Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 175 views

    Abiog Vs Hon. Canete1081

    Uploaded by

    Jenelle Esonga
    Judge Evelyn Canete was charged with serious misconduct for residing in her chambers at the Halls of Justice and having the local government pay her electric and water bills. The Supreme Court found Judge Canete guilty of violating the administrative circular that prohibits the use of Halls of Justice for non-judicial purposes. While Judge Canete claimed it provided convenience and security to live on site, the Court found it compromised her independence and integrity as a judge. The Court ruled that all judges should not reside within courthouse premises.

    Copyright:

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

    Abiog Vs Hon. Canete1081

    Uploaded by

    Jenelle Esonga
    175 views2 pages
    Judge Evelyn Canete was charged with serious misconduct for residing in her chambers at the Halls of Justice and having the local government pay her electric and water bills. The Supreme Court found Judge Canete guilty of violating the administrative circular that prohibits the use of Halls of Justice for non-judicial purposes. While Judge Canete claimed it provided convenience and security to live on site, the Court found it compromised her independence and integrity as a judge. The Court ruled that all judges should not reside within courthouse premises.

    Original Title

    Abiog-vs-Hon.-Canete1081 (1)

    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 Evelyn Canete was charged with serious misconduct for residing in her chambers at the Halls of Justice and having the local government pay her electric and water bills. The Supreme Court found Judge Canete guilty of violating the administrative circular that prohibits the use of Halls of Justice for non-judicial purposes. While Judge Canete claimed it provided convenience and security to live on site, the Court found it compromised her independence and integrity as a judge. The Court ruled that all judges should not reside within courthouse premises.

    Copyright:

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

    Abiog Vs Hon. Canete1081

    Uploaded by

    Jenelle Esonga
    Judge Evelyn Canete was charged with serious misconduct for residing in her chambers at the Halls of Justice and having the local government pay her electric and water bills. The Supreme Court found Judge Canete guilty of violating the administrative circular that prohibits the use of Halls of Justice for non-judicial purposes. While Judge Canete claimed it provided convenience and security to live on site, the Court found it compromised her independence and integrity as a judge. The Court ruled that all judges should not reside within courthouse premises.

    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

    EDGAR A.

    ABIOG
    vs
    Hon. EVELYN C. CANETE
    A.M. No. MTJ-18-1917 October 8, 2018 First Division

    FACTS:
    Judge Canete was withcharged serious misconduct, dishonesty, conduct unbecoming of a judge, and
    conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service. That in August 2011 and subsequent thereat up to
    this day, Judge Evelyn Canete moved by personal gain, without justifiable reason, in a scandalous
    manner, and in an act debasing the dignity of exalted position of a Municipal Circuit Trial Court Presiding
    Judge, did then and there stayed and resided at her chamber and extention of her chamber which was
    under her direct supervision, utilizing the same as her living and residential quarters, and from time to
    time her families’ and her visitors’ living and residial quarters with the Municipal Government paying
    their electric bills and water bills thereby inviting public criticism and criticism among the employees of
    the Judiciary.

    ISSUE:
    Does the utilization of the Halls of Justice aside from its purpose violates administrative ciurcular?

    DECISION:
    It is beyond cavil that respondent judge occupied a portion of the Halls of Justice at Brooke’s Point as
    her residential quarters.

    Moreover, the justifications proffered by respondent judge fail to persuade. For one, it is irrelevant
    whether or not the living quarters she occupied was an extension of her chambers; the fact remains that
    the same was inside and part of the Halls of Justice. The Court held in Bautista vs Costelo Jr. that
    “prohibition against the use of the Halls of Justice for purposes other than that for which they have been
    built extends to their immediate vicinity including their grounds.”

    Also, her denial of having solicited from the local government the provision of a living quarters does not
    deserve credence. The claim that living within the premises of the Halls of Justice provides more
    convenience, safety and security to respondent judge fails to sway. