5/25/2017 A.M.No.

0819SBJ

ENBANC

ASSISTANTSPECIAL A.M.No.0819SBJ
PROSECUTORIIIROHERMIA
J.JAMSANIRODRIGUEZ, Present:
Complainant,
CORONA,C.J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIOMORALES,

VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
versus PERALTA,


BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,
JUSTICESGREGORYS.ONG, MENDOZA,and
JOSER.HERNANDEZ,and SERENO,JJ.
RODOLFOA.PONFERRADA,
SANDIGANBAYAN. Promulgated:
Respondents. August24,2010
xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

Rohermia J. JamsaniRodriguez, an Assistant Special Prosecutor III in the Office of the
Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman initiated this administrative matter by filing an
affidavitcomplaint dated October 23, 2008 to charge Sandiganbayan Justices Gregory S. Ong
(Justice Ong) Jose R. Hernandez (Justice Hernandez) and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Justice
Ponferrada), who composed the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), with
JusticeOngasChairman,atthetimematerialtothecomplaint,with(1)gravemisconduct,conduct
unbecomingaJustice,andconductgrosslyprejudicialtotheinterestoftheservice(2)falsification
ofpublicdocuments(3)improprietiesinthehearingofcasesand(4)manifestpartialityandgross
[1]
ignoranceofthelaw.

Beforeanythingmore,theCourtclarifiesthatthisdecisionislimitedtothedeterminationof
theadministrativeculpabilityoftherespondentJustices,anddoesnotextendtotheascertainmentof
whatevermightbetheeffectsofanyirregularitytheycommittedasmembersoftheFourthDivision
on the trial proceedings. This clarification stresses that the proceedings, if procedurally infirm,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 1/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
on the trial proceedings. This clarification stresses that the proceedings, if procedurally infirm,
resulted from the acts of the Sandiganbayan as a collegial body, not from their acts as individual
Justices.Theremedyagainstanyproceduralinfirmityisnotadministrativebutjudicial.

DetailsoftheCharges


A.
GraveMisconduct,ConductGrosslyPrejudicialtotheInterest
oftheService,andFalsificationofPublicDocuments
Under Section 1, Rule IV of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, cases
originatingfromLuzon,VisayasandMindanaoshallbeheardintheregionoforigin,exceptonly
whenthegreaterconvenienceofthepartiesandofthewitnessesorothercompellingconsiderations
require
[2]
thecontrary. Thus,fortheperiodfromApril24toApril28,2006,the
FourthDivisionscheduledsessionsforthetrialofseveralcasesintheHallofJusticeinDavaoCity.

Prior to the scheduled sessions, or on April 17, 2006, the complainant sent a memorandum to
SpecialProsecutorDennisM.VillaIgnacio(SpecialProsecutorVillaIgnacio)toinvitehisattention
to the irregular arrangement being adopted by the Fourth Division in conducting its provincial
[3]
hearings. Thememorandumreadsasfollows:

TheProsecutionBureauIVisduetoleaveforDavaoCityonApril23,2006fortheirscheduled
hearingwhichwillbeheldonApril24to28,2006.Inconductingprovincialhearing,theFourth
Divisionhasadoptedadifferentprocedure.Theydonotsitascollegialbody,insteadtheydivide
thedivisionintotwo.Insuchamanner,theChairmanwillhearsomeofthecasesaloneandthe
othermemberswillhearothercases,conductinghearingseparatelyandsimultaneously.

WefindthisproceduretobeadvantageoustotheProsecutionandalsocommendableon
thepartoftheJustices.Whiletherearenoobjectionsmanifestedbythedefenselawyers,weare
apprehensiveoftheconsequences,consideringthatthisconstitutesprocedurallapses.Inacase
decided by the Supreme Court, the conviction of the accused by the Sandiganbayan (Second
Division)wasinvalidatedbythecourtwhenitwasshownthatthemembersofthecourtwhoheard
his case were constantly changing. The Petitioner assailed the decision of the Sandiganbayan in its
capacityasatrialcourt.

In one of her hearings, the undersigned has already called the attention of the Hon.
Chairman and expresses (sic) her concern on the matter, and even opined that they might be
chargedoffalsification,byissuingordersthattheyheardthecasesasacollegialbody,whenin
factonlytheChairmanwaspresentduringthetrialandtheothermembersarehearingcasesin
theotherchamber.

TheChairman,however,welcomesanyquestionontheproceduretheyarepresentlyadopting.

Wedonotwanttotakechances.Incaseswhereconvictionareissued,theaccusedwould
surelyassailthisprocedure.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm [4] 2/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
[4]
Foryourinformationandappropriateaction.


ThecomplainantstatedinheraffidavitcomplaintthatSpecialProsecutorVillaIgnaciorespondedto
hermemorandumbyinstructingherandtheotherProsecutorstoobjecttothearrangementandto
placetheirobjectionsonrecord.

During the hearing in Davao City, the Fourth Division did not sit as a collegial body. Instead,
JusticeOngheardcasesbyhimself,whileJusticeHernandezandJusticePonferradaheardtheother
cases together. Complying with Special Prosecutor VillaIgnacios instructions, the complainant
[5]
objectedtothearrangement,butherobjectionswerebrushedaside.

Thecomplainantaverredthatherrecordingofhercontinuingobjectionsincurredforhertheireof
the Justices and that faced with such predicament and out of her desire to avoid any procedural
defects,shedecidedtoforegothepresentationofNBIInvestigatorAtty.RoelPlandoasherwitness
inCriminalCasesNos.28103to28104entitledPeopleofthePhilippinesv.PayakanTilendointhe
lasthearingdateofApril27,2006.Instead,sherequestedanotherProsecutortoinformtheFourth
Divisionthatshewasthensufferingfrommigraine,andtorequestthecancellationofthehearing.

ThecomplainantwassurprisedtolearnlateronthattheFourthDivisionhadissuedawarrant
forthearrestofAtty.Plandoforhisnonappearanceatthehearing.

[6]
OnMay8,2006,Atty.Plandofiledamotiontoliftbenchwarrant, inwhichheexplainedthathe
had arrived in Davao City in the morning of April 27, 2006 in order to appear in court, and had
calledupthecomplainant,whohadtoldhimthatshewouldnotbepresentinghimasawitnessdue
to lack of time for the necessary conference and that she had also told him about her having
migraineonthatmorning.

On May 15, 2006, the Fourth Division directed the complainant to comment on Atty. Plandos
[7]
motion.InhercommentdatedMay24,2006, thecomplainantaverredthatshehaddecidednotto
proceed with the presentation of Mr. Plando on April 27, 2006 due to her apprehension that the
Honorable Court might again conduct the hearing in division and that incurring the ire of the

Justicesbyhercontinuingobjectionstothehearingprocedurehadbeenastressfulsituationthathad
inducedhermigraine.

AlthoughliftingthewarrantofarrestissuedagainstAtty.Plandothroughtheorderdated May 26,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 3/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ

[8]
2006, theFourthDivisiondirectedthecomplainantinthesameordertoanswerquestionsfrom
thecourtitselfonJune6,2006relativetostatementsmadein[her]CommentdatedMay24,2006.

FortheJune6,2006hearing,thecomplainantwasaccompaniedbyActingDirectorElviraChuaof
Bureau IX, Director Somido, and Stenographer Yolanda Pineda. According to the complainant,
JusticeHernandezberatedherforbringingherownstenographer.TheFourthDivisionthendirected
Stenographer Pineda to show cause why she should not be cited in contempt for taking notes
[9]
withoutpriorleaveofcourt.

Complying with the directive to show cause, Pineda submitted an explanation/compliance,
[10]
explainingthatDirectorChuahadaskedhertoattendthehearingonJune6,2006,andtotake
stenographicnotesoftheproceedings.
[11]
DirectorChuaconfirmedPinedasexplanationinherownmanifestationandexplanation, stating
thatthecomplainanthadrequestedthatastenographerfromtheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutorbe
taskedtotakenotesatthehearingandthaton27April2006whenProsecutorRohermiaRodriguez
was supposed to present her NBI Agent witness in Davao City, she left Davao at 4:30 in the
morningofthesaiddatesothatitwouldbephysicallyimpossibleforhertobeincourtat8:30in
themorning.

[12]
The Fourth Division issued an order on June 20, 2006, directing the complainant to
commentonDirectorChuasmanifestationandexplanation,andtoexplainwhysheshouldnotbe
citedincontemptofcourtforfailingtopresenttheNBIagentasawitnessonApril26and27,2006.
[13]
She complied by submitting her compliance on July 10, 2006. The incident has remained
unresolvedbytheFourthDivision.

The complainant contended that by not acting as a collegial body, respondent Justices not only
contravenedPresidentialDecree(PD)No.1606,butalsocommittedactsoffalsificationbysigning
theirorders,therebymakingitappearthattheyhadallbeenpresentduringthehearingwhenintruth
andinfacttheywerenot.

B.
ImproprietiesDuringHearingsAmountingtoGrossAbuseofJudicialAuthority
andGraveMisconduct
Allegedly, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez made the following intemperate and discriminatory
utterancesduringhearings.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 4/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ

Firstly,thecomplainantallegedthatJusticeOngutteredtowardsthecomplainantduringthe
hearingheldinCebuCityinSeptember2006thefollowing:

We are playing Gods here, we will do what we want to do, your contempt is already out, we
finedyoueighteenthousandpesos,evenifyouwillappeal,bythattimeIwillbethere,Justiceofthe
SupremeCourt.
Secondly,JusticeOngoftenaskedlawyersfromwhichlawschoolstheyhadgraduated,and
frequentlyinquiredwhetherthelawschoolinwhichJusticeHernandezhadstudiedandfromwhich
hehadgraduatedwasbetterthanhis(JusticeOngs)ownalmamater.Thecomplainantopinedthat
thequerywasmanifestlyintendedtoemphasizethattheSanBedaCollegeofLaw,thealmamater
ofJusticeOng,andtheUPCollegeofLaw,thatofJusticeHernandez,werethebestlawschools.

Thirdly, on another occasion in that hearing in Cebu City in September 2006, Justice Hernandez
discourteouslyshoutedatProsecutorHazelinaTujanMilitante,whowasthenobservingtrialfrom
thegallery:YouarebetterthanDirectorSomido?AreyoubetterthanDirectorChua?Areyouhere
tosuperviseSomido?Yourofficeiswastingfundsforoneprosecutorwhoisdoingnothing.

Finally, Justice Hernandez berated Atty. Pangalangan, the father of former UP Law Dean
RaulPangalangan,thus:

JustbecauseyoursonisalwaysnominatedbytheJBCtoMalacaang,youareactinglikethat!
Donotforgetthatthebrainofthechildfollowsthatoftheir(sic)mother.






C.
JusticesOng,Hernandez,andPonferradasGrossIgnoranceoftheLaw
AmountingtoManifestPartialityforDismissingCriminalCaseNo.25801,
EntitledPeoplev.Puno,uponaDemurrertoEvidence
In imputing manifest partiality to respondent Justices, the complainant cited the Fourth
DivisionsresolutiongrantingaccusedRonaldoV.PunosdemurrertoevidenceinCriminalCaseNo.

25801,anddismissingthecaseuponafindingthattheassailedcontractshadneverbeenperfected,
[14]
whichfindingwascontrarytotheevidenceoftheProsecution.

The complainant insisted that the conclusion that the assailed contracts had never been
perfectedwasbasedonaNationalPoliceCommission(NAPOLCOM)resolution,whichtheFourth
Divisionappreciatedintheguiseoftakingjudicialnotice.Shecontendedthattakingjudicialnotice
oftheNAPOLCOMresolutionuponademurrertoevidencewashighlyerroneous,andconstituted
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 5/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
oftheNAPOLCOMresolutionuponademurrertoevidencewashighlyerroneous,andconstituted
grossignoranceofthelaw.

