judicial canon 1

7/26/2019 Judicial Canon 1

1/27

[A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591. July 14, 2005]

RODRIGO JING N. VIDAL, complainant, vs. JUDGE JAIME L.

DOJILLO, JR., Mun!"#l T$#l %ou$&, M#n#o#',

(#n'#)n#n, respondent.

R E * O L U T I O N

AU*TRIA-MARTINE+, J.

Before us is a complaint filed by complainant Rodrigo Jing N. Vidal against Judge

Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of the unicipal !rial "ourt of

anaoag,Pangasinan.

!he antecedent facts, as accurately narrated in the report of the #ffice of the "ourt

$dministrator %#"$&, are as follo's(

The Hon. Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court at Manaoag,

Pangasinan is here charged with Misconduct. The charge stemmed from an Election

Protest filed ! the rother of Judge Dojillo at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court

stationed at "an #aian, Pangasinan to protest the proclamation of herein complainant

as $aranga! Captain in the %&&% election.

Mr. 'idal (herein complainant) alleged that during the %* and +& Jul! %&&+ hearings

of the Election Protest, Judge Dojillo sat eside the counsel of his rother and actiel!

coached, aided, assisted, and guided said counsel ! now and then sa!ing something,

handing piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from manifesting

something to the court, and other similar acts.

Complainant continued that herein respondents assertie presence and displa! of

partisan actiities in full pulic iew could not hae een ignored or unnoticed ! the

court a -uo and would gie the impression and suspicion of partialit! of the said court

in faor of respondents rother.

Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present during the mentioned hearings ut

eplained that he did not sit eside his rothers law!er ut in the area resered for the

pulic/ and that the main reason wh! he was there was to osere how election


2/27


3/27

suspect that his being a colleague in the judiciary 'ould influence the judge trying the

case to fa)or his brother. !he fact that neither complainant nor his counsel objected to

the presence of respondent during the hearing is immaterial. Respondent himself

should ha)e refrained from publicly sho'ing his seemingly acti)e interest and

participation in the case, for he does not deny that he 'hispered and passed notes to

his brothers la'yer during the course of the hearing. !hus, 'e emphasi/e our ruling

in Caeda vs. Alaan,012that(

Judges are re-uired not onl! to e impartial ut also to appear to e so, for appearance

is an essential manifestation of realit!. Canon % of the Code of Judicial Conduct

enjoins judges to aoid not just impropriet! in their conduct ut een the mere

appearance of impropriet!.

The! must conduct themseles in such a manner that the! gie no ground for

reproach.

(0espondents) acts hae een less than circumspect. He should hae 7ept himself free

from an! appearance of impropriet! and endeaored to distance himself from an! act

liale to create an impression of indecorum.

. . .

This reminder applies all the more sternl! to municipal trial court judges li7e

respondent ecause the! are the judicial frontliners who hae direct contact with theparties. The! are the emodiments of the peoples sense of justice. . . .

9ndeed, respondent must alwa!s ear in mind that6

A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as personal conduct, a

price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond

which he may not freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

enjoins a judge to avoid not just impropriety in the performance of judicial

duties but in all his activities whether in his public or private life. He mustconduct himself in a manner that gives no ground for reproach.;Emphasis

suppliedalladolidan

#nri*ue;ulupandan, 9egros=ccid

ental,

0espondent.

A.. 9o. 4J


16/27

prepare the necessar! pleadings, and ensure a faorale decision in the ejectment

case which the! contemplated to file against the spouses 0a!mundo and #rancisca

$atalla. #egidero allegedl! re-uired them to pa! the initial amount of P&,&&&.&&

and the remaining alance would e paid in the course of the proceedings. 9t was

made clear that the! would not get an! judicial relief from their s-uatter prolemunless the! accepted the pac7age deal.

#urther, complainant alleged that on June %+, %&&4, Lorna 'ollmer,

accompanied ! "alacion #egidero, deliered the amount of P&,&&&.&& to

respondent at his residence."use-uentl!, an ejectment case was filed in

respondents court, entitled4eynold 7 8obias, represented by "is Attorneyin-.act

9orna 7 7ollmer ) Spouses 4aymundo Batalla and +rancisca Batalla, doc7eted as

Ciil Case 8o. &42&&2'.(+)0espondent allegedl! assigned a certain :tt!. 0oert

?. Juanillo to represent the complainant in the ejectment case.Complainant stated

that respondent, howeer, immediatel! demanded for an additional pa!ment

of P&,&&&.&&. "he allegedl! refused to gie the additional amount and earned the

ire of respondent. "he as7ed her sister, Lorna 'ollmer, to re-uest

:tt!. 0oert Juanillo to oluntaril! withdraw as counsel,(3)which he did on :pril

4, %&&. Complainant also as7ed 'ollmer to withdraw the case. (G)0espondent

granted the Motion to ithdraw as Counsel on :pril %+, %&& and the Motion to

ithdraw Case on Ma! +, %&&.(4)

9n his Comment,()respondent denounced the allegation that he offers

pac7age deals to prospectie litigants as malicious, aseless and a lie. He denied

that he demanded from complainant the additional pa!ment of P&,&&&.&&. Healleged that he does not 7now complainant and she is a total stranger to him.

