2. Sison vs Caoibes

8/15/2019 2. Sison vs Caoibes

1/18

EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1771. May 27, 2004]

ALVADOR SISON, complainant , vs . JUDGE JOSE

CAOIBES, JR., Presiding Judge, and TEODORO S ALVAREZ, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Las PiaCity, Branch 253, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

ER CURIAM:

The instant administrative complaint arose whelvador Sison, a Metropolitan Manila Developmen

uthority (MMDA) traffic enforcer, filed a verifieomplain t [1] dated October 12, 1999, charging Judge Jose F.aoibes, Jr. and Sheriff Teodoro Alvarez oe Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City, Branch 253, wit ave abuse of authority.

In turn, the complaint stemmed from ade r [2] dated September 15, 1999 in Criminal Case No. 992 [3] which the respondent judge issued, requiring th

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn1


2/18

mplainant to appear before him to explain a trafficident involving his son and the complainant. The saider reads, thus:

r information from the authorized driver of the Presidindge of this Court on September 8, 1999, at about 3:00lock in the afternoon of said date, said authorized driver,hile on board the official car of the undersigned on anficial errand was flagged by the accused along thepifanio delos Santos Avenue while he was positioning the

r he was driving to the right lane as he was then to makeight turn; that after he stopped, he was told by thecused that swerving to the right lane was prohibitedhen it appeared that the sign therefore was still far offd not readily visible to the naked eye; that nonetheless,

introduced himself as the authorized driver of thedersigned, his son in fact, and showed to the accused thelling card of the undersigned with a notation in (sic) thersal portion thereof introducing the bearer of the cardd requesting for assistance from law enforcers, andcordingly begged that he be allowed to proceed on hisay considering that there was no danger to limb, life andoperty occasioned by his alleged traffic violation; thattwithstanding such introduction and plea, the accusednfiscated the drivers license of the authorized driver,en bragging in the process that he did the same to

mebody who introduced himself as a lawyer the dayfore.


3/18

he aforementioned actuation of the accused, if true, is notly indicative of his arrogance and deliberate disregard ofe usual respect, courtesy and accommodation accordeda court of law and/or its representative but is onenstitutive of indirect contempt under Section 3,

ragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court,ecially considering that the authorized driver of theesiding Judge of this Court was then on official errand.

HEREFORE, within a non-extendible period of twenty-

ur (24) hours from receipt hereof, the accused is orderedshow cause why he should not be cited as in contempt ofurt and dealt with accordingly. The Branch Sheriff of this

ourt is authorized and ordered to serve a copy of thisder upon the accused immediately and to make a return

his proceedings thereon. After receipt of this Order, thecused is ordered to personally file his comment in Court,thin the period allowed him herein.

O ORDERED.[4]

Because of the complainants failure to appear beforee respondent judge as directed, the latter, after verifyinat the said order was duly served on the complainant ued another Orde r [5] datedSeptember 22, 1999 for thmplainants arrest and commitment, and for the latter topear for hearing before his sala on September 29,99. The respondent sheriff then served the order on th

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn4


4/18

mplainant. On the scheduled hearing, the complainanpeared and executed an affidavi t [6] admitting to the courat he made a mistake and that it was allsunderstanding. The respondent judge, thereafter, lifte

e September 22, 1999 Order .[7]

In his complaint, the complainant alleged intea the following:

That on September 28, 1999, at around 6:00 P.M., the

dersigned complainant was greatly surprised whenspondent TEODORO ALVAREZ came and arrested himthout any warrant of arrest, only on orders of thespondent Judge, and he was ordered to board a motorhicle and was brought to the respondent Judge in Lasas City who ordered him detained in the Las Pias City Jail.hen he was arrested, he was not able to call his family toform them where he was because he failed to returnme in the evening;

That the next day, September 29, 1999, respondent

odoro Alvarez informed him that there will be a hearinghis indirect contempt charge before the sala of the

spondent Judge in Las Pias City. During the hearing, themplainant was made to admit by the respondent Judgeat he made a mistake in apprehending his driver-son[,]

nscious that he committed the gravest abuse of histhority, and perhaps in anticipation of the legal action

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn6


5/18

e undersigned complainant may take against him after hedischarged from detention. Thus, after the complainantmitted his mistakes under duress, and upon appeal bys counsel assuring the respondent Judge that the samecident may not be repeated, the complainant was

dered discharged from detention at around 3:30 P.M. onptember 29, 1999;