CommentsofRespondents

Maintaining their innocence of the charges, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez filed their joint
[15]
comment. Althoughadmittinghavingtriedcasesintheprovincesbyapportioningorassigning
the cases scheduled for hearing among themselves, they emphasized that they had nonetheless
ensuredattheoutsetthat:first,therewasaquorum,i.e.,allthethreemembersoftheDivisionwere
presentinthesamecourtroomorvenue,therebypreservingthecollegialnatureoftheDivisionas
required by law, specifically Section 3 of PD 1606 second, the members of the Division were
withinhearingorcommunicatingdistanceofoneanother,suchthattheycouldreadilyconferwith
eachotherinordertoaddressorresolveanyissuethataroseinthecasesseparatelybeingheardby
themand,third,thepartiesdidnotobjecttothearrangement,andthuscouldnotlateronassailthe
proceedingstowhichtheyhadgiventheirfullassent,basedontheequitableprincipleofestoppel.

Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez averred that their arrangement had been adopted in the best
interestoftheservice,becausetheyhadtherebyexpeditedthedispositionoftheircases,resultingin
considerablesavingsintime,effort,andfinancialresourcesofthelitigants,lawyers,witnesses,and
thecourtitselfbutthattheyhadmeanwhilediscontinuedthearrangementafterithadpiledupso
muchworkatamuchfasterpacethantheFourthDivisioncouldcopewith.Theyarguedthateven
assuming, arguendo, that the arrangement had been irregular, it could only be the subject of a
petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction,notanadministrativecomplaint,duetoitsamountingonlytoamereprocedurallapse.

JusticeOngandJusticeHernandezrefutedthecomplainantsallegationontheiruseofintemperate
anddiscriminatorylanguagebyattachingthetranscriptofstenographicnotestoprovethattherewas
norecordoftheintemperateanddiscriminatoryutterancesonthedatespecifiedbythecomplainant.

[16]
JusticeOngdaredthecomplainanttoproduceacopyoftheorderthatcontainedhisfollowing
allegedutterance:

We are playing Gods here, we will do what we want to do, your contempt is already out, we
finedyoueighteenthousandpesos,evenifyouwillappeal,bythattimeIwillbethere,Justiceofthe
SupremeCourt.

JusticeOngandJusticeHernandezadmittedhavingaskedthelawyersappearingbeforethem
about the law schools they had graduated from, but explained that they had done so casually and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 6/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ

conversationally,withthescenarioplayingoutbetweentwoJusticesteasingeachotherfromtimeto
time. They claimed that their queries were usually made in jest, and were intended to break the
monotonyandseriousnessofthecourtroomsetting.

Justice Hernandez denied having shouted at Prosecutor TujanMilitante, but conceded the
possibility of having observed that her presence in Cebu City was a waste of government funds,
becauseshewasnotoneoftheProsecutorsassignedtoprosecuteanyofthescheduledcases.

Onthechargeofgrossignoranceofthelawamountingtomanifestpartiality(relatingtothegrantof
thedemurrertoevidenceinCriminalCaseNo.25801),JusticeOngandJusticeHernandezpointed
outthattheSupremeCourthadalreadysustainedtheiractionbydismissingthepetitionforreview
[17]
oftheSpecialProsecutorthroughtheresolutionissuedinG.R.No.171116onJune5,2006.

[18]
Justice Ponferradas separate comment echoed his corespondents assertions in their joint
comment.
ReportoftheCourtAdministrator


[19]
In our resolution dated January 20, 2009, we noted the comments of respondent Justices, and
referredthemattertotheCourtAdministratorforevaluation,reportandrecommendation.

[20]
InhisreportdatedOctober6,2009, thenCourtAdministratorJoseP.Perez,nowaMemberof
theCourt,recommendedthedismissalofthechargesforlackofmerit,because:
Viewed in the foregoing light, the charge of grave misconduct cannot stand. It is understood that
grave misconduct is such which affects a public officers performance of his duties as such officer
and not only that which affects his character as a private individual and requires reliable evidence
showing that the judicial act complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the
law. Our perusal of the record shows that respondents adoption of the assailed practice was not
motivatedbycorruptionand/oranillegalpurpose.Indeed,thebestinterestoftheservicewasclearly

aimedat.Tojustifythetakingofdrasticdisciplinaryaction,thelawrequiresthattheerrorormistake
iftherebesuchmustbegrossorpatent,malicious,deliberateorinbadfaith.

For the very same reasons, respondents cannot likewise be held liable for falsification of public
documents arising out of the alleged falsity of the collegiality reflected in the minutes and/or
stenographic notes taken during the proceedings in which the assailed practice was adopted. For
liabilitytobeassessedfortheoffenseoffalsificationofofficialdocumentsthruuntruthfulnarration
ofthefacts,theruleissettledthatthefollowingelementsshouldconcur,viz:(a)theoffendermakes
inadocumentanuntruthfulstatementinanarrationoffacts(b)theoffenderhasalegalobligation
todisclosethetruthofthefactsnarrated(c)thefactsnarratedbytheoffenderareabsolutelyfalse
and (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with wrongful intent to injure a
thirdperson.Theabsenceoftheenumeratedelementsclearlydiscountsrespondentsliabilityforsaid
offense.

Inasmuchasmereallegationisnotevidence,itisafundamentalevidentiaryrulethatthepartywho
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 7/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
Inasmuchasmereallegationisnotevidence,itisafundamentalevidentiaryrulethatthepartywho
alleges a fact must prove the same. For all of complainants imputations against respondents, the
record is bereft of any showing that the latter are guilty of oppressive conduct and/or grave
misconduct,particularlywithreferencetothecommenttheformerwasrequiredtofileregardingthe
motion to lift bench warrant filed by the witness Roel Plando in Criminal Case Nos. 28103104.
Given the variance between the allegations in said motion and the reasons complainant initially
advanced for the nonpresentation of said witness at the April 27, 2006 hearing in said cases,
respondentswereclearlyactingwithintheirprerogativewhentheydecidedtoclarifythematterfrom
theformerandhercolleague,ProsecutorAlmiraAbellaOrfanel.Althoughsubsequentlyrequiredto
explainwhysheshouldnotbecitedforcontemptintheJune20,2006orderissuedinthecase,the
record is, more importantly, bereft of any showing that complainant was, in fact, declared in
contempt of court or actually fined in the sum of P18,000.00 as purportedly threatened by
respondents.

