[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
68 views50 pages

Chan v. Judge Madajucon

Respondent judge was accused of several violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including refusing to wear his judicial robe, holding hearings behind schedule, entertaining counsel and litigants in his chambers without the other party present, and failing to inhibit himself from a case involving his daughter. While the complainant later withdrew the complaint, the Court still found that the respondent violated Canon 2 by holding in-chambers meetings without the adverse party present, as this constitutes an improper appearance even if nothing illegal occurred. Lower court judges must avoid any impropriety or appearance thereof to promote public faith in the judiciary.

Uploaded by

Marianne Domingo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
68 views50 pages

Chan v. Judge Madajucon

Respondent judge was accused of several violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including refusing to wear his judicial robe, holding hearings behind schedule, entertaining counsel and litigants in his chambers without the other party present, and failing to inhibit himself from a case involving his daughter. While the complainant later withdrew the complaint, the Court still found that the respondent violated Canon 2 by holding in-chambers meetings without the adverse party present, as this constitutes an improper appearance even if nothing illegal occurred. Lower court judges must avoid any impropriety or appearance thereof to promote public faith in the judiciary.

Uploaded by

Marianne Domingo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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/ 50

Chan v.

Judge Madajucon

Facts: A
complaint
was filed
against
respondent
judge
madajucon
who was
then the
presiding
judge of rtc
branch 23,
general
santos. The
complaints
include
refusal to
wear the
judicial
robe,
conducting
hearings
behind
schedule,
entertainin
g counsel
and
litigants in
his
chamber,
studying
case only
during
hearings
and failure
to inhibit
self from a
case were
his
daughter
was
involved. In
his
defense,
respondent
commented
that he was
advised by
his doctor
not to wear
the robe
because it
triggers his
high blood
pressure
but
promised
to wear
once his bp
stabilized.
Conducting
hearings
behind
schedule-
he alleged
that he
starts the
proceeding
s on time
but takes
breaks at
certain
hours.
There were
times as
well that
the trial
proceeding
s will take
more than
8 hours. As
to
entertainin
g counsels
or litigants
in his
chamber,
he said
that he
never
discusses
the merits
of cases
with
visitors. On
studying
cases only
during
hearings
was only to
verify
congested
matters. As
to the issue
of
inhibiting
one self,
he averred
that it was
a to get
back at him
when he
refused to
inhibit.
Complainan
t however,
withdrew
his
complaint
saying that
the he has
realized
that
respondent
is only
doing his
job.
Issue: W/n
respondent
violated
Canon 2 of
the Code of
Judicial
Conduct
Held: Yes.
Canon 2 of
Code of
Judicial
Conduct
dictates
that a
judge
should
avoid
impropriety
and the
appearance
of
impropriety
in all
activities.
It is in this
light that
the Court
frowns
upon the
holding by
trial court
judges of
in-chamber
meetings
with
litigants or
their
counsels
without the
presence of
the adverse
party. He
reveals his
ignorance
of the
prohibition’
s purpose
by claiming
that his in-
chamber
dealings
are above-
board as
nothing
illegal or
improper
transpires
during
those
meetings.
Responden
t judge
should
have
realized
that his
very
conduct of
entertainin
g litigants
and their
counsels in
his
chamber
without the
presence of
the adverse
party or his
counsel
constitutes
an
impropriety
.
Lower
court
judges
plays an
important
part in the
promotion
of the
people’s
faith in the
judiciary.
Unlike the
appellate
court
justices,
they are
the so-
called
"front-
liners" who
give human
face to the
judicial
branch at
the
"grassroots
" level in
their
interaction
with
litigants
and those
who do
business
with the
courts.

You might also like