Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. JUDGE EMERITO M. AGCAOILI

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM No. SB-14-21-J 2014-09-23	ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH IN SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING PER CURIAM
Just like when receiving gifts, the Code of Judicial Conduct frowns upon judges fraternizing with litigants. It is considered an impropriety. This court previously stated, "[a] judge is not only required to be impartial; he must appear to be impartial. Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance."[49]
	AM No. 08-1982-MTJ 2008-10-17	DANIEL P. ALMADEN v. VICTORIO L. GALAPON NACHURA, J.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges falls on the complainant.[9] In the absence of proof, as in the case at bench, bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.[10]
	AM NO. RTJ-04-1823 2006-08-28	ARCELY Y. SANTOS v. JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM CARPIO, J.
The Rules recognize the right of an individual to represent himself in any case in which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and that his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar.[27] The individual litigant may personally do everything in the progress of the action from commencement to the termination of the litigation.[28] A party's representation on his own behalf is not considered to be a practice of law as "one does not practice law by acting for himself, any more than he practices medicine by rendering first aid to himself."[29]
	AM NO. RTJ-05-1903 2006-06-27	PC v. JUDGE TEODORA R. GONZALES CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is settled that the burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against court employees falls on complainant,[11] who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail.[12] Moreover, in the absence of cogent proof, bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.[13] In fact, administrative complaints leveled against judges must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that respondents stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[14] The Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.[15]
	AM NO. SB-04-12-P 2006-06-27	ALBERTO P. ABOGADO v. FERDINAND L. GURTIZA CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is settled that the burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against court employees falls on complainant,[8] who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him or her should be competent and derived from direct knowledge.[9]
	AM No. MTJ-02-1412 2003-03-28	BERNIE G. MIAQUE v. JUDGE NILO P. PAMONAG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While we believe that the reliance of the respondent on the provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 4363, was an honest mistake, we cannot, however condone his failure to keep himself updated with the amendments and latest jurisprudence on the said statute. Judges are expected to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. They must know the laws and apply them properly in all good faith. Judicial competence requires no less.[20]