Respondent Judge Tagabucba was charged with dishonesty, misconduct, false representation and abuse of authority for his handling of a case involving a parcel of land where one of the petitioners, Crispin Candia, was an heir. An investigation found that the judge acted as counsel for both parties in the land dispute case that came before his own court, taking advantage of his position to try and purchase the disputed land. The court determined that the judge's actions constituted "an act unbecoming of a judge" and dismissed him from service, forfeiting all leave and retirement privileges.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
182 views2 pages
Candia v. Tagabucba
Respondent Judge Tagabucba was charged with dishonesty, misconduct, false representation and abuse of authority for his handling of a case involving a parcel of land where one of the petitioners, Crispin Candia, was an heir. An investigation found that the judge acted as counsel for both parties in the land dispute case that came before his own court, taking advantage of his position to try and purchase the disputed land. The court determined that the judge's actions constituted "an act unbecoming of a judge" and dismissed him from service, forfeiting all leave and retirement privileges.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2
FACTS: Petitioners Crispin Candia and Justiniano Maturan filed an
Administrative Complaint supported by affidavits of complainants,
charging Municipal Judge Alonzo Tagabucba of Zamboanga del Sur, with dishonesty, gross misconduct, false representation and abuse of authority.
Respondent Judge Tagabucba filed his comment supporting it with his
own affidavit, whereupon the Court designated Honorable Melquiades Sucaldito to conduct the appropriate investigation and submit his recommendation.
In his report, the investigator recommends the dismissal of respondent
from service. Accordingly, the court carefully reviewed the record of the investigation and it arrived to the conclusion that indeed, respondent has, by his impigned actuations clearly proven before the investigator, shown himself to be unfit to continue performing the functions of his judicial office and unworthy of being allowed to further enjoy any of the rights and privileges appurtenant thereto.
Respondent has violated on of the fundamental principles governing the
performance of judges of their judicial functions, namely, never to use his office for the promotion of his personal interests. Moreover, while it is true that during the times material to this case, respondent was allowed to engage in the practice of his profession, it was obviously improper for him, however, to act as counsel for any party whose case would eventually land in his court. Worse, in the case of the respondent, his professional service was engaged by one of the parties and he subsequently agreed to act as attorney-in-fact of the other party in connection with the very subject matter of their controversy. Respondent handled a case involving the petitioner with regard to a parcel of land in which Crispin Candia (petitioner) is one of the heirs of the owner of the said land.
In the Respondent`s sworn letter to the Secretary of Education and
Culture dated March 1, 1973, attached to his 2nd Indorsement of January 10, 1974 by way of Comment on the complaint against him in this case, respondent himself stated some facts with regard to the transaction of the said parcel of land.
ISSUE: WON Respondent judge`s acts constituted an “act unbecoming of
a judge” HELD: YES. The foregoing version of respondent of what happened is what in essence the Investigator found to be substantiated by the evidence. Record show otherwise - at the very least, it has been sufficiently shown that an attempt was made by him, as judge, to take advantage of his position in purchasing property likely to be, if not actually, the subject matter of a case before him by acting as counsel and adviser for both parties. Such patently deplorable conduct betrays an utter lack of the ethical principles and sense of propriety, without which any judge cannot preserve the faith of the people in the judiciary, so indispensable in any orderly society.
WHEREFORE, respondent judge is hereby dismissed from the service,
effective upon notice hereof, with total forfeiture of all leave and retirement privileges to which he may otherwise be entitled.
Tickler: Trust, Definition and Kinds G.R. No. L-19872 December 3, 1974 EMILIANO B. RAMOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, GREGORIA T. RAMOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants