Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMULO G. MADREDIJO v. JUDGE LEANDRO T. LOYAO JR.

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. NO. 7204 2007-03-07	CYNTHIA ADVINCULA v. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.[26]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1753 2004-02-05	CAPISTRANO OBEDENCIO v. JUDGE JOAQUIN M. MURILLO QUISUMBING, J.
Article 220(6)[10] of the Family Code gives to complainant and his wife the right and duty to represent Licel in all matters affecting her interest. Thus, they were entitled to be notified and to attend every hearing on the case. As a judge, respondent is duty-bound to acquaint himself with the cases pending before him.[11] He should have known that Licel filed the criminal complaint with the assistance of her parents, who are her natural guardians.[12] It was incumbent upon respondent judge to inquire into the reason behind their nonappearance before the court instead of simply relying on the bare explanation of the defense counsel that he and his client could not find Licel's parents.[13] Respondent judge ought to remember that the accused, Dexter Acenas, is the maternal uncle of the victim. That Licel came to court with her maternal grandparents, and not her parents, on the day she was examined to affirm her affidavit of desistance, should have alerted respondent judge to be more circumspect. Being still a minor, Licel cannot fully comprehend for herself the impact and legal consequence of the affidavit of desistance. Given her tender age, the probability is that Licel succumbed to illicit influence and undue pressure on her to desist from pursuing her complaint.
	AM No. P-02-1651 2003-08-14	ESTRADA v. ESCRITOR BELLOSILLO, J.
By interpreting these broad terms to apply to the employee's performance on the job, the decisions x x x give content to language which otherwise would be too sweeping to be meaningful. Terms such as "immoral or unprofessional conduct" or "moral turpitude" stretch over so wide a range that they embrace an unlimited area of conduct. In using them the Legislature surely did not mean to endow the employing agency with the power to dismiss any employee whose personal, private conduct incurred its disapproval. Hence the courts have consistently related the terms to the issue of whether, when applied to the performance of the employee on the job, the employee has disqualified himself.[12] This understanding is crucial because our jurisprudence defines disgraceful and immoral conduct as "that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community,"[13] none of which is true in this case, and the Constitution recognizes our multi-cultural experience and decrees a principle of unity in diversity. As the definition poignantly suggests, a charge of disgraceful and immoral conduct does not depend solely upon the character of the protested act or series of acts but must include a holistic evaluation of the circumstances obtaining in each case.[14]
	AM No. P-02-1651 2003-08-04	ESTRADA v. ESCRITOR PUNO, J.
Undersigned submits to the just, humane and fair discretion of the Court with verification from the WATCH TOWER BIBLE and TRACT SOCIETY, Philippine Branch . . . to which undersigned believes to be a high authority in relation to her case.[13] Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock recommended that the case be referred to Executive Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, RTC Branch 255, Las Piñas City for investigation, report and recommendation. In the course of Judge Maceda's investigation, Escritor again testified that her congregation allows her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio and it does not consider it immoral. She offered to supply the investigating judge some clippings which explain the basis of her congregation's belief and practice regarding her conjugal arrangement. Escritor started living with Quilapio twenty years ago when her husband was still alive but living with another woman. She met this woman who confirmed to her that she was living with her (Escritor's) husband.[14]
	AM No. MTJ-00-1249 2001-09-04	PHILIPPINE GERIATRICS FOUNDATION v. JUDGE LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA QUISUMBING, J.
A judge may not be held administratively liable for every erroneous decision he makes, for no judge can be infallible. Only in cases where the error is gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith may administrative sanctions be imposed.[17] We find no proof of such patent error, bad faith or malice in respondent's dismissal of Civil Case No. 150316-CV. That decision was even upheld by the RTC, notwithstanding that the CA later on reversed the RTC.