Case Ethics
Case Ethics
Case Ethics
Aside from the testimonies of these witnesses and their respective affidavits, the records before the Sandiganbayan are replete with
documentary proof showing that the respondent committed the acts attributed to him. The respondent failed to refute these pieces of
evidence before the Sandiganbayan or in the comment he filed with this Court.
The respondents signature on the following documents showed that he facilitated Nortals withdrawal of P1 million from the CIF: (a)
Disbursement Voucher No. 105.0105.3888; (b) Request for Obligation Allotment; and (c) PNB Check No. 0001097358.
The respondents signature, as approving officer, on Disbursement Voucher No. 105.0105.3888, proved that he authorized the
disbursement of a P1 million cash advance to defray Confidential and Intelligence Expenses. 30 The respondents signature on the ROA
also showed that he (and Nortal) requested P1 million to be used for confidential expenses. Finally, the respondents signature on the PNB
check established that he allowed Nortal to withdraw the requested amount.
Considering that the CIF was an appropriation under the Mayors Office, it is unlikely that Nortal would attempt to withdraw the P1
million CIF cash advance without the respondents imprimatur. In other words, Nortal even if he wanted to could not have
withdrawn any amount from the CIF without the approval and authority of the respondent City Mayor.
That the respondent authorized the withdrawal of the entire CIF for the year 2001 after he lost in his reelection bid (and less than two
months before the expiration of his term) is indicative of his bad faith. We note that several of the citys financial officers, no less, made
known to him their objections to the request due to its patent irregularity.
Indeed, if the request for cash advance request had been legitimate, there would have been no need for Nortals intervention in effecting a
withdrawal as the respondent was the City Mayor and the CIF was a fund under his office. This reality validates Nortals claim that the
respondent could no longer withdraw from the CIF because he already had existing unliquidated advances.
Significantly, the records show that the withdrawn amount was never liquidated as shown by the Commission on Audits schedule of
unliquidated cash advances as of January 31, 2013. No evidence also exists showing that the withdrawn fund had been used for its
intended purposes, i.e., for confidential or intelligence activities.
Viewed against the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses, which are supported by the documents on record, the respondents
denial cannot stand. The respondent even failed to substantiate his claim that the charges against him had been politically motivated.
Thus, bysubstantial evidence, we consider it fully established that the respondent actively worked for the approval of the P1 million cash
advance from the CIF; that he facilitated the withdrawal of the P1 million by Nortal; and that he received and used this withdrawn amount
for his personal benefit.
Considering the nature and extent of the respondents transgressions, we find the imposition of the supreme administrative penalty of
dismissal to be appropriate. The peoples confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the competence and diligence of the
members of the bench, but also on their integrity and moral uprightness. 31 We would violate this standard and unduly tarnish the image of
the Judiciary if we allow the respondents continued presence in the bench. We would likewise insult the legal profession if we allow him
to remain within the ranks of legal professionals.
We emphasize that judges should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and their conduct should be above
reproach. They must adhere to exacting standards of morality, decency, and probity. A magistrate is judged, not only by his official acts,
but also by his private morality and actions. Our people can only look up to him as an upright man worthy of judging his fellow
citizens acts if he is both qualified and proficient in law, and equipped with the morality that qualifies him for that higher plane that
standing as a judge entails.
The conduct of judges, official or otherwise, must always be beyond reproach and must be free from any suspicion tainting him, his
exalted office, and the Judiciary. A conduct, act,- or-omission repugnant to the standards of public accountability and which tends to
diminish the peoples faith and confidence in the Judiciary, must invariably be handled with the required resolve through the imposition of
the appropriate sanctions imposed by law33 and by the standards and penalties applicable to the legal profession.
Administrative Matter No. 02-9-02-SC (which took effect on October 1, 2002) provides that an administrative case against a judge of a
regular court based on grounds which are also grounds for the disciplinary action against members of the Bar, shall be considered as
disciplinary proceedings against such judge as a member of the Bar. It also states that judgment in both respects may be incorporated
in one decision or resolution.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, on the other hand, provides that a lawyer may be removed or suspended from the practice of
law, among others, for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude:
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by the Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
In Bengco v. Bernardo,34 we ruled that it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint
against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing
membership in the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the
two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.
They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and to save courts of justice from persons unfit to practice law. The
attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz is hereby DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of
all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in the Government or any of its subdivisions,
instrumentalities, or agencies including government-owned and -controlled corporations. As a consequence of this ruling, Judge Ruiz is
likewise declared DISBARRED and STRICKEN FROM the roll of attorneys.