-Extrajudicial Activities of Judges and Justices (1) (1)

7/21/2019 -Extrajudicial Activities of Judges and Justices (1) (1)

1/22

Extra JudicialActivities of Judges

and JusticesBy:

Cherry Diane Feliciano Garciaand

Bianca Ricci Bautista


2/22

CANON 5 OF THE CODE OFJUDICIAL CONDUCT

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATEEXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES

TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OFCONFLICT WITH JUDICIALDUTIES.


3/22

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1204 July 28, 2008(Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-355-MTJ)

GERONIMO C. FUENTES, Complainant,

vs.JUDGE ROMUALDO G. BUNO, Presiding Judge,

Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Talibon-Getafe,Bohol, Respondent.


4/22

FACTS

An Administrative case was filed by GeronimoFuentes against Judge Romualdo Buno of theMunicipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) charging himwith abuse of discretion and authority and graft and

corruption.

In his complaint, Fuentes alleged that he is one ofthe heirs of their father who owned an agriculturalland and that respondent Judge prepared and

notarized an Extra-Judicial Partition withSimultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale of the saidland.


5/22

According to complainant Fuentes, respondent judgenotarized a document as ex-officio Notary Public,thereby abusing his discretion and authority as well ascommitting graft and corruption.

Respondent Judge contended that he could not becharged of graft and corruption, since in a municipalitywhere a notary public is unavailable, a municipal judgeis allowed to notarize documents or deed as ex-officionotary public.


6/22

ISSUE Whether or not respondent JudgeBuno has the authority to prepare andnotarize the document in question,which has no direct relation to theperformance of his official functionsas a judge.


7/22

HELD

YES

The Court laid down the scope of said authority in SC

Circular No. 1-90. Pertinently, the said Circular reads:MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public exofficio in the notarization of documents connected only

with the exercise of their official functions and duties.They may not, as notaries public ex officio, undertake the

preparation and acknowledgment of private documents,contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear nodirect relation to the performance of their functions as

judges.


8/22

In this case, respondent judge admitted that he preparedboth the document itself, entitled "Extra-judicial Partitionwith Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" and theacknowledgment of the said document, which had norelation at all to the performance of his function as ajudge. These acts of respondent judge are clearlyproscribed by the aforesaid Circular.

The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoinsjudges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order

to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties,but also prohibits them from engaging in the privatepractice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).


9/22

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823 August 28, 2006

ARCELY Y. SANTOS, Complainant,vs.

JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM, Presiding Judge,Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and

Pairing Judge, Branch 30, Respondent


10/22

FACTS An administrative complaint was filed by Arcely Y.Santos ("complainant") against Judge Ubaldino A.

Lacurom ("respondent judge"), Presiding Judge,Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City,

Branch 29 and Pairing Judge, Branch 30.

Complainant charged respondent judge with grossmisconduct, grave abuse of judicial authority, gross

bias and partiality, and gross violation of the Codeof Judicial Ethics.


11/22

Complainant alleged that respondent judge used hisoffice to advance and protect the interests ofSantos, respondent judges "close friend," to theprejudice of complainant and in violation of the

Code of Judicial Conduct.

Respondent judge on the other hand explained thatSantos became a "close friend" when Santos lenthis portable bunker to Dr. Ferdinand Lacurom ("Dr.

Lacurom"), respondent judges son, during theconstruction of Dr. Lacuroms house in thesubdivision.


12/22

Respondent judge also admitted that the officers ofFaberns Inc. extended a favor to Dr. Lacurom when

they facilitated the cementing of the road in front ofDr. Lacuroms house. However, respondent judge

denied that he received any favor from Santos.


13/22

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Judge

Lacurom committed gravemisconduct in violation of canon5.04 when his brother accepted a

favor from from the party litigant.


14/22

HELD Yes

On respondent judges admission that Dr. Lacurom received afavor from the officers of Faberns Inc., respondent judgeviolated Rule 5.04 of the Code which states that A judge or

any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift,bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be allowedby law.

