that it was the clerk of court’s negligence that caused the issue.

ISSUE:

WoN judge is liable for his clerk of court’s negligence

YES. The Revised Administrative Code provides that the negligence of the subordinate is the negligence
of the superior.

Neglect of duty is failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him. Gross when
gravity or frequency threatens public welfare.

RE: ORDER DATED 21 DECEMBER 2006 ISSUED BY JUDGE BONIFIACIO SANZ MACEDA, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, LAS PINAS CITY, BRANCH 275, SUSPENDING LOIDA M. GENABE, LEGAL RESEARCHER, SAME
COURT.

A.M. NO. 07-2-93-RTC – OCTOBER 29, 2009

CARPIO, J.

FACTS:
Respondent Genabe is a legal researcher in the RTC of Las Pinas City.

She was given the task to finish summary of a criminal case, but left the task unattended before going to
a seminar in Baguio.

Subsequently, Judge issued a suspension order against her for 30 days.

After the suspension, respondent made a counter-charge against the judge. A fact-finding committee
was organized for the matter.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty.

WoN judge’s order of suspension was valid.

RULING:

NO. It was found that respondent had 3 days to finish the task but did not do it. However, the same is
not gross.

NO. Pertinent SC memorandum provides that the executive judge can only make an investigation but
not dish out penalties; only the OCA can do so.

SANTIAGO III v. JUSTICE ENRIQUEZ, JR.

A.M. NO. CA-09-47-J – FEBRUARY 13, 2009

CARPIO-MORALES, J.

FACTS:

Complainant charged CA Justice Enriquez for gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence in
connection with alleged unjust enrichment in one case regarding complainant.

Said case was about a petition for reconstitution of los/destroyed land certificates. RTC granted the
petition but CA denied the same upon appeal to it.

It was alleged by the complainant that the CA division which handled her case deliberately twisted facts
and laws, which lead to the unfavorable judgment.
ISSUE:
WoN CA justice is guilty of gross ignorance of law

RULING:

NO. Complainant should have appealed or petitioned for certiorari. Administrative complaint is not
remedy unless tainted with malice. Judicial immunity lies when erroneous decision is rendered in good
faith.

3D-INDUSTRIES v. JUSTICE ROXAS

A.M. NO. CA-10-50-J – OCTOBER 5, 2010

CARPIO-MORALES, J.

CA justices were charged with violations of anti-graft.

Complainant avers that CA justices are a “judicial vending machine” for regularly dispensing TROs and
injunction orders.

Complainant was a “victim” of such unjust acts, hence the complaint.

ISSUE:

WoN justices were guilty of the charge.

RULING:

NO. Records are bereft of evidence of malice. Not every bad judgment will render them liable. Bad faith
connotes not only bad judgment but a dishonest purpose. Gross negligence is complete want of care,
act or omission where one should act, willfully, without regard for others. None were substantiated in
the case at bar.

OCAMPO v. JUDGE ARCAYA-CHUA

A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2049


PER CURIAM

FACTS:

A judicial audit investigation on the sala of respondent judge was conducted by the SC.

Substantial evidence was gathered showing respondent judge did not report in her monthly reports
regarding the actual number of marriages she had solemnized.

It was also shown that the solemnization fees paid did not correspond to her provided number of actual
marriages solemnized.

From the report of Nov. 2005 – Mar. 2007, her monthly reports indicated she did not solemnize any
marriage. Court records reveal, however, that there were 1,068 marriage certificates issued by her.

It was also shown that Jamora, a court stenographer, affixed her signatures on the certificates, knowing
the act was wrong.

ISSUE:

WoN judge and court stenographer are guilty.

RULING:
YES. Both were guilty of gross misconduct. Both were likewise dismissed, with all retirement benefits
forfeited. Also with prejudice to any re-employment in any government agency.

ATTY. DESCALLAR v. JUDGE RAMAS

A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2015 – DECEMBER 15, 2010

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

FACTS:

Lawyer complainant charged respondent with 7 administrative complaints for gross ignorance of the
law, gross negligence, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

It was alleged that the judge committed an error by granting a motion for execution whereby the judge
miscounted the day of reckoning from which the execution be done.
It was also alleged that respondent granted an improper plea bargain and probation motion.

ISSUE:

WoN administrative charges will lie against judge.

NO. Judicial remedies must first be EXHAUSTED. Then, ADMINISTRATIVE. And only after then will civil
and criminal options be open.

TIERRA FIRMA ESTATE v. JUDGE QUINTIN

A.M. NO. MTJ-02-1434 – JULY 2, 2002

MENDOZA, J.

FACTS:

Complainant charged respondent judge for failure to decide a civil action for unlawful detainer.

Complainant was a plaintiff in said civil action, which, according to the Rules of Court, should have been
decided within 30 days.

However, respondent judge decided only after 210 days.

Respondent judge avers that the heavy caseload caused the inordinate delay.

ISSUE:

WoN judge is guilty of gross inefficiency.

RULING:

NO. Judge was guilty of inefficiency, but not gross. Expanded caseload was mitigating.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are summary in nature; designed to ensure speedy disposition of
cases. Justice delayed is justice denied. Undermines people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary.

ATTY. RICON v. JUDGE MARQUEZ

A.M. NO. RTJ-10-2253 – DECEMBER 8, 2010


BRION, J.

This is a consolidated case, where complaints and counter-complaints were launched by two parties
herein.

Atty. Ricon charged Judge Marquez with grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct. The latter
charged the former with gross mismanagement and neglect, and falsification.

Atty. Ricon alleged that during a meeting, Judge Marquez insinuated that complainant, among others,
were “corrupt, gago, tamad, at makakapal ang mukha.”

It was also alleged that the Judge called complainant as “basurero” because of the disorganized court
records.

Judge denied allegations of calling them basurero. Judge also excused his temperament due to heavy
caseload.

ISSUE:

WoN parties are guilty of the charges.

NO. However, the judge was held to be unprofessional and unethical in using insulting words against
complainant.

Complainant was also held not guilty for gross mismanagement of records. The Court attributed the
disorganized state to the limited space and facilities. Both were respectively fined therefor.

You might also like