LIBARIOS vs DABALOSFacts: Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that is alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the unnotated Residence Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective voter's affidavit. In addition to such, the contested will was executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962, which was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA). Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that all allegations are falsely given because he allegedly exercised his duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regards to the provision of existing law and had complied with elementary formalities in the performance of his duties and that the complaint was filed simply to harass him based on the result of a criminal case against him in the Ombudsman that did not prosper. However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy to the Archives Division of NCAA. In resolution, the court referred the case to the IBP and the decision of which was affirmed with modification against the respondent and in favor of the complainant.Issue:Did Atty. Regino B. Tambago committed a violation in Notarial Law and the Ethics of Legal Profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament?Held:Yes. As per Supreme Court, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is guilty of professional misconduct as he violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01nof the Code of Professional Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil Code and provision of the Notarial Law. Thus, Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice of law for one year and his Notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an officer of the court, he is perpetually disqualified from reappointments as a Notary Public.

TAN v. ROSETTEMayors secretary told Tan to give P50,000 to Judge Rosete to expedite the case.The clerk showed Tan 2 unsigned resolutions of Dismissal (unfavorable to Tan) and asked for P 150,000 for each case so that the decisions would be reversed by the Judge.Judge is guilty of gross misconduct. He is suspended from duty for 4 months.Judges are expected to adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct. They must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system because the peoples confidence in the Judiciary is founded on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess.

RAMIREZ v CORPUS- MACANDOG (1970)handwritten order of arrestRespondent Judge Corpuz-Macandog faces 6 separate charges of various forms of misconduct in the performance of her duties.Held: Judge Corpuz-Macandog is dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of government.Respondent Judge admitted to have succumbed to pressure in deciding the case in favor of the complainant. Her confessed act of succumbing to pressure is a patent betrayal of public trust reposed on her as arbiter of the law.

IN RE COMPLAINT OF MRS. MARCOS AGAINT JUDGE F. MARCOS (2001)judge in a fun run with mistressMrs. Marcos wrote a letter to SC that they have only been receiving a minimal amount which was insufficient for their education and for their sustenance ever since his husband was appointed as Judge. She accused him of having a mistress.Held: Judge is dismissed from serviceThe personal behavior of a judge should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only in the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach. The conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private morals.

DELA CRUZ v BERSAMIRA (2000)The Respondent Judge is presiding over three criminal cases. The complaint accuses the respondentIt is paramount that a judges personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and hissocializing with the congresswoman-mother of accusedjudge in(1)Socializing in restaurants with Congressman Agana, mother of the accused.(2)Issuing unreasonable postponements(3)Allowing two accused to submit to a drug test to postpone the trial.daily life, be free from the appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.

RE LETTER OF PRES. JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ (2008)Meralco case; too many cast of characters[nakakabaliw na kaso!]Justice Roxas prepared a decision even before the parties submitted their memoranda.

IN RE UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LUIS BIRAOGO (2009)gilbert copyLouis Biraogo, petitioner in the Limkaichong cases held a press conference and circulated to the media an undated letter signed by him together with a Xerox copy of the unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Ruben Reyes.Any release of a copy to the public, or to the parties, of an unpromulgated ponencia infringes on the confidential internal deliberations of the Court. A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties, is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise judicial power.

PEOPLE V. VENERACIONNature: Petition for certiorari to review a decision of RTC of Manila Aug 2, 1994 cadaver of a young girl identified as Angel Alquiza was seen floating along Del Pan St. near the corner of Lavesares St., Binondo, Manila. She was wrapped in a sack & yellow table cloth tied with a nylon cord with both feet & left hand protruding from it was seen floating along. Abundio Lagunday, a.k.a. Jr. Jeofrey and Henry Lagarto y Petilla were later charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide in an Information dated August 8, 1994 filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region Trial Court rendered a decision on January 31, 1995 finding the defendants Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y Maristela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentenced both accused with the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories provided for by law. February 8, 1995 City Prosecutor of Manila filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying that the Decision be modified in that the penalty of death be imposed against respondents Lagarto and Cordero, in place of the original penalty (reclusion perpetua). Feb. 10, 1995 the motion was denied by the court.WON the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to impose the mandatory penalty of death under RA 7659, after finding the accused guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide.YES. No question on the guilt of the accused. A government of laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought to protect and enforce it without fear or favor, resist encroachments by governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own personal beliefs. The RTC judge found the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and homicide. Under the law the penalty imposable for the crime of rape with homicide is NOT reclusion perpetua but Death. The law provides that when by reason or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death A court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in specific & well-defined instances. People vs. Limaco as long as that penalty remains in the statute books, and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases, it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions. It is a well settled rule that the courts are not concerned w/ the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws. Rules of Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose the proper penalty and civil liability provided for by the law on the accused.Disposition: The instant petition is Granted. The case is hereby Remanded to the RTC for the imposition of the penalty of death upon private respondents