That the undersigned complainant did not know of anyfense he had committed, except for his issuing a traffic

olation receipt to the driver-son of the respondent Judgehich he is tasked by law to do so for those found violatingffic rules and regulations;

That if the act of issuing a traffic violation receipt for a

ffic violation within the city limits of Mandaluyong Citythe complainant is considered by the respondents as anfense, then complainant should be tried for the saidfense in Mandaluyong City, and not in Las Pias City wheree respondent judge has no jurisdiction;

. That to the ordinary and lowly understanding of thedersigned complainant, the acts of respondents inresting him without any warrant of arrest before aarge of indirect contempt is heard constitute the gravestBUSE OF AUTHORITY ever committed by thespondents; and


6/18


7/18

e fact that during the hearing of September 29, 1999, themplainant was assisted by Atty. Eduardo P. Flores of thMDA, as evidenced by the transcript of stenographite s [9] taken during the proceedings. The respondenayed that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack o

gal or factual basis.

For his part, the respondent sheriff admitted that hersonally served copies of the respondent judges order

the complainant, but averred that he was merelrforming his duties as deputy sheriff of the court. Ach, he did not commit grave abuse of authority in thrformance of his functions .[10]

Thereafter, the complainant executed a Sinumpaanlaysay ng Pagbawi ng Reklamo datedNovember 26, 2002

here he indicated that he was no longer interested irsuing the administrative complaint against thspondent judge. The complainant recanted his earlieaim, averring that the respondent judges son did not ict enter a one-way street and that he was standing by theptember 29, 1999 Affidavit he executed during thearing. He then requested that his complaint be dulthdrawn .[11]

Pursuant to the recommendatio n [12] of the Courdministrator, the Court, in a Resolutio n [13] dated April 203, resolved to (a) dismiss the instant administrativmplaint against Sheriff Teodoro Alvarez for lack of merit;d (b) refer the matter against respondent Judge Caoibes,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn9


8/18

to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals for rafflmong the Associate Justices of the Court, and fovestigation, report and recommendation. The case wafled to Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin. Thvestigating Justice, thereafter, submitted his Seale

eport dated February 26, 2004.

According to the Investigating Justice, although thmplainant never appeared to prove the charges againse respondent judge, the facts averred in the complainpear to be substantially correct and true. Thus, thspondent judge abused his authority to charge andnish any person for indirect contempt under Rule 71 oe Rules of Civil Procedure .[14] The Investigating Justiccommended that the respondent be admonished anarned, pursuant to Section 10(1), Rule 140 of the Rules o

ourt, and Section 11(c) of the same rule.The respondent judge anchors the justification of hi

ts against the complainant on Section 3, Rule 71 of thules of Civil Procedure, viz.:

c. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge andaring. After a charge in writing has been filed, and anportunity given to the respondent to comment thereonthin such period as may be fixed by the court and to beard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the

llowing acts may be punished for indirect contempt:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn14


9/18

Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performancehis official duties or in his official transactions;

) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,der, or judgment of a court, including the act of a personho, after being dispossessed or ejected from any realoperty by the judgment or process of any court ofmpetent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or inducesother to enter into or upon such real property, for therpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in

y manner disturbs the possession given to the personjudged to be entitled thereto;

Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with theocesses or proceedings of a court not constituting direct

ntempt under section 1 of this Rule;

) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, topede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;

Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, andting as such without authority;

Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;


10/18

) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person oroperty in the custody of an officer by virtue of an orderprocess of a court held by him.

ut nothing in this section shall be so construed as toevent the court from issuing process to bring thespondent into court, or from holding him in custodynding such proceedings.

Thus, the power to declare a person in contempt ourt and in dealing with him accordingly is an inherenwer lodged in courts of justice, to be used as a means t otect and preserve the dignity of the court, the solemnit

the proceedings therein, and the administration ostice from callous misbehavior, offensive personalities

d contumacious refusal to comply with courders .[15] Indeed, the power of contempt is powesumed by a court or judge to coerce cooperation annish disobedience, disrespect or interference with thurts orderly process by exacting summarnishment. The contempt power was given to the courtstrust for the public, by tradition and necessity, in a

uch as respect for the courts, which are ordained t minister the laws which are necessary to the good order

society, is as necessary as respect for the lawemselves .[16] And, as in all other powers of the court, th

ntempt power, however plenary it may seem, must bercised judiciously and sparingly .[17] A judge should neve

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn15


11/18

ow himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, ottiness in the performance of his duties .[18]

At first blush, it would seem that the respondendge was justified in holding the complainant fo

ntempt, due to the latters refusal to comply with thdges Order of September 15, 1999. However, it is not loson this Court that the complainant was not a party to anthe cases pending before the RTC, Branch 253. Wha

ggered the contempt charge was, in fact, the trafficolation incident involving the respondent judgesn. Furthermore, the record shows that when themplainant filed his reply to the charge as required by thespondent judge, the same was refused by some staf ember in the latters sala .[19]

In Cortes v. Bangalan ,[20]

we held that a judge may nold a party in contempt of court for expressing concern oe judges impartiality through a motion for voluntarhibition, even if the latter may have felt insulteerein. The Court also declared, thus:

W]hile the power to punish in contempt is inherent in allurts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings anduphold due administration of justice, judges, however,ould exercise their contempt powers judiciously andaringly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view

utilizing their contempt powers for correction andeservation not for retaliation and vindication .[21]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/mtj_97_1129.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/mtj_97_1129.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn18


12/18

We agree with the Investigating Justice when hined that the respondent judge should have refraine

om ordering the arrest and detention of the complainant,nce the incident involved his own son, and the matter wasry personal to him. The fact that the respondent judge

sisted that the complainant personally file his comment iurt gives rise to doubts as to the motive behind it; as thevestigating Justice puts it, the requirement of personaling was deliberately inserted so that the respondenuld confront and harass the complainan t. [22]

We also agree with the following ruminations ostice Bersamin:

]he respondent judge obviously resented the refusal ofson to let off Caoibes III from the traffic violationprehension. The refusal of Sison was apparentlygravated by the sons reporting to the father that Sisond supposedly made the remarks of Walang judge, judge

aoibes sa akin; Kahapon nga, abogado ang hinuli ko.

. . .

he respondent Judge was not justified to so consider thet and remarks of Sison as thereby displaying arrogancewards and deliberate disregard of the usual respect,

urtesy and accommodation due to a court of law and itspresentative. First of all, the refusal of Sison and the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn22


13/18

pposed remarks should not cause resentment on the parthe respondent Judge (whom Sison most likely did nott know at the time) because he knew, as a public officialmself, that Sison was only doing his duty offorcing evenly the particular traffic regulation against

werving into a one-way street from the wrongrection, regardless of the office or position of the violatorsher . Secondly, the respondent Judge should have had thecumspection expected of him as a judge to realize that

e remarks of Sison were invited by Caoibes IIIs attempt

bluff his way out of the apprehension because he was then of an RTC judge. Hence, the respondent Judge wouldve no grounds to cite Sison for contempt of court. And,rdly, the respondent Judge and his son should haveallenged the issuance of the traffic violation receiptrsuant to the pertinent rules if they did not agree withe basis of the apprehension and also administrativelyarged Sison for any unwarranted act committed. Sinceither was done by them, but, on the contrary, bothimately accepted the validity of the apprehension, asrne out by the retrieval of the drivers license

er September 29, 1999 by paying the finesrresponding to the traffic violation, then it follows thate respondent Judge had the consciousness that his sonas at fault, instead of Sison.

]he respondent Judge claimed at the hearing that his sonas at that time working with ( sic) me as my personal


14/18

iver; and that his errand was to secure some papers frome Regional Trial Court in Pasig City involved in a personalse which the respondent Judge had filed against a bankr specific performance and damages, and since I justffered a mild stroke at that time, specifically on June 10,

99, and the incident took place (sic) September, I couldt at that time personally go to Pasig to secure thecuments I needed for the next hearing of the case so Id to send my son.

he foregoing renders clear that the respondent Judge hadlegitimate basis by which to consider Sisons

prehension of his son as indirect contempt. As indicatedrlier, the act complained against must be any of thoseecified in Sec. 3, Rule 71, 1997 Rules of Civil

ocedure; otherwise, there is no contempt of court, whichquires that the person obstructed should be performingty connected with judicial functions. As such, thespondent Judge acted oppressively and vindictively.

