Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Criselda C. Gacad vs. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257 July 27, 2012 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Pammy
    Judge Clapis was accused of grave misconduct for meeting with the petitioner, a litigant in a case before his court, and telling her he would rule in her favor if she paid him 50,000 pesos. The court found Judge Clapis guilty of gross misconduct for this act. Additionally, Judge Clapis conducted bail hearings without applications being filed and did not allow the prosecution to argue the accused's guilt was strong, showing a disregard for well-known rules. Taken together, his actions cast doubt on his impartiality, integrity and propriety. Judge Clapis was liable for gross ignorance of the law and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Criselda C. Gacad vs. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257 July 27, 2012 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Pammy
    58 views2 pages
    Judge Clapis was accused of grave misconduct for meeting with the petitioner, a litigant in a case before his court, and telling her he would rule in her favor if she paid him 50,000 pesos. The court found Judge Clapis guilty of gross misconduct for this act. Additionally, Judge Clapis conducted bail hearings without applications being filed and did not allow the prosecution to argue the accused's guilt was strong, showing a disregard for well-known rules. Taken together, his actions cast doubt on his impartiality, integrity and propriety. Judge Clapis was liable for gross ignorance of the law and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Original Description:

    f

    Original Title

    Scribd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Clapis was accused of grave misconduct for meeting with the petitioner, a litigant in a case before his court, and telling her he would rule in her favor if she paid him 50,000 pesos. The court found Judge Clapis guilty of gross misconduct for this act. Additionally, Judge Clapis conducted bail hearings without applications being filed and did not allow the prosecution to argue the accused's guilt was strong, showing a disregard for well-known rules. Taken together, his actions cast doubt on his impartiality, integrity and propriety. Judge Clapis was liable for gross ignorance of the law and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    58 views2 pages

    Criselda C. Gacad vs. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257 July 27, 2012 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Pammy
    Judge Clapis was accused of grave misconduct for meeting with the petitioner, a litigant in a case before his court, and telling her he would rule in her favor if she paid him 50,000 pesos. The court found Judge Clapis guilty of gross misconduct for this act. Additionally, Judge Clapis conducted bail hearings without applications being filed and did not allow the prosecution to argue the accused's guilt was strong, showing a disregard for well-known rules. Taken together, his actions cast doubt on his impartiality, integrity and propriety. Judge Clapis was liable for gross ignorance of the law and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CRISELDA C. GACAD vs. JUDGE HILARION P.

    CLAPIS
    A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257
    July 27, 2012

    FACTS:

    Petitioner filed a Verified Complaint against Judge Clapis for Grave


               
    Misconduct and Corrupt Practices, Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross
    Ignorance of the Law, and violations of Canon 1 (Rule 1.01, 1.02), Canon 2
    (Rule 2.01), and Canon 3 (Rule 3.05) of the Code of Judicial Conduct
    relative to a criminal case.

                Petitioner alleged that she met Judge Clapis at the Golden Palace
    Hotel in Tagum City to talk about the case of her brother. The prosecutor of
    the said case, Graciano Arafol, informed the petitioner that the Judge will do
    everything for her favor but on the pretext that in return she has to give
    P50,000.00 to the Judge.

               Notices of Hearings were mailed to the petitioner only after the date
    of hearing. Judge Clapis started conducting the bail hearings without an
    application for bail and granting the same without affording the prosecution
    the opportunity to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. He set a
    preliminary conference seven months from the date it was set, patently
    contrary to his declaration of speedy trial for the case. However, the judge
    claimed that notices were made verbally because of time constraints.
    Nevertheless, he stressed that both sides were given the opportunity to be
    heard since in almost all proceedings, petitioner was in court and the orders
    were done in open court. He admitted that his personnel inadvertently
    scheduled the preliminary conference of the case.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty of the charges.

    HELD:

            Yes, Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation


    of a rule of law or standard of behavior in connection with one’s
    performance of official functions and duties. For grave or gross misconduct
    to exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the
    intention to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of well-known rules.
    The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of
    judgment.
              The acts of Judge Clapis in meeting the petitioner, a litigant in a case
    pending before his sala and telling those words, constitute gross misconduct.

    1
    Judge Clapis’ wrongful intention and lack of judicial reasoning are made
    overt by the circumstances on record. Judge Clapis cannot escape liability
    by shifting the blame to his court personnel. He ought to know that judges
    are ultimately responsible for order and efficiency in their courts, and the
    subordinates are not the guardians of the judge’s responsibility.

             The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken together, give doubt as


    to his impartiality, integrity and propriety. His acts amount to gross
    misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
    particularly: Canon 2, Section 1 and 2; Canon 3, Section 2 and 4; and Canon
    4, Section 1.

           Judge Clapis is liable for gross ignorance of the law for conducting bail
    hearings without a petition for bail being filed by the accused and without
    affording the prosecution an opportunity to prove that the guilt of the
    accused is strong. Here, the act of Judge Clapis is not a mere deficiency in
    prudence, discretion and judgment but a patent disregard of well-known
    rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference
    of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. 

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy