February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. 07-11-566-RTC : February 16, 2010] RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, TOLEDO CITY:
[A.M. No. 07-11-566-RTC : February 16, 2010]
RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, TOLEDO CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Bane dated February 16, 2010
"A.M. No. 07-11-566-RTC (Re: Judicial Audit and Investigation in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Toledo City).
This administrative matter is about irregularities and delays in the proceedings and in the disposition of cases before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Toledo City.
Acting on complaints filed with it, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit and investigation from October 16 to 24, 2007 of the cases in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City, Branch 59, presided over by Judge Gaudioso D. Villarin. Finding evidence of irregularities in the handling and disposition of actions for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, the Court, on the OCAs; recommendation, suspended Judge Villarin, who eventually availed himself of optional retirement without prejudice to the outcome of the formal investigation of the irregularities mentioned.
The evidence of the judicial audit learn shows that Judge Villarin failed to decide 13 cases[1] and resolve various incidents in six cases[2] within the reglementary period. In addition, he had not acted on 88 cases, making them dormant, for periods that ranged from two months to two years, with some of those cases filed as early as 1992, 1996, and 1997.
In contrast, Judge Villarin disposed of cases for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage[3] with extraordinary speed, some in less than two months. He allowed petitioners to testify by deposition without justifiable grounds and in the absence of the respondents, violating Rule 23[4] of the Rules of Court. Judge Villarin's court omitted giving notice to the respondents of orders and court processes. It also did not require the service on them of copies of petitioners' pleadings. In some cases,[5] his court issued certificates of finality despite the absence of proof that the parties received copies of the decision.
Moreover, Judge Villarin decided cases without acting on the parties' formal offers of exhibits or, at times, without waiting for the filing of such formal offers. In Civil Case T-1436,[6] he rendered two decisions, the first of which was released while the case was still undergoing trial. During the exit conference, Judge Villarin even admitted that he accepted draft decisions from lawyers, saying that he modified and corrected them anyway.
Several RTC personnel corroborated the findings of the judicial audit team. According to the court stenographers,[7] they could not transcribe their notes of depositions because Judge Villarin decided the cases hurriedly. Atty. Roquesa M. Joyo, Branch 59 Clerk of Court, confirmed that Judge Villarin dispatched the cases with undue haste. He asked her on two occasions to issue certificates of finality even if the decisions had not yet become final.
Rosalinda A. Gorrero, Clerk-in-Charge of civil cases, claimed that she failed to send copies of orders, notices, and subpoenas because she could not cope with the speed with which the annulment cases progressed from the time summons were prepared up to the time the decisions were rendered.
Meanwhile, Sheriff IV Melvin D. Destura admitted that she directly collected fees from the parties, ranging from P300.00 to P800.00 for the service of summons. She also accepted extras for expediting the service of court processes. She clarified, however, that she herself did the collection because the clerk of court did not bother to collect fees for the sheriff's trust fund.
In its resolution of March 18, 2008,[8] the Court required Judge Villarin to explain his failure to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period and to comment on the irregularities he allegedly committed in the handling of cases for the declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage.
The Court also directed Atty. Joyo and Gorrero to explain their failure to send notices and court processes to the parties in the cases for declaration of nullity of marriage. The Court specifically required Atty. Joyo to explain her premature issuance of certificates of finality of decisions.
The Court required Destura to explain why she directly collected fees for service of summons from the litigants and Atty. Bacay to account for his failure to collect fees for the sheriff's trust fund.
In his Comment,[9] Judge Villarin blamed the stenographers for failing to transcribe their notes fast, saying that the delay prevented him from deciding submitted cases and resolving pending incidents within 90 days of their submission. He also offered as excuse his old age and the limited research materials he had. As for the cases for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, he decided fast so they would not have to add to his backlog of cases. He denied having personal interest in the cases and claimed that he did not allow anyone to prepare a decision for him.
Atty. Joyo[10] and Gorrero[11] said that it was impossible for them to send out notices and court processes to the parties because Judge Villarin scheduled the hearings at very close intervals. Atty. Joyo also claimed that she could not effectively perform her duties because of the "whims and caprices" of Judge Villarin. She had to obey his orders to avoid any conflict with him.
