CJC Canon 4 Angping Vs Ros

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (CANON 4)
AMBASSADOR HARRY C. ANGPING and ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES vs. JUDGE REYNALDO G. ROS
2012-12-10 | A.M. No. 12-8-160-RTC
Reyes, J.:
FACTS:
 A complaint was filed by Ambassador Harry C. Angping with his counsel Atty. Sixto Brillantes against Judge Reynaldo G. Ros for the
violations of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Amb. Angping and Atty. Brillantes were representatives of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC), a private complainant in the
criminal case "People of the Philippines vs. Julian Camacho and Bernardo Ong”.
 Allegedly, Judge Ros dismissed the said case for lack of probable cause, and subsequently petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was later on denied by Judge Ros, 2 days after filing the said motion.
 Petitioners asserted that the respondent Judge resolved the motion for reconsideration without waiting for PSC's reply even
though they were given 15 days to file their reply. With this act, petitioners were convinced that Judge Ros acted with partiality
and malice.
 These incidents caused the petitioners to doubt Judge’s fairness in dealing with the said case.
 The petitioners could not believe that he could resolve the cases within the same day considering that the records thereof are
voluminous and that the criminal cases were raffled to him on the day he issued the order of dismissal.
 However, Judge Ros, in his comment, claimed that he overlooked the directive in his order which gave the PSC fifteen (15) days to
file its reply. He apologized, and averred that he acted in good faith.
 Judge Ros denied acting with partiality and malice. He maintained that he ordered the dismissal of the criminal cases on the same
day he had received them only after a careful evaluation of the evidence on record. He also noted that the complainants never
questioned his ruling before the appellate court.
OCA’s Findings and Recommendation:
 Dismissal of the administrative case against Judge Ros for lack of merit. While the speed in rendering judgement is surprising,
judge is not precluded from deciding a case with dispatch. His decision was based on his independent evaluation or
assessment of the merits of the case.
 Furthermore, petitioners failed to prove that the respondent's action was motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or
corruption. The correctness of the judge's evaluation is judicial in nature, thus, it is not a proper subject of administrative
proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Judge Ros is liable for violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
RULING:
 The Court PARTLY concurs with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
 The Court partially agrees with OCA when it recommended the dismissal of the present administrative complaint in so far as the
respondent's liability under Canon 3 of the CJC is concerned. The OCA is correct in its observation that petitioners failed to present
evidence necessary to prove respondent's partiality, malice, bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. The complainant has the
burden of proof in administrative complaints; he must establish his charge by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
Canon 3 - A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.
 The Court does not agree with the OCA in its findings that Judge Ros did not violate Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Canon 2 - A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
 The failure of the petitioners to present evidence that the respondent acted with partiality and malice can only negate the
allegation of impropriety, but not the appearance of impropriety.
 By the very nature of the bench, judges, more than the average man, are required to observe an exacting standard of morality and
decency. The character of a judge is perceived by the people not only through his official acts but also through his private morals
as reflected in his external behavior. It is therefore paramount that a judge's personal behavior both in the performance of his
duties and his daily life, be free from the appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.
 A judge is not only required to be impartial; he must also appear to be impartial . Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by
irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. Judges must not only render just, correct and impartial decisions, but must do so in a
manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality and integrity.
 In tghe instant case, Judge Ros claimed that he had carefully evaluated the evidence on record before he issued his order
dismissing the criminal cases. He asserted that even if the petitioners' reply was considered, his position would not change.
However, because he failed to consider the reply in his evaluation of the criminal cases, he appeared to have decided without the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge. In not waiting for the petitioners' reply, the respondent Judge exhibited the appearance of
bias and partiality.
 WHEREFORE, the charge against Judge Reynaldo G. Ros for violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct was DISMISSED.
However, for failing to live up to the degree of propriety required of him under Canon 2 of the same Code, he was ADMONISHED
and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

CJC Canon 4 Angping Vs Ros

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CJC Canon 4 Angping Vs Ros

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CJC Canon 4 Angping Vs Ros

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (CANON 4)

You might also like