Legal Ethics Digests

CRISTETA D. ORFILA vs. ESTIFANA S. ARELLANO, H.R.M.O. II, respondent.

FACTS:
A heated argument ensued between Orfila and Arellano. Arellano slapped Orfila on her left cheek. Atty. Buendia, the Assistant Clerk of Court, was not present when the incident took place but learned of the same through a text message she received while she was on her way to the office. When she arrived, Atty. Maningas relayed to her what she had witnessed and instructed her verbally, and through a subsequent memorandum, to conduct an investigation on the matter. Atty. Maningas inhibited herself therefrom as Arellano was her kumadre. The Arellanos accused Orfila of falsification of public documents. The Arellanos further charged Orfila with the nonpayment of her loan and of conniving with Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia in harassing Arellano in order to evade payment of her obligation. Orfila denied the charges.
Meanwhile, complainants-spouses charged Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia of conspiracy, corruption and abuse of position.
HELD:
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with the office charged with the administration of justice must at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum. The court will not tolerate misconduct committed by court personnel, particularly during office hours within the premises of the court. Such misconduct shows lack of respect for the court, and erodes the good image of the judiciary in the eyes of the public.
Although the slapping may not be work-related, the brazenness of her act is totally unacceptable and should not be countenanced. So is the lending of money by subordinates to superior officers. The same is punishable as a light offense under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Civil Service Law, as amended, and for which Arellano must likewise be penalized. Borrowing money from a subordinate is punishable as a light offense under Civil Service Law. Being the Clerk of Court of the RTC Manila, she was expected to know the Civil Service Law by heart as she had the duty to implement the same among her subordinates. For failing to measure up to the exacting standards of conduct required of her, she must be correspondingly penalized.
The Arellanos have not shown any positive and convincing evidence of conspiracy among Orfila, Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia to frame her up and to delay and/or deprive her of her retirement benefits.




REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. HENRICK F. GINGOYON
[G.R. No. 166429. December 19, 2005.]

FACTS:
The Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III (NAIA 3) was conceived, designed and constructed to serve as the country's show window to the world. Despite the apparent completion of the terminal complex way back it has not yet been operated.
The case was raffled to the Pasay City RTC, presided by respondent judge Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon (Hon. Gingoyon). Rep. Act No. 8974 applies in this case, particularly insofar as it requires the immediate payment by the Government of at least the proffered value of the NAIA 3 facilities to PIATCO and provides certain valuation standards or methods for the determination of just compensation. RTC erroneously applied the provisions of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, instead of Rep. Act No. 8974, in ascertaining compliance with the requisites for the issuance of the writ of possession. The Government filed a Motion for Inhibition of Hon. Gingoyon. The RTC denied these motions in an Omnibus Order.
Hence, this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition for the nullification of the RTC orders and for the inhibition of Hon. Gingoyon from taking further action on the expropriation case.
HELD:
As a general rule, repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how erroneous and vigorously and consistently expressed, are not a basis for disqualification of a judge on grounds of bias and prejudice. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself.
This court has an inherent power to reverse itself, especially when in its honest opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment, and that to adhere to its decision will cause injustice to a party litigant. Incompetence may be a ground for administrative sanction, but not for inhibition, which requires lack of objectivity or impartiality to sit on a case.
The mere vehemence of the Government's claim of bias does not translate to clear and convincing evidence of impairing bias. There is no sufficient ground to direct the inhibition of Hon. Gingoyon from hearing the expropriation case. There is no basis for the Court to direct the inhibition of Hon. Gingoyon.