As for Destura[12] and Atty. Bacay,[13] they said that they merely continued the practice of their predecessors who directly collected fees from the parties for the service of summons. They also claimed that the former clerk of court did not maintain a sheriff's trust fund.
On May 26, 2009, the OCA submitted to the Court its report,[14] finding Judge Villarin, Atty. Joyo, Gorrero, Destura, and Atty. Bacay administratively liable and recommending that:
The Court adopts the OCA's findings of fact.
First. The evidence shows that Judge Villarin failed to decide 13 cases and various incidents in six other cases within the required period. He rendered 88 cases dormant. The excuses he offered, namely, absence of the transcript of stenographic notes, old age, and limited research materials are not valid.
He cannot hide behind his staffs alleged incompetence or negligence for, as presiding judge, he was responsible for their efficient supervision.[15] Rule 3.09, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.
And if, indeed, old age and inadequate research materials hindered his work, he should have told the Court about them and requested extensions for the completion of the required actions. The Court could have taken steps to alleviate his supposed problems.[16] But he did not.
Under Section 9(1),[17] Rule 140, as amended by A.M. 01-8-10-SC, of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge. It is punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[18]
The Court has previously found Judge Villarin guilty of the same offense in Bontuyan v. Judge Villarin[19] and in Heirs of Simeon Piedad v. Judge Estera and Judge Villarin[20] The Court fined him for P12,000.00 and P11,000.00, respectively. For this reason, the Court will now be justified to impose on him the maximum fine of P20,000.00.
Second. With respect to the cases for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, Judge Villarin again had no justification for his procedural shortcuts. Aside from bare denials, he failed to refute the OCA's findings or his own staffs' testimony regarding: 1) the absence of prior notice to respondents of deposition-taking, pre-trial, and trial; 2) the absence of the required investigation report on the possible collusion between parties; 3) the non-compliance with Rule 23 of the Rules of Court on deposition; 4) the failure to rule on the formal offer of exhibits before deciding the cases; 5) his admission during the exit conference that he allowed some lawyers of the parties to write decisions for him; and 6) the two decisions he rendered in one case. These are brazen violations not only of the law, but also of the rights of the parties.
The Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2,[21] Section 2 of Canon 3,[22] and Section 1 of Canon 4[23] demand the highest standards of integrity, impartiality, and propriety from members of the bench. Judge Villarin failed to live up to these standards and should be held liable for gross misconduct.
Under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, gross misconduct is a serious charge punishable by any of the following: 1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations provided that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months; or 3) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00 [24]
The penalty of dismissal from the service is no longer imposable in this case since Judge Villarin availed himself of optional retirement on February 15, 2008. Thus, the maximum fine of P40,000.00 is in order.
Third. Atty. Joyo blamed Judge Villarin for her failure to effectively perform her duties as clerk of court. But that the judge wanted the annulment cases moved with dispatch does not justify her non-issuance of notices and court processes to the parties. Indeed, she cannot dispense with these requirements just to avoid problems posed by the presiding judge.
Atty. Joyo should have been assiduous in performing her official duties and in supervising and managing court dockets and records. Section 4, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that every judgment, resolution, order, or pleading subsequent to the complaint, written motion, notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected. Her duty being ministerial, she was not in a position to decide whether or not to send orders based on her own discretion.[26]
Similarly, Atty. Joyo cannot escape liability for the premature issuance of certificates of finality in two cases for declaration of nullity of marriage, it was her responsibility to ensure that the case records were in order and that a certificate of finality was issued only when it was due. Oversight and a heavy workload do not absolve her of this responsibility.
Atty. Joyo's failure to faithfully comply with procedural rules and perform her duties constitutes simple neglect of duty. It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[27] Since Atty. Joyo has no previous record, the Court imposes on her the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.
Fourth. Gorrero's failure to send notices and court processes was also inexcusable. Notwithstanding time constraints and heavy workload, as clerk-in-charge of civil cases, she should have sent the required notices to litigants considering their importance in the ordinary scheme of judicial processes. She is liable for simple neglect of duty, which carries a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.
Fifth. Destura admitted that she directly collected fees and received extras from the litigants for the immediate service of summons and other court processes. These acts, being contrary to the prescribed procedure under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, constitute simple misconduct. It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[28] Considering that this is Destura's first offense, the Court imposes the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.