renthetically, it is odd that the respondent Judge woulden propose herein that Caoibes III, already 25 years ate time of the apprehension, was serving his father as theters personal driver, albeit not officially employed in thediciary. Most likely, therefore, Caoibes III might not being anything for his father at the time of his

prehension but was in the place for his own purpose s. [2

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn23


15/18

The act of a judge in citing a person in contempt ourt in a manner which smacks of retaliation, as in thse at bar, is appalling and violative of Rule 2.01 of thode of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judgeould so behave at all times to promote public confidenc

the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary .[24] Thry delicate function of administering justice demandsat a judge should conduct himself at all times in a mannehich would reasonably merit the respect and confidenc

the people, for he is the visible representation of the

w .[25]

The irresponsible or improper conduct of judgesodes public confidence in the judiciary; as such, a judgeust avoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof .[26]

We do not agree, however, that the respondent judgould be merely reprimanded for his actuations. Th

ourt has not been blind to the improper use by judges oe erstwhile inherent power of contempt which, in fine

mounts to grave abuse of authority. The penalty imposethe Court in such cases ranges from a fine o

,500 ;[27] one months salary ;[28] suspension from thrvice without pay for a period of three months ;[29] anen the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the servic e. [30]

Furthermore, we take judicial notice that thespondent judge was previously sanctioned by the Courr violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, wher

was meted a fine of P20,000 .[31]

He was found guilty orious impropriety unbecoming a judge, for deliverin

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn24


16/18

tic blows on a complainant judge. To our mind, thstant case falls under similar conduct, which the Courowed would be dealt with more severely if repeated, andwhich the respondent was duly warned. The responden

as, likewise, found guilty of gross ignorance of procedura

w and unreasonable delay in the issuance of an order oecution, where he was meted a fine of P30,000 ;[32] anlay in resolving a motion to dismiss in a civil casnding before his sala where he was, likewise, fine0,000 .[33]

WHEREFORE , the Court finds respondent Judge JosCaoibes, Jr., Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City, Branc3, GUILTY of serious impropriety unbecoming a judgr violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and ireby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of al

irement benefits except accrued leave credits, wit ejudice to re-employment in any branch of thevernment or any of its instrumentalities includinvernment-owned and controlled corporations.

This decision is immediately executory. Thspondent is ORDERED to cease and desist froscharging the functions of his Office. Let a copy of thiecision be entered in the respondents personnel records.

SO ORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftn32


17/18

Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiagondoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona

arpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur .Davide, Jr., C.J., and Puno, J., on official leave.

Rollo , pp. 1-4.

d. at 35.

Entitled People of the Philippines v. Traffic Enforcer Salvador Sison, for contempt ocourt.

d . at 35-36.

d . at 37.

d . at 24.

Order dated September 29, 1999, Rollo , p. 25.

Rollo , pp. 2-3.

d . at 26.

Id .at 34.

Id . at 50.

Id . at 52-54.

Id . at 58.

Report and Recommendation, p. 10.

De Guia v. Guerrero, Jr., 234 SCRA 625 (1994).

Castaos v. Escao , 251 SCRA 174 (1995).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/am_rtj_03_1771.htm#_ftnref9


18/18

De Guia v. Guerrero, Jr., supra.

Baja v. Macandog , 158 SCRA 391 (1988).

TSN, 29 September 1999, p. 2; Report and Recommendation, p. 13.

322 SCRA 249 (2000).

Id . at 253.

Report and Recommendation, p. 14.

Id . at 11-12.

Castaos v. Escao , supra .

Chan v. Agcaoili , 233 SCRA 331 (1994).

Padilla v. Zantua, Jr., 237 SCRA 670 (1994).

De Guia v. Guerrero, Jr., supra .

Cortes v. Bangalan, supra.

Rodriguez v. Bonifacio , 344 SCRA 519 (2000).

Castaos v. Escao , supra.

Alumbres v. Caoibes, Jr., 374 SCRA 255 (2002).

Monterola v. Caoibes, Jr. , 379 SCRA 334 (2002).

Unitrust Development Bank v. Judge Jose F. Caoibes Jr., et al., A.M. No. RTJ-01745, August 20, 2003.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/am_rtj_99_1510.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/am_rtj_99_1510.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/am_rtj_99_1431.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/am_rtj_01_1620.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_rtj_03_1745.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_rtj_03_1745.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_rtj_03_1745.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_rtj_03_1745.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_rtj_03_1745.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/am_rtj_01_1620.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/am_rtj_99_1431.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/am_rtj_99_1510.htm

Documents

2. Sison vs Caoibes