Squarelyrefutedintheaffidavitsexecutedbyhercolleagues,namely,ProsecutorsCornelioSomido,
Almira AbellaOrfanel, Elvira Chua and Rabenranath Uy, complainants bare allegations clearly
deservescantconsiderationinsofarastheyimputesuchfurtherirregularitiesagainstrespondentsas
threateningorhumiliatingherduringthehearing/sconductedintheaforesaidcasesand/orcausing
disrespecttoSpecialProsecutorDennisVillaIgnacioorotherwiseallowinginterferenceinthelatters
handling of a case.Because administrative proceedings like the one at bench are governed by the
substantial evidence rule, the same may be said of the disparaging comments respondents are
supposed to have made regarding the barong and/or intelligence of practitioners appearing before
themwhichare,onthewhole,devoidofanybasesintherecordoutsideofcomplainantsaverments
andtheaffidavitbelatedlyexecutedbyAssistantSpecialProsecutorMa.HazelinaTujanMilitante.
By substantial evidence is meant such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as
adequatetosupportaconclusionanddoesnotmeanjustanyevidenceintherecordofthecasefor,
otherwise,nofindingoffactwouldbewantinginbasis.Thetestiswhetherareasonablemind,after
considering all the relevant evidence in the record of a case, would accept the findings of fact as
adequate.

Asregardsthechargeofimproprieties,itappearsthatthecomplainanthasnotdischargedtheonusof
proofbysubstantialevidence.Theintemperateandimmoderatestatementsattributedtorespondents
are, to repeat, without sufficient substantiation. What comes near to but is not equivalent to
impropriety is the jocular banter admitted by respondents about their respective alma maters, the
intention being to break the usual monotony and seriousness of the courtroom setting or to put
practitionersappearingbeforethematease.ItcannotbesaidthatpublicconfidenceintheJudiciary
waserodedbytheconduct.Nodiscourtesywasshowntowardseitherthepartiesortoeachother.

As for the charge of manifest partiality insofar as the grant of the demurrer in Criminal Case No.
25801 is concerned, suffice it to say that members of the bench like respondents are presumed to
haveactedregularlyandinthemannerthatpreservestheidealofthecoldneutralityofanimpartial
judge. Because notatu dignum is the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judges

function,theruleissettledthatbias,prejudiceandundueinterestcannotbepresumedlightly.Mere
suspicionthatthejudgeispartialtoapartyis,consequently,notenoughthereshouldbeadequate
evidencetoprovethecharge.Asamatterofpolicy,theactsofajudgeinhisjudicialcapacityarenot
subject to disciplinary action he cannot be subject to civil, criminal or administrative liability for
anyofhisofficialacts,nomatterhowerroneous,aslongasheactsingoodfaith.Theseprinciples
find resonance in the case at bench where, in addition to the total dearth of evidence to prove the
chargeofmanifestpartiality,itappearsthatrespondentsgrantofthedemurrerinCriminalCaseNo.
25801 was affirmed in the following wise in the June 5, 2006 resolution issued by the Second
DivisionoftheSupremeCourtinG.R.No.171116,towit:

G.R. No. 171116 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESVS. REYNALDO PUNO). xx xx
Onthebasisthereof,theCourtresolvestoDENYthepetitionforreviewoncertioraridated
2March2006assailingtheresolutionsoftheSandiganbayanforpetitionersfailuretosubmit
avalidaffidavitofserviceofcopiesofthepetitiononrespondentandtheSandiganbayanin
accordancewithSections3and5,Rule45andSection5(d),Rule56inrelationtoSection
13, Rule 13 of the Rules, there being no jurat and signature of the affiant in the attached
affidavitofserviceofthepetition.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 8/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
affidavitofserviceofthepetition.

Inanyevent,thepetitionisanimproperremedyandfailedtosufficientlyshowthatthe
Sandiganbayanhadcommittedanyreversibleerrorinthequestionedjudgmenttowarrant
the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case x x x.
(emphasissupplied)

RulingoftheCourt
TheCourtpartlyadoptsthefindingsandrecommendationsoftheCourtAdministrator.

A.
RespondentsViolationoftheprovisionsofPD1606
andRevisedInternalRulesoftheSandiganbayan

RespondentJusticescontendthattheypreservedthecollegialityoftheFourthDivisiondespitetheir
having separately conducted hearings, considering that the three of them were in the same venue
andwereactingwithinhearingandcommunicatingdistanceofoneanother.
Thecontentionisnotwelltaken.

[21]
Section3ofPD1606, thelawestablishingtheSandiganbayan,provides:

Section3.DivisionoftheCourtsQuorum.TheSandiganbayanshallsitinthreedivisions
ofthreeJusticeseach.Thethreedivisionsmaysitatthesametime.

Three Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions in division Provided, that when the
required quorum for the particular division cannot be had due to the legal disqualification or
temporary disability of a Justice or of a vacancy occurring therein, the Presiding Justice may
designate anAssociate Justice of the Court, to be determined by strict rotation on the basis of the
reverse order of precedence, to sit as a special member of said division with all the rights and
prerogatives of a regular member of said division in the trial and determination of a case or cases
assigned thereto, unless the operation of the court will be prejudiced thereby, in which case the

Presidentshall,upontherecommendationofthePresidingJustice,designateanyJusticeorJustices
oftheCourtofAppealstosittemporarilytherein.
AnimplementingruleisSection3,RuleIIoftheRevisedInternalRulesoftheSandiganbayan,viz:

Section3.ConstitutionoftheDivisions.TheSandiganbayanshallsitinfive(5)Divisionsof
three(3)Justiceseach,includingthePresidingJustice.Thefive(5)Divisionsmaysitseparatelyat
the same time. Each of the five (5) most senior Associate Justices including the Presiding Justice,
shallbetheChairmanofaDivisioneachofthefive(5)AssociateJusticesnextinrankshallbethe
Senior Member of a Division and each of the last five (5) Associate Justices shall be the Junior
MemberofaDivision.