Sixth. With respect to Atty. Bacay, his failure to comply with Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court on the collection of fees for the sheriffs trust fund is also unacceptable. As the clerk of court of the RTC, he ought to familiarize himself with the rules and guidelines governing his assigned work. He cannot validly say that he merely continued the practice of his predecessor without finding out if the practice is correct. Accordingly, he should be held liable for simple neglect of duty with a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.
WHEREFORE, Judge Gaudioso D. Villarin, now retired, is found GUILTY of undue delay in deciding cases and gross misconduct for which the Court fines him in the sums of P20,000.00 and P40,000.00, respectively, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Atty. Roquesa M. Joyo, Atty. Orlando T. Bacay, Jr. and Ms. Rosalinda A. Gorrero are found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty for which the Court imposes on them the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay and STERNLY WARNS them that a repetition of
the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Ms. Melvin D. Destura is found GUILTY of simple misconduct and the Court imposes on her the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay, and STERNLY WARNS her that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely."
"A.M. No. 07-11-566-RTC (Re: Judicial Audit and Investigation in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Toledo City).
RESOLUTION
This administrative matter is about irregularities and delays in the proceedings and in the disposition of cases before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Toledo City.
Background Facts
Acting on complaints filed with it, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit and investigation from October 16 to 24, 2007 of the cases in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City, Branch 59, presided over by Judge Gaudioso D. Villarin. Finding evidence of irregularities in the handling and disposition of actions for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, the Court, on the OCAs; recommendation, suspended Judge Villarin, who eventually availed himself of optional retirement without prejudice to the outcome of the formal investigation of the irregularities mentioned.
The evidence of the judicial audit learn shows that Judge Villarin failed to decide 13 cases[1] and resolve various incidents in six cases[2] within the reglementary period. In addition, he had not acted on 88 cases, making them dormant, for periods that ranged from two months to two years, with some of those cases filed as early as 1992, 1996, and 1997.
In contrast, Judge Villarin disposed of cases for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage[3] with extraordinary speed, some in less than two months. He allowed petitioners to testify by deposition without justifiable grounds and in the absence of the respondents, violating Rule 23[4] of the Rules of Court. Judge Villarin's court omitted giving notice to the respondents of orders and court processes. It also did not require the service on them of copies of petitioners' pleadings. In some cases,[5] his court issued certificates of finality despite the absence of proof that the parties received copies of the decision.
Moreover, Judge Villarin decided cases without acting on the parties' formal offers of exhibits or, at times, without waiting for the filing of such formal offers. In Civil Case T-1436,[6] he rendered two decisions, the first of which was released while the case was still undergoing trial. During the exit conference, Judge Villarin even admitted that he accepted draft decisions from lawyers, saying that he modified and corrected them anyway.
Several RTC personnel corroborated the findings of the judicial audit team. According to the court stenographers,[7] they could not transcribe their notes of depositions because Judge Villarin decided the cases hurriedly. Atty. Roquesa M. Joyo, Branch 59 Clerk of Court, confirmed that Judge Villarin dispatched the cases with undue haste. He asked her on two occasions to issue certificates of finality even if the decisions had not yet become final.
Rosalinda A. Gorrero, Clerk-in-Charge of civil cases, claimed that she failed to send copies of orders, notices, and subpoenas because she could not cope with the speed with which the annulment cases progressed from the time summons were prepared up to the time the decisions were rendered.
Meanwhile, Sheriff IV Melvin D. Destura admitted that she directly collected fees from the parties, ranging from P300.00 to P800.00 for the service of summons. She also accepted extras for expediting the service of court processes. She clarified, however, that she herself did the collection because the clerk of court did not bother to collect fees for the sheriff's trust fund.
In its resolution of March 18, 2008,[8] the Court required Judge Villarin to explain his failure to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period and to comment on the irregularities he allegedly committed in the handling of cases for the declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage.
The Court also directed Atty. Joyo and Gorrero to explain their failure to send notices and court processes to the parties in the cases for declaration of nullity of marriage. The Court specifically required Atty. Joyo to explain her premature issuance of certificates of finality of decisions.
The Court required Destura to explain why she directly collected fees for service of summons from the litigants and Atty. Bacay to account for his failure to collect fees for the sheriff's trust fund.