BLANZA VS ARCANGELFacts:1. On April, 1955, Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help them in their respective pension claims in connection with the death of their husbands, both P.C. soldiers. a. They handed Arcangel pertinent documents and also affixed their signatures on blank papers. b. After which, they noticed that respondent lost interest and no progress was made. After 6 years they finally asked respondent to return the said documents but the latter refused. c. Upon questioning by Fiscal Rana to whom the case was referred by the Solicitor General respondent admitted having received the documents but explained that it was for photostating purposes only. d. His failure to immediately return them was due to complainants refusal to hand him money to pay for the photostating costs which prevented him from withdrawing the documents. e. Anyway, he had already advanced the expenses himself and turned over the documents to the fiscal.2. Fiscal found respondents explanation satisfactory and recommended the respondents exoneration. a. However, Sol Gen feels that respondent deserves at least a severe reprimand considering:1) his failure to attend to complainants pension claims for 6 years; 2) his failure to immediately return the documents despite repeated demands upon him, and 3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly all of her documents.Issue: WON Atty. Arcangel is guilty of professional non-feasanceHeld: No. 1. Respondents explanation for the delay in filing the claims in returning the documents has not been controverted by complainants. 2. On the contrary, they admitted that respondent asked them to shoulder the photostating expenses but they did not give him any money. Hence, complainants are partly to blame. 3. Moreover, the documents and their photostats were actually returned by respondent during the fiscals investigation with him paying for the photostating costs himself. 4. As for the alleged failure of the respondent to all her documents to complainant Pasion, the former denies this. the affidavit of Mrs. Blanza pardoning respondent cannot prejudice complainant Pasion because res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.

Tan v. Pacuribot (2007)Erection fail, but rape/sexual harrassment either waySexual harrassment charges against judge who forced 2 employees of the court to have sex with him (despite his penal erection failure).Violated Canon 1 and 2 of Code of Judicial Conduct. DISMISSED from the service for gross misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interest of the service,

Guanzon v. Rufon (2009)Open your legsJudge in open court said to her: next time you see your husband, open your arms and legs (frank language). GUILTY. FINED.Judicial decorum requires a magistrate to be at all times temperate in his language, refraining from inflammatory or excessive rhetoric or from resorting to language of vilification

Castro v. Malazo (1980)170 daysJudge delayed issuance of decision for several reasons (that there was another case that was closely related and simultaneous issuance of decision would be logical)170-day delay was not justified. Judge REPRIMANDEDThe Judiciary Act of 1948: Sec. 5. Judge's certificate as to work completed. District judges, judges of city courts, and municipal judges shall certify on their applications for leave, and upon salary vouchers presented by them for payment, or upon the payrolls upon which their salaries are paid, that all special proceedings, applications, petitions, motions, and all civil and criminal cases which have been under submission for decision or determination for a period of ninety days or more have been determined and decided on or before the date of making the certificate, and no leave shall be granted and no salary shall

OCA v. FloroHistory: Court (En Banc) promulgated its decision in Arriego v. Floro. Judge Floro filed three Partial Motions for Reconsideration. SC denied and stated that no other pleadings would be entertained. Judge Floro filed several more pleadings (3). Court En Banc resolved to treat 2 of the pleadings as separate matters from the subject case. Court En Banc resolved to note without action one pleading while granting the other two; in the same resolution, the Court further considered the present case closed and terminated, ordered issuance of an entry of judgment. Judge Floro filed 4 more pleadings, all eventually expunged form the records. Judge Floro filed two further pleadings.Disposition: NOTED WITHOUT ACTION; ordered EXPUNGED from the records. Basically: Judge Floro was decided against in an administrative matter (Arriego v. Floro). Floro continued to file pleadings and motions despite the Courts repeated resolutions that the case was considered closed.Issue(s): Whether Judge Floro may continue to file pleadings in relation to his case.Ratio Decidendi: NO. Judge Floro failed to present, and continuously fails to present any meritorious argument or substantial evidence in support of his pleadings. The Court is constrained to deny the same. The Court cannot be swayed to modify or reverse its Decision and various Resolutions by inundating the ponente with numerous pleadings avowing ungodly reprisal as well as personal letters/telephone calls seeking audience with the latter, if, as in this case, they are only in furtherance of repeating issues and arguments already passed upon by the Court En Bancs earlier Decision and Resolution. (i.e. bombarding the ponente with pleadings and attempting to establish a personal discussion is inappropriate) Only meritorious arguments and substantial evidence can convince Us to modify or reverse our previous ruling. Litigations must end and terminate at some point. (Li Kim Tho v. Sanchez: The purpose of courts is to end controversies, therefore, they must be on guard against attempts to prolong them.) Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Velasco explained the phrases used by the Court in dealing with Judge Floros pleadings: Denial With Finality: Emphasizes the import and effect of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, i.e., that the Court will entertain and consider no further arguments or submissions from the parties respecting its correctness. Nothing more is left to be discussed, clarified, or done. This stresses that the case is considered closed. Prohibition to File Further Pleadings: No further pleadings, motions or papers should be filed in these cases, except only as regards issues directly involved in the Motion for Reconsideration The directive against the filing of any further pleading/motion/paper is so serious that willful and unjustifiable disregard or disobedience constitutes constructive contempt under 3(b), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.