Faberns Inc. is the petitioner in Cadastral Case No. 384-AF,

which was then pending before respondent judges sala.Respondent judge should have advised Dr. Lacurom not toaccept any favor from Faberns Inc. or from any of its officers

or principal stockholders.


15/22

Judges, as occupants of exalted positions in theadministration of justice, must pay a high price forthe honor bestowed on them. Their private, as well

as their official conduct, must always be free fromthe appearance of impropriety.

15


16/22

Canon 5.10

LEONILA A. VISTAN, complainant,

vs.

JUDGE RUBEN T. NICOLAS, Municipal

Tial Cou!, "an#i, Bulacan, respondent.

A.C. No. $0%0 S&p!&'(& 1$, 1))1

16


17/22

Facts:

!*& &+pon#&n! u#-& cicula! a l&!!& oicin- ou! *i+ in!&n! !o un a+ a

con-&++'an

pa!+ o/ *i+ l&!!& a& a+ /ollo+

Ako po ay napiling kandidato bilang Kongresista o Kinatawan ng ikalawang

purok ng Bulacan na binubuo ng mga bayan ng Bukawe, Balagtas, Pandi,

Guiguinto, Plaridel, Baliwag, at Bustos.

Dahil dito, kayo po ay malugod kong inaanyayahan na dumalo sa "kaukus-miting" sa aking tahanan sa ! akas, Bukawe, Bulakan sa #abado, Pebrero

$, %&! sa ganap na ikalawa ng hapon '$()) p.m.* upang talakayin kung

paano nating makakamit ang layunin nating ito.

+maasa po ako sa inyong pakikipagtulungan at pagdalo sa nasabing "kaukus-

miting."

araming salamat po at pag-utusan po ninyo.

ubos na sumasainyo,

+B/0 1. 023)A#

4ukom at naging bokal.

17


18/22

I++u&

2*&!*& o no! &+pon#&n! u#-& i+ allo !o *ol#

*i'+&l/ ou! a+ a can#i#a!& in an &l&c!i& o//ic& *il&

+!ill '&'(& o/ !*& (&nc*.

18


19/22

Rulin-

No. 3o *ain- *&l# *i'+&l/ ou! a+ a con-&++ional can#i#a!&

*il& +!ill a '&'(& o/ !*& B&nc*, R&+pon#&n! !oo4 a#an!a-&o/ *i+ po+i!ion !o (oo+! *i+ can#i#ac, #&'&an !*& +!a!u&

o/ *i+ o//ic&, an# 'u+! (& ponounc -uil! o/ -o++

'i+con#uc!.

Rul& 5.10. A u#-& i+ &n!i!l !o &n!&!ain p&+onal i&+ on

poli!ical 6u&+!ion+. But to a5oid suspicion o6 political

partisanship, a 7udge shall not'a4& poli!ical +p&&c*&+,

con!i(u!& !o pa! /un#+ pu(licl &n#o+& can#i#a!&+ /o

poli!ical o//ic& oparticipate in other partisan politicalacti5ities

19


20/22

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2132 July 31, 2009

[Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2549-RTJ]

ATTY. FLORENCIO ALAY BINALAY, Complainant,

vs.

JUDGE ELIAS O. LELINA, JR., Respondent.

Admitting having engaged in the private practice oflaw while he was under preventive suspension,respondent explains that he was forced to do so outof his sense of responsibility to ameliorate the

pitiful condition of his family. The justication does

not lie. As a member of the judiciary, albeit asuspended one, he still had the duty to comply withthe Rules and the New ode of !udicial onduct.


21/22

T*& Cou! canno! l&n# c&nc& !o &+pon#&n!7+ clai' !*a!

*& oul# +o'&!i'&+ -o !o Ni&l 8ill+ Ca+ino in C&(u 9!o

acco'pan *i+ i/& *o an!: !o *a& +o'&

&


22/2222

Documents

-Extrajudicial Activities of Judges and Justices (1) (1)