0espondent attached to his Comment the :ffidait(I)dated "eptemer %*,

%&& of :tt!. 0oert ?. Juanillo, who stated therein that he receied as counsel of

the complainant in the ejectment case the sum of P&,&&&.&& from complainants

sister, Lorna 'ollmer. #rom the P&,&&&.&&, he paid filing fees and miscellaneous

fees in the amount of P+,&.&&, while the remaining alance of P4,%*+.&& was

paid to him for his serices, consisting of the preparation and filing of the

complaint for ejectment, including acceptance fee.

0espondent also attached to his Comment the :ffidait (*)dated "eptemer

%*, %&& of Court "tenographer "alacion $. #egidero, den!ing the allegation that

she offered a pac7age deal to complainants sister, Lorna 'ollmer. "he declared that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn9


17/27

the allegations of complainant were malicious and unfair, and that complainant and

her sister could hae een misled ! some people who lost cases in the said court.

Meanwhile, the ejectment case was assigned to Judge Herminigildo ".=ctaiano, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, $ago Cit!, 8egros =ccidental, in iew

of respondents inhiition on Jul! +&, %&&.(&)

=n #eruar! %&, %&&I, the Court issued a 0esolution, ()which noted the

0eport of the =ffice of the Court :dministrator ;=C:< on the complaint against

respondent. Due to the conflicting allegations of the parties, the =C: opined that a

formal inestigation was necessar! to afford the parties opportunit! to sustantiate

their respectie claims and to determine the alleged participation of court emplo!ee

"alacion #egidero. 5pon recommendation of the =C:, the Court referredthe complaint to Eecutie Judge #rances '. ?uan1on, 0egional Trial

Court, $ago Cit!, 8egros =ccidental for inestigation, report and recommendation

within 4& da!s from receipt thereof.

=n Ma! %&, %&&I, the parties were summoned for a formal inestigation

efore 9nestigating Judge #rances '. ?uan1on. Those who appeared efore the

9nestigating Judge were complainant #lorenda '. Toias, respondent Judge

Manuel F. Limsiaco, Jr., Court "tenographer "alacion #egidero and respondents

witness, :tt!. 0oert Juanillo. Complainants witness, Lorna 'ollmer, did not attend

the inestigation, ecause per information of complainant, 'ollmer was

in ?erman! and she was epected to e ac7 in the countr! in Decemer %&&I.

9n his 0eport dated June %, %&&I, 9nestigating Judge ?uan1on stated that

complainant testified that it was her sister, Lorna 'ollmer, who informed her aout

the alleged pac7age deal through long distance telephone call. Complainant

testified that she met "alacion #egidero onl! after the filing of the instant

administratie complaint and that she did not tal7 with her een once.(%)

Complainant further claimed that she had no personal dealings with respondentor with "alacion #egidero, and that she met respondent onl! after the filing of the

ejectment case.(+)

Moreoer, complainant testified that respondent neither personall! receied

from her the initial pa!ment of P&,&&&.&& for the alleged pac7age deal

nor personall! as7ed from her for an additional pa!ment of P&,&&&.&&. (3)9t was
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn14


18/27

her sister, Lorna 'ollmer, who told her through telephone aout the demand for an

additional P&,&&&.&&, ut she ;complainant< did not send the mone!.(G)

Complainant testified that she was the one who went to the house of :tt!.

0oert Juanillo, ringing with her the Motion to ithdraw as Counsel prepared !respondent for :tt!. Juanillo to sign.(4)

0espondent and Court "tenographer "alacion #egidero categoricall! denied

the accusation that the! had a pac7age deal with Lorna 'ollmer.