Compliance
In his Comment,[9] Judge Villarin blamed the stenographers for failing to transcribe their notes fast, saying that the delay prevented him from deciding submitted cases and resolving pending incidents within 90 days of their submission. He also offered as excuse his old age and the limited research materials he had. As for the cases for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, he decided fast so they would not have to add to his backlog of cases. He denied having personal interest in the cases and claimed that he did not allow anyone to prepare a decision for him.
Atty. Joyo[10] and Gorrero[11] said that it was impossible for them to send out notices and court processes to the parties because Judge Villarin scheduled the hearings at very close intervals. Atty. Joyo also claimed that she could not effectively perform her duties because of the "whims and caprices" of Judge Villarin. She had to obey his orders to avoid any conflict with him.
As for Destura[12] and Atty. Bacay,[13] they said that they merely continued the practice of their predecessors who directly collected fees from the parties for the service of summons. They also claimed that the former clerk of court did not maintain a sheriff's trust fund.
The QCA's Recommendations
On May 26, 2009, the OCA submitted to the Court its report,[14] finding Judge Villarin, Atty. Joyo, Gorrero, Destura, and Atty. Bacay administratively liable and recommending that:
1) 2) 3) 4) 5)
The Court's Rulings
The Court adopts the OCA's findings of fact.
First. The evidence shows that Judge Villarin failed to decide 13 cases and various incidents in six other cases within the required period. He rendered 88 cases dormant. The excuses he offered, namely, absence of the transcript of stenographic notes, old age, and limited research materials are not valid.
He cannot hide behind his staffs alleged incompetence or negligence for, as presiding judge, he was responsible for their efficient supervision.[15] Rule 3.09, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.
And if, indeed, old age and inadequate research materials hindered his work, he should have told the Court about them and requested extensions for the completion of the required actions. The Court could have taken steps to alleviate his supposed problems.[16] But he did not.
Under Section 9(1),[17] Rule 140, as amended by A.M. 01-8-10-SC, of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge. It is punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[18]
The Court has previously found Judge Villarin guilty of the same offense in Bontuyan v. Judge Villarin[19] and in Heirs of Simeon Piedad v. Judge Estera and Judge Villarin[20] The Court fined him for P12,000.00 and P11,000.00, respectively. For this reason, the Court will now be justified to impose on him the maximum fine of P20,000.00.
Second. With respect to the cases for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage, Judge Villarin again had no justification for his procedural shortcuts. Aside from bare denials, he failed to refute the OCA's findings or his own staffs' testimony regarding: 1) the absence of prior notice to respondents of deposition-taking, pre-trial, and trial; 2) the absence of the required investigation report on the possible collusion between parties; 3) the non-compliance with Rule 23 of the Rules of Court on deposition; 4) the failure to rule on the formal offer of exhibits before deciding the cases; 5) his admission during the exit conference that he allowed some lawyers of the parties to write decisions for him; and 6) the two decisions he rendered in one case. These are brazen violations not only of the law, but also of the rights of the parties.
The Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2,[21] Section 2 of Canon 3,[22] and Section 1 of Canon 4[23] demand the highest standards of integrity, impartiality, and propriety from members of the bench. Judge Villarin failed to live up to these standards and should be held liable for gross misconduct.
Under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, gross misconduct is a serious charge punishable by any of the following: 1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations provided that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months; or 3) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00 [24]
The penalty of dismissal from the service is no longer imposable in this case since Judge Villarin availed himself of optional retirement on February 15, 2008. Thus, the maximum fine of P40,000.00 is in order.
Third. Atty. Joyo blamed Judge Villarin for her failure to effectively perform her duties as clerk of court. But that the judge wanted the annulment cases moved with dispatch does not justify her non-issuance of notices and court processes to the parties. Indeed, she cannot dispense with these requirements just to avoid problems posed by the presiding judge.
Atty. Joyo should have been assiduous in performing her official duties and in supervising and managing court dockets and records. Section 4, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that every judgment, resolution, order, or pleading subsequent to the complaint, written motion, notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected. Her duty being ministerial, she was not in a position to decide whether or not to send orders based on her own discretion.[26]
Similarly, Atty. Joyo cannot escape liability for the premature issuance of certificates of finality in two cases for declaration of nullity of marriage, it was her responsibility to ensure that the case records were in order and that a certificate of finality was issued only when it was due. Oversight and a heavy workload do not absolve her of this responsibility.