Under the foregoing provisions, the Sandiganbayan is a collegial court. Collegial is defined as
relatingtoacollegiumorgroupofcolleagues.Inturn,acollegiumisanexecutivebodywitheach
[22]
member having approximately equal power and authority. In a collegial court, therefore, the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 9/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ

members act on the basis of consensus or majority rule. Thus, PD 1606, as amended, and the
Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, supra, call for the actual presence of the three
Justices composing the Division to constitute a quorum to conduct business and to hold trial
proceedings.Necessarily,theexclusionorabsenceofanymemberofaDivisionfromtheconductof
its business and from the trial proceedings negates the existence of a quorum and precludes
collegiality.

Asifunderscoringtheneedforallthreememberstobeactuallypresentandinattendanceduring
sessions,Section3ofPD1606,asamended,furtherrequiresthat:

xxx when the required quorum for the particular division cannot be had due to the legal
disqualification or temporary disability of a Justice or of a vacancy occurring therein, the
Presiding Justice may designate an Associate Justice of the Court, to be determined by strict
rotation on the basis of the reverse order of precedence, to sit as a special member of said
divisionwithalltherightsandprerogativesofaregularmemberofsaiddivisioninthetrialand
determination of a case or cases assigned thereto, unless the operation of the court will be
prejudiced thereby, in which case the President shall, upon the recommendation of the Presiding
Justice,designateanyJusticeorJusticesoftheCourtofAppealstosittemporarilytherein.

RespondentJusticescannotlightlyregardthelegalrequirementforallofthemtosittogether
asmembersoftheFourthDivisioninthetrialanddeterminationofacaseorcasesassignedthereto.
TheinformationandevidenceuponwhichtheFourthDivisionwouldbaseanydecisionsorother
judicialactionsinthecasestriedbeforeitmustbemadedirectlyavailabletoeachandeveryoneof
its members during the proceedings. This necessitates the equal and full participation of each
memberinthetrialandadjudicationoftheircases.Itissimplynotenough,therefore,thatthethree
membersoftheFourthDivisionwerewithinhearingandcommunicatingdistanceofoneanotherat

thehearingsinquestion,astheyexplainedinhindsight,becauseeveninthosecircumstancesnotall
ofthemsattogetherinsession.

Indeed,theabilityoftheFourthDivisiontofunctionasacollegialbodybecameimpossible
when not all of the members sat together during the trial proceedings. The internal rules of the
Sandiganbayan spotlight an instance of such impossibility. Section 2, Rule VII of the Revised
Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan expressly requires that rulings on oral motions made or
objectionsraisedinthecourseofthetrialproceedingsorhearingsarebemadebytheChairmanof
theDivision.Obviously,therulecannotbecompliedwithbecauseJusticeOng,theChairman,did
not sit in the hearing of the cases heard by the other respondents. Neither could the other
respondentsproperlyandpromptlycontributetotherulingsofJusticeOnginthehearingsbefore
him.

Moreover, the respondents nonobservance of collegiality contravened the very purpose of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 10/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ

Moreover, the respondents nonobservance of collegiality contravened the very purpose of

tryingcriminalcasescognizablebySandiganbayanbeforeaDivisionofallthreeJustices.Although
therearecriminalcasesinvolvingpublicofficialsandemployeestriablebeforesinglejudgecourts,
PD1606,asamended,hasalwaysrequiredaDivisionofthreeJustices(notoneortwo)totrythe
criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, in view of the accused in such cases holding
higherrankorofficethanthosechargedintheformercases.ThethreeJusticesofaDivision,rather
than a single judge, are naturally expected to exert keener judiciousness and to apply broader
circumspectionintryinganddecidingsuchcases.Thetighterstandardisdueinparttothefactthat
thereviewofconvictionsiselevatedtotheSupremeCourtgenerallyviathediscretionarymodeof
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, which eliminates issues of fact,
insteadofviaordinaryappealsetfortheformerkindofcases(wherebytheconvictionsstillundergo
intermediatereviewbeforeultimatelyreachingtheSupremeCourt,ifatall).

[23]
InGMCR,Inc.v.BellTelecommunicationPhilippines,Inc., theCourtdelvedonthenature
ofacollegialbody,andhowtheactofasinglemember,thoughhemaybeitshead,donewithout
theparticipationoftheothers,cannotbeconsideredtheactofthecollegialbodyitself. There, the
question presented was whether Commissioner Simeon Kintanar, as chairman of the National
TelecommunicationsCommission(NTC),couldaloneactinbehalfofandbindtheNTC,giventhat
theNTChadtwoothercommissionersasmembers.TheCourtruled:

First.WeherebydeclarethattheNTCisacollegialbodyrequiringamajorityvoteoutofthe
three members of the commission in order to validly decide a case or any incident therein.
Corollarily, the vote alone of the chairman of the commission, as in this case, the vote of
Commissioner Kintanar, absent the required concurring vote coming from the rest of the
membershipofthecommissiontoatleastarriveatamajoritydecision,isnotsufficienttolegally
renderanNTCorder,resolutionordecision.

Simply put, Commissioner Kintanar is not the National Telecommunications Commission. He
alonedoesnotspeakforandinbehalfoftheNTC.TheNTCactsthroughathreemanbody,andthe
threemembersofthecommissioneachhasonevotetocastineverydeliberationconcerningacase
or any incident therein that is subject to the jurisdiction of the NTC. When we consider the
historical milieu in which the NTC evolved into the quasijudicial agency it is now under Executive
Order No. 146 which organized the NTC as a threeman commission and expose the illegality of all
memorandumcircularsnegatingthecollegialnatureoftheNTCunderExecutiveOrderNo.146,weare
leftwithonlyonelogicalconclusion:theNTCisacollegialbodyandwasacollegialbodyevenduring
thetimewhenitwasactingasaonemanregime.
The foregoing observations made in GMCR, Inc. apply to the situation of respondent Justices as
members of the Fourth Division. It is of no consequence, then, that no malice or corrupt motive
impelled respondent Justices into adopting the flawed procedure. As responsible judicial officers,
they ought to have been well aware of the indispensability of collegiality to the valid conduct of
theirtrialproceedings.

