This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| On respondent judge's close friendship with Santos, such fact did not render respondent judge guilty of violating any canon of judicial ethics as long as his friendly relations with Santos did not influence his official conduct as a judge in the cases where Santos was a party.[41] Complainant failed to present any convincing proof that respondent judge gave any undue privileges in his court to Santos, or that Santos benefited from his personal relations with respondent judge, or that respondent judge used his influence, if any, to favor Santos. | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, even if respondent judge did participate in the public bidding, he still cannot be penalized for it. The Supreme Court has already ruled that "...for the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property."[37] In this case, Atty. Bohol himself testified that the case did not even reach the court of respondent judge. What the law intends to avoid is the improper interference with and interest of a judge in a thing levied upon and sold by his order.[38] | |||||