0espondent testified that he met and tal7ed with 'ollmer when she went to his

court to in-uire aout the filing of an ejectment case against the spouses

0a!mundo and #rancisca $atalla. 0espondent adised 'ollmer that since there was

no law!er in 'alladolid, 8egros =ccidental, she had to choose the nearest town

law!er as it would lessen epenses in transportation and appearance fee, and

respondent mentioned the name of :tt!. 0oert Juanillo.()Moreoer, respondent

testified that 'ollmer, together with her husand and "alacion #egidero, went to

his house once to as7 him for the direction to the house of :tt!. 0oert

Juanillo. 0espondent denied that he receied the amount of P&,&&&.&& from

'ollmer.(I)

#urther, respondent testified that he met with complainant after the

ejectment case was filed, when she went to his court and told him that she was

withdrawing the serices of :tt!. 0oert Juanillo. 0espondent admitted that he

prepared the motion for the withdrawal of appearance of :tt!. Juanillo, since

respondent wanted to help complainant as she said it was urgent, ut respondentdid not charge her.(*)

:tt!. 0oert Juanillo testified that he receied the amount of P&,&&&.&&

from Lorna 'ollmer at the Municipal Court of 'alladolid, 8egros =ccidental. #rom

the amount, he paid filing fees amounting to P+,&.&& to the Cler7 of Court of the

Municipal Circuit Court of 'alladolid2Pulupandan and "an Enri-ue, which

pa!ment was eidenced ! fie official receipts. :tt!. Juanillo testified that the

alance of P4,%*+.&& was pa!ment for his legal serices.

Court "tenographer "alacion #egidero denied that she was inoled in thealleged pac7age deal complained of ! #lorenda Toias. "he testified that she met

Lorna 'ollmer for the first time when 'ollmer went to the court in 'illadolid and

as7ed if there was a law!er in 'alladolid, ecause she was intending to file an

ejectment suit. "he referred 'ollmer to respondent Judge Limsiaco, since there was

no law!er in the Municipalit! of 'alladolid, 8egros =ccidental. The courtroom

of 'alladolid, 8egros =ccidental consists onl! of one room where eer!od! holds
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/MTJ-09-1734.htm#_ftn19


19/27

office, including respondent. "he saw respondent tal7 with 'ollmer for G minutes,

ut she did not hear what the! were tal7ing aout.(%&)

9nestigating Judge ?uan1on found that the complainant did not hae

personal 7nowledge of the alleged pac7age deals to litigants who file cases in the

court of respondent. The allegations in the Complaint were all ased on theinformation rela!ed to complainant though telephone ! her sister, Lorna 'ollmer.

During the inestigation, complainant admitted that respondent did not personall!

receie from her the amount of P&,&&&.&& as pa!ment for the alleged pac7age

deal, and respondent did not as7 from her an additional P&,&&&.&&.

:ccording to 9nestigating Judge ?uan1on, the onl! person who could hae

shed light on the alleged offer of pac7age deals to litigants was Lorna 'ollmer,

complainants sister. 5nfortunatel!, 'ollmer was not present during the

inestigation. Per manifestation of complainant, 'ollmer was then in ?erman! and

she was epected to return to thePhilippines in Decemer %&&I. Hence, the

complaint of corruption was unsustantiated.

8eertheless, 9nestigating Judge ?uan1on stated that although the alleged

offer of pac7age deals ! respondent to litigants was unsustantiated, it was

improper for respondent to tal7 to prospectie litigants in his court and to

recommend law!ers to handle cases. Li7ewise, Judge ?uan1on found respondents

act of preparing the Motion to ithdraw as Counsel of :tt!. 0oert Juanillo to e

improper and unethical.

9nestigating Judge ?uan1on recommended the dismissal of the

administratie complaint against respondent as regards the alleged offer of pac7agedeals to litigants who plan to file cases in his court. Howeer, Judge ?uan1on

recommended that respondent e reprimanded for tal7ing to a prospectie litigant

in his court, recommending the counsel to handle the case, and preparing the

Motion to ithdraw as Counsel of :tt!. 0oert Juanillo, which pleading was filed

in respondents court and was acted upon ! him.

9n a 0esolution dated :ugust 3, %&&I, the Court referred the 0eport of

9nestigating Judge ?uan1on to the =C: for ealuation, report and

recommendation within +& da!s from notice.

The =C: found respondents acts, consisting of ;< adising Lorna 'ollmer

aout the ejectment case she was aout to file efore his court/ ;%< recommending

:tt!. 0oert Juanillo as counsel of the complainant in the ejectment case/ and ;+, 99= 0=2, this "ourt resol)ed to re


26/27

no longer hear and decide the case 'ith the cold neutrality of an impartial judge

because of the administrati)e case pre)iously filed by the accused against him. $fter

finding that the $dministrati)e "omplaint against Judge $nasario had been instituted

long before the filing of the si: criminal cases, the #"$ disbelie)ed respondents

contention that this had been filed to force the former to inhibit himself from hearing the

cases.

;ince there is no sufficient proof that the action ta7en by respondent had been

prompted by his desire to fa)or pri)ate complainant, the #"$ recommended the

dismissal of the charge of bias and partiality against the e:ecuti)e judge. +urthermore,

the court administrator said that there 'as no proof of the alleged use by respondent of

his position to promote his o'n interests.

T7 %ou$&) Ruln'

*e agree 'ith the findings of the #"$.

A;n)&$#& L#=l&y

$ judges decision to recuse on account of some dis-ualification is not conclusi)e.

Co'e)er, orders of inhibition are not administrati)e in characterA they are judicial in

nature.082Fuestions on the inhibition or the competency of the inhibiting judge should be

determined 'ith finality in an appropriate judicial proceeding.

5n conformity 'ith this rule, parties may a)ail themsel)es of the ordinary remedies of

reconsideration and appeal or of the e:traordinary remedies of certiorari or mandamus.0E2Disciplinary proceedings against the inhibiting judge are not complementary or

suppletory to, or a substitute for, the aforementioned judicial remedies. 02

!he administrati)e matter before us differs from petitions assailing a judges

dis-ualification from hearing a particular case. 5n the present case, the judge )oluntarily

inhibited himselfA the parties had not filed any motion on the matter. 5t 'as the e:ecuti)e

judge 'ho insisted that Judge $nasario should continue hearing the case. Respondents

action 'as improper.

$dministrati)e "ircular No. 1 dated January , 1>,0>2pro)ides that inhibitions and

dis-ualifications 0of judges2 are judicial actions 'hich do not re-uire prior administrati)e

appro)al. $dministrati)e inter)ention is necessary only 'hen the inhibition is by a judge

of a single sala court, and the case has to be transferred to another judge of another

station.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn9


27/27

!he duty of e:ecuti)e judges, therefore, is merely to ele)ate an order of inhibition to

the ;upreme "ourt through the #ffice of the "ourt $dministrator or, other'ise, to

appoint another trial court judge under their super)ision to handle the case. 01925t is not

'ithin their authority to resist or o)errule the order of recusation. By disappro)ing Judge

$nasarios inhibition, respondent acted contrary to the aforesaid "ircular.

#n the other hand, the actuations of Judge $nasario are justified by the terms of

paragraph , ;ection 1 of Rule 1=E 0112of the Rules of "ourt. !he records do not indicate

any improper e:ercise of a prerogati)e conferred on him by la'. $bsent any abuse of

discretion or manifest error, this "ourt shall not re)erse an inhibition or a recusation.

Neither 'ill the 'isdom of such inhibition be del)ed into in cases in 'hich the reasons

therefor are concededly subjecti)e. Besides, the -uestion of 'hether to inhibit is best

left to the sound discretion and the conscience of the judge, based on his rational and

logical assessment of the circumstances pre)ailing in the case brought before him. 012

Respondent judges lac7 of a'areness of the "ircular and the decisions concerning

inhibitions of judges indicates a failure to li)e up to the "ode of Judicial "onduct that

enjoins judges to be faithful to the la' and to maintain professional competence. 01=2Being

the )isible representation of the la', judges must be familiar 'ith the circulars and

issuances of this "ourt and must diligently 7eep themsel)es abreast 'ith de)elopments

in our legal system. #nly in doing so can they li)e up to their sacred judicial duties.

Cence, they are called upon to e:hibit more than just cursory ac-uaintance 'ith the

statutes and procedural rules, lest public confidence in the judiciary be eroded.

!he charge of partiality has no factual support. ere suspicion is not enough.01?2

Biasand partiality must be pro)ed 'ith clear and con)incing e)idence. 01@2*hile palpable error

may be inferred from respondents contested #rder, there is no e)idence on record that

'ould justify a finding of partiality or bias.

/EREORE, Judge 5smael #. Baldado of the Regional !rial "ourt %Branch ?@& of

Bais "ity, Negros #riental is found guilty of administrati)e abuse and is

hereby #N* in the sum of t'o thousand pesos %P,999&. $ repetition of the same or

similar acts 'ill be dealt 'ith more se)erely. Co'e)er, he is found innocent of the

charge of bias and partiality.

*O ORDERED.

Sandoval-+uierrez, Corona, Car!io, 'orales, and+arcia, JJ., concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/am_rtj_03_1810.htm#_ftn15

judicial canon 1

Documents