WefindthattheprocedureadoptedbyrespondentJusticesfortheirprovincialhearingswasin
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 11/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
WefindthattheprocedureadoptedbyrespondentJusticesfortheirprovincialhearingswasin
blatantdisregardofPD1606,asamended,theRulesofCourt,andtheRevisedInternalRulesofthe
Sandiganbayan. Even worse, their adoption of the procedure arbitrarily denied the benefit of a
hearing before a duly constituted Division of the Sandiganbayan to all the affected litigants,
includingtheState,therebyrenderingtheintegrityandefficacyoftheirproceedingsopentoserious
challengeonthegroundthatahearingbeforeadulyconstitutedDivisionoftheSandiganbayanwas
oftheveryessenceoftheconstitutionallyguaranteedrighttodueprocessoflaw.

[24]
Judges are not common individuals whose gross errors men forgive and time forgets.
They are expected to have more than just a modicum acquaintance with the statutes and
[25]
proceduralrules. Forthisreasonalone,respondentJusticesadoptionoftheirregularprocedure
cannotbedismissedasameredeficiencyinprudenceorasalapseinjudgmentontheirpart,but
shouldbetreatedassimplemisconduct,whichistobedistinguishedfromeithergrossmisconduct
orgrossignoranceofthelaw.TherespondentJusticeswerenotliableforgrossmisconductdefined
as the transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
[26]
behaviororgrossnegligence, orthecorrupt or persistent violation of the law or disregard of
[27]
wellknown legal rules considering that the explanations they have offered herein, which the
complainantdidnotrefute,revealedthattheystrovetomaintaintheircollegialitybyholdingtheir
separate hearings within sight and hearing distance of one another. Neither were they liable for
gross ignorance of the law, which must be based on reliable evidence to show that the act

complained of was illmotivated, corrupt, or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or in

[28]
persistentdisregardofwellknownlegalrules onthecontrary,noneofthesecircumstanceswas
attendant herein, for the respondent Justices have convincingly shown that they had not been ill
motivated or inspired by an intention to violate any law or legal rule in adopting the erroneous
procedure, but had been seeking, instead, to thereby expedite their disposition of cases in the
provinces.

Nonetheless, it remains that the respondent Justices did not ensure that their proceedings
accorded with the provisions of the law and procedure. Their insistence that they adopted the
procedureinordertoexpeditethehearingofprovincialcasesisnotasufficientreasontoentirely
exonerate them, even if no malice or corruption motivated their adoption of the procedure. They
couldhaveseenthattheirprocedurewasflawed,andthattheflawwouldprevent,notpromote,the
expeditiousdispositionofthecasesbyprecludingtheirvalidadjudicationduetothenullifyingtaint
oftheirregularity.Theyknewaswellthattheneedtoexpeditetheircases,albeitrecommended,was
notthechiefobjectiveofjudicialtrials.AstheCourthasremindedjudgesinStateProsecutorsv.
[29]
Muro, viz:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 12/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
[29]
Muro, viz:
Althoughaspeedydeterminationofanactionorproceedingimpliesaspeedytrial,itshouldbe
borne in mind that speed is not the chief objective of a trial. Careful and deliberate
considerationfortheadministrationofjusticeismoreimportantthanaracetoendthetrial.A
genuinerespectfortherightsofallparties,thoughtfulconsiderationbeforerulingonimportant
questions,andazealousregardforthejustadministrationoflawaresomeofthequalitiesofa
goodtrialjudge,whicharemoreimportantthanareputationforhastydisposalofcases.
xxxxxxxxx
What is required on the part of judges is objectivity. An independent judiciary does not mean that
judgescanresolvespecificdisputesentirelyastheyplease.Therearebothimplicitandexplicitlimits
on the way judges perform their role.Implicit limits include accepted legal values and the explicit
limitsaresubstantiveandproceduralrulesoflaw.

Thejudge,evenwhenheisfree,isstillnotwhollyfree.Heisnottoinnovateatpleasure.Heis
notaknighterrant,roamingatwillinpursuitofhisownidealofbeautyorgoodness.Heisto
drawhisinspirationfromconsecratedprinciples.Heisnottoyieldtospasmodicsentiment,to
vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition,
methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinate to the primordial necessity of
orderinthesociallife.


Relevantly, we do not consider the respondent Justices signing of the orders issued during the
flawedproceedingsasaformoffalsificationordishonesty,inthattheytherebymadeitappearthat
theyhadallbeenphysicallypresentwhenthetruthwasdifferent.Suchactmerelyensuedfromthe
flawedproceedingsandcannotbetreatedasaseparateoffense.

B.
UnbecomingConductofJusticeOngandJusticeHernandez
TheCourtapprovestheCourtAdministratorsfindingandrecommendationthatnoevidence
supportedthecomplainantschargethatJusticeOngandJusticeHernandezhadutteredtheimproper
andintemperatestatementsattributedtothem.

Areviewofthetranscriptsofthestenographicnotesforthehearingsinwhichtheoffensive
statementsweresupposedlyutteredbythemhasfailedtosubstantiatethecomplainantscharge.In
theabsenceofaclearshowingtothecontrary,theCourtmustacceptsuchtranscriptsasthefaithful
and true record of the proceedings, because they bear the certification of correctness executed by
thestenographerswhohadpreparedthem.

Even so, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez admitted randomly asking the counsels appearing
beforethemfromwhichlawschoolstheyhadgraduated,andtheirengagingduringthehearingsin
casualconversationabouttheirrespectivelawschools.Theytherebypublicizedtheirprofessional
qualificationsandmanifestedalackoftherequisitehumilitydemandedofpublicmagistrates.Their
doing so reflected a vice of selfconceit. We view their acts as bespeaking their lack of judicial
temperament and decorum, which no judge worthy of the judicial robes should avoid especially
during their performance of judicial functions. They should not exchange banter or engage in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 13/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ

playfulteasingofeachotherduringtrialproceedings(nomatterhowgoodnaturedorevenifmeant
toeasetension,astheywantustobelieve).Judicialdecorumdemandsthattheybehavewithdignity
andactwithcourtesytowardsallwhoappearbeforetheircourt.

Indeed,Section6,Canon6oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciary
clearlyenjoinsthat:

Section 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court
and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others
with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives,courtstaffandotherssubjecttotheirinfluence,directionorcontrol.

Wepointoutthatpublicizingprofessionalqualificationsorboastingofhavingstudiedinand
graduated from certain law schools, no matter how prestigious, might have even revealed, on the
part of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez, their bias for or against some lawyers. Their conduct
wasimpermissible,consequently,forSection3,Canon4oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductfor
thePhilippineJudiciary,demandsthatjudgesavoidsituationsthatmayreasonablygiverisetothe
suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality in their personal relations with individual
membersofthelegalprofessionwhopracticeregularlyintheircourts.

Judges should be dignified in demeanor, and refined in speech. In performing their judicial
duties,theyshouldnotmanifestbiasorprejudicebywordorconducttowardsanypersonorgroup
[30]
on irrelevant grounds. It is very essential that they should live up to the high standards their
noblepositionontheBenchdemands.Theirlanguagemustbeguardedandmeasured,lestthebest
of intentions be misconstrued. In this regard, Section 3, Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial
ConductforthePhilippineJudiciary,mandatesjudgestocarryoutjudicialdutieswithappropriate
consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, and judicial
colleagues,withoutdifferentiationonanyirrelevantground,immaterialtotheproperperformance
ofsuchduties.

In view of the foregoing, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez were guilty of unbecoming
conduct, which is defined as improper performance. Unbecoming conduct applies to a broader
range of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical
[31]
procedureorprescribedmethod.
C.
RespondentJusticesNotGuiltyofManifestPartiality
Thechargeofmanifestpartialityforissuingtheresolutiongrantingthedemurrertoevidence
oftheaccusedinCriminalCaseNo.25801isdismissed.Asalreadymentioned,thisCourtupheld
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 14/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
oftheaccusedinCriminalCaseNo.25801isdismissed.Asalreadymentioned,thisCourtupheld
theassailedresolutiononJune5,2006inG.R.No.171116bydeclaringthepetitionoftheOfficeof
the Special Prosecutor assailing such dismissal to have failed to sufficiently show that the
Sandiganbayan had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment to warrant the
exercisebythisCourtofitsdiscretionaryappellatejurisdiction.

Atanyrate,itisworthstressingthatajudgewillbeheldadministrativelyliableforrendering
[32]
anunjustjudgmentonlyifheactswithbadfaith,malice,revenge,orsomeothersimilarmotive.

D.
Penalties

Section9,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asamendedbyA.M.No.01810SC,classifiesthe
offenseofsimplemisconductasalessseriouscharge,viz:


Section9.LessSeriousCharges.Lessseriouschargesinclude:
xxxxxxxxx
7.SimpleMisconduct.

Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court alternatively prescribes the sanctions on judges
andjusticesguiltyofalessseriouscharge,asfollows:

Section11.Sanctions.xxx
xxxxxxxxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be
imposed:

1.Suspensionfromofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthanone(1)normore
thanthree(3)monthsor

2.AfineofmorethanP10,000.00butnotexceedingP20,000.00.
xxxxxxxxx

Ontheotherhand,unbecomingconductisalightchargeunderSection10,Rule140ofthe
RulesofCourt,thus:

Section10.LightCharges.Lightchargesinclude:

1.Vulgarandunbecomingconduct
xxxxxxxxx

and is punishable under Section 11(C), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court by a fine of not less than
P1,000.00,butnotexceedingP10,000.00and/orcensure,reprimand,oradmonitionwithwarning.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 15/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ

Analogizing from Section 55 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service, in an instance where the respondent is guilty of two or more charges, the penalty is that
correspondingtothemostseriouscharge,andtherestofthechargesareconsideredasaggravating
circumstances.

ThatrespondentJusticesresponsibilitiesasmembersofaDivisionweredifferentcompelsus
todifferentiatetheirindividualliabilities.
1.
JusticeOng

Without doubt, the Chairman, as head of the Division under the internal rules of the
[33]
Sandiganbayan,isprimusinterpares. Hepossessesandwieldspowersofsupervision,direction,
andcontrolovertheconductoftheproceedingscomingbeforetheDivision.

In exercising his powers as Chairman of the Fourth Division, Justice Ong exuded an
unexpectedly dismissive attitude towards the valid objections of the complainant, and steered his
Division into the path of procedural irregularity. He thereby wittingly failed to guarantee that his
Divisionsproceedingscamewithintheboundsofsubstantiveandproceduralrules.Wecannot,of
course,presumethathewasunawareoforunfamiliarwiththepertinentlawandcorrectprocedure,
considering his already long tenure and experience as of then as a Justice of the Sandiganbayan,
havingrisenfromAssociateJusticetoChairmanofhisDivision.

We hold that the condign and commensurate penalty to impose on Justice Ong is a fine of
P15,000.00, after taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance that this administrative
offensewashisfirstandtheaggravatingcircumstanceofthelightchargeofunbecomingconduct.
Thepenaltygoeswithasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilarofsuchoffensesshall
bedealtwithmoreseverely.

2.
JusticeHernandezandJusticePonferrada

As mere members of the Fourth Division, Justice Hernandez and Justice Ponferrada had no
directionandcontrolofhowtheproceedingsoftheDivisionwereconducted.Directionandcontrol
wasvestedinJusticeOng,astheChairman.JusticeHernandezandJusticePonferradasimplyrelied
withoutmaliceonthesoundnessandwisdomofJusticeOngsdiscretionastheirChairman,which
reliancewithoutmalicelulledthemintotravelingthepathofreluctancetohaltJusticeOngfromhis
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 16/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
reliancewithoutmalicelulledthemintotravelingthepathofreluctancetohaltJusticeOngfromhis
irregular leadership. We hold that their liabilities ought to be much diminished by their lack of
malice.