Atty. Joyo's failure to faithfully comply with procedural rules and perform her duties constitutes simple neglect of duty. It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[27] Since Atty. Joyo has no previous record, the Court imposes on her the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.
Fourth. Gorrero's failure to send notices and court processes was also inexcusable. Notwithstanding time constraints and heavy workload, as clerk-in-charge of civil cases, she should have sent the required notices to litigants considering their importance in the ordinary scheme of judicial processes. She is liable for simple neglect of duty, which carries a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.
Fifth. Destura admitted that she directly collected fees and received extras from the litigants for the immediate service of summons and other court processes. These acts, being contrary to the prescribed procedure under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, constitute simple misconduct. It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[28] Considering that this is Destura's first offense, the Court imposes the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.
Sixth. With respect to Atty. Bacay, his failure to comply with Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court on the collection of fees for the sheriffs trust fund is also unacceptable. As the clerk of court of the RTC, he ought to familiarize himself with the rules and guidelines governing his assigned work. He cannot validly say that he merely continued the practice of his predecessor without finding out if the practice is correct. Accordingly, he should be held liable for simple neglect of duty with a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.
WHEREFORE, Judge Gaudioso D. Villarin, now retired, is found GUILTY of undue delay in deciding cases and gross misconduct for which the Court fines him in the sums of P20,000.00 and P40,000.00, respectively, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Atty. Roquesa M. Joyo, Atty. Orlando T. Bacay, Jr. and Ms. Rosalinda A. Gorrero are found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty for which the Court imposes on them the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay and STERNLY WARNS them that a repetition of
the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Ms. Melvin D. Destura is found GUILTY of simple misconduct and the Court imposes on her the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay, and STERNLY WARNS her that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Civil Cases T-819, T-839, T-859, T-1293, T-1294, T-1373, T-1434, T-1539 and T-1577; Land Registration Cases LRC-271 and LRC-423; and Criminal Cases 3564 and 4630.
[2] Civil Cases T-912 and T-1305; Special Civil Action 435-T; Land Registration Case LRC-294; and Criminal Cases 4598 and 4996.
[3] Garcia v. Kanno, Civil Case T-1743; Opada v. Sabala, Jr., Civil Case T-1885; Manuel v. Gajo, Civil Case T-1809; Fredette v. Arrogante, Civil Case T-1777; Yap v. Peolonio, Civil Case TM804; Ortega v. Bocateja, Civil Case T-1647; Gocho v. Recolizado, Civil Case T-1795; Sumaoy v. Millanes, Civil Case T-1671; Banate, Jr. v. Luste. Civil Case T-1759; and Sabocuhan v. Mativo, Civil Case T-1436.
[4] Rule on Depositions Pending Action.
[5] Ortega v. Bocateja, Civil Case T-1647 and Garcia v. Kanno, Civil Case T-1743.
[6] Sabocuhan v. Mativo.
[7] Ma. Teresa B. Birao, Jeohhah A. Caballero, Gaulberta A. Lapening, and Joan D. Layson.
[8] Rollo, pp. 49-51.
[9] Id. at 113-117.
[10] Id. at 171-178.
[11] Id. at 169-170.
[12] Id. at 100-103.
[13] Id. at 95-96.
[14] Id. at 576-604.
[15] Torres v. Masamayor, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2037, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 546, 553.
[16] Office of the Court Administrator v. Gaudiel, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-04-I825, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 266, 273.
[17] Sec. 9. Less Serious Charges. � Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
2. Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;
3. Unauthorized practice of law;
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars;
5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and simple misconduct.
[18] Rule 40. Section 1 (B).
[19] 436 Phil. 560 (2002).
[20] A.M. No. RTJ-09-2170, December 16, 2009.
[21] CANON 2. Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Section 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
[22] CANON 3. Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
x x x x
Section 2. 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 the judiciary.
[23] CANON 4. Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety of a judge.
[24] Rule 140. Section 1 (A)(3).
[25] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-Brs. 1, 2 & 3, Mandaue City, 454 Phil. 1, 19 (2003).
[26] Yabut v. Estrelita. A.M. No. P-02-1616, February 21, 2005.
[27] Rule IV. Section 52 (B)(2) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[28] Id.