Inaddition,thefactthatthisisthefirstcaseforJusticeHernandezandJusticePonferradaisa
mitigatingcircumstanceintheirfavor.

Although Justice Hernandez is liable for the less serious charge of simple misconduct,
aggravated by a light charge but appreciating his reliance without malice and the mitigating
circumstance of this offense being his first, the Court admonishes him with a warning that a
repetitionofthesameorsimilaroffensesshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.

TheliabilityofJusticePonferradaforthelessseriouschargeofsimplemisconduct,without
any aggravating circumstance, is obliterated by his reliance without malice and the mitigating

circumstance of its being a first offense. However, he is warned to be more cautious about the
properproceduretobetakeninproceedingsbeforehiscourt.

FinalNote
Itbecomestimelytoreiteratethatanhonorable,competentandindependentJudiciaryexists
to administer justice in order to promote the stability of government and the wellbeing of the
[34]
people. Wewarn,therefore,thatnoconduct,act,oromissiononthepartofanyoneinvolvedin
theadministrationofjusticethatviolatesthenormofpublicaccountabilityanddiminishesthefaith
[35]
ofthepeopleintheJudiciaryshallbecountenanced. Public confidence in the judicial system
and in the moral authority and integrity of the Judiciary is of utmost importance in a modern
democraticsocietyhence,itisessentialforalljudges,individuallyandcollectively,torespectand
honor the judicial office as a public trust and to strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the
[36]
judicialsystem.

WHEREFORE,theCourtRESOLVESasfollows:

1. ASSOCIATEJUSTICEGREGORYS.ONG is ordered to pay a fine of P15,000.00,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more
severely

2. ASSOCIATEJUSTICEJOSER.HERNANDEZisadmonishedwithawarningthata
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 17/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ

repetitionofthesameorsimilaroffensesshallbedealtwithmoreseverelyand

3.ASSOCIATEJUSTICERODOLFOA.PONFERRADAiswarnedtobemorecautious
abouttheproperproceduretobetakeninproceedingsbeforehiscourt.

SOORDERED.



LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice



WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice



ANTONIOT.CARPIOCONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



DIOSDADOM.PERALTAMARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 18/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ




ROBERTOA.ABADMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice






JOSEPORTUGALPEREZJOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.419.
[2]
Section1,RuleIV,reads:
Section1.OfficialStationPlaceofHoldingSessions.TheSandiganbayanshallhaveitsprincipalofficeintheMetroManilaareaand
shall hold sessions thereat for the trial and resolution of cases filed with it: Provided, however, that cases originating from Luzon,
VisayasandMindanao,shallbeheardintheregionoforigin,exceptonlywhenthegreaterconvenienceofthepartiesandofthe
witnessesorothercompellingconsiderationsrequirethecontrary,inwhichinstanceacaseoriginatingfromoneregionmaybeheard
in another region: Provided, further, that for this purpose the Presiding Justice shall authorize any Division or Divisions of the
SandiganbayantoholdsessionsatanytimeandplaceoutsideMetroManila,and,wherethegreaterinterestofjusticesorequires,outside
thePhilippines.
[3]
Rollo,pp.2021.
[4]
Id.,pp.2021(boldprintsarenotintheoriginalbutprovidedforemphasis).
[5]
SeeTranscriptofStenographicNotes(TSN),April24,2006,pp.45rollo,pp.449450.
[6]
Rollo,pp.2527.
[7]
Id.,pp.2931.
[8]
Id.,p.3233.
[9]
TSN,June6,2006,p.4,rollo,pp.4445.
[10]
Rollo,pp.3940.
[11]
Id.,pp.6367.
[12]
Id.,p.62.
[13]
Id.,pp.122130.
[14]
Id.,pp.285361.
[15]
Id.,pp.402441.
[16]
SeeTSNoftheproceedingstakenonAugust30,2006,Annex4,Rejoinder.
[17]
Rollo,p.513.
[18]
Id.,pp.519530.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 19/20
5/25/2017 A.M.No.0819SBJ
[19]
Id.,p.531.
[20]
SeeReportdatedOctober6,2009partoftherollo,butwithoutpagination.
[21]
AsamendedbyRepublicActNo.8249.
[22]
Webster'sThirdNewWorldInternationalDictionary,445(1993).
[23]
G.R.No.126496and126526,April30,1997,271SCRA790.
[24]
RequiermeJr.v.Yuipco,A.M.No.RTJ981427,November27,2000,346SCRA25,34.
[25]
CommunityRuralBankofGuimbav.Talavera,A.M.No.RTJ051909,April6,2005,455SCRA34Domondonv.Lopez,383SCRA
376,June20,2002DeVerav.JudgeDamesII,369Phil.470,July13,1999.
[26]
Almojuela,Jr.v.JudgeRingor,Adm.MatterNo.MTJ041521,July27,2004Limv.JudgeFineza,Adm.MatterNo.RTJ021705,
May5,2003.
[27]
Ajenov.JudgeInserto,supra,note26.
[28]
Ajenov.JudgeInserto,Adm.MatterNo.1098CFI,May31,1976,71SCRA166,171172citingInreHorilleno,43Phil.212.

[29]
A.M.No.RTJ92876,December11,1995,251SCRA111,117118.
[30]
Section2,Canon5,NewCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciary.
[31]
Zacariasv.NationalPoliceCommission,G.R.No.119847,October24,2003,414SCRA387,392.
[32]
Almendrav.Asis,A.M.RTJ001550,April6,2000,330SCRA69,77.
[33]
Literally,firstamongequals.
[34]
Preamble,CodeofJudicialConduct.
[35]
Alejandrov.Martin,A.M.No.P072349,August10,2007,529SCRA698,704.
[36] rd
3 WhereasClause,NewCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciary.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/0819SBJ.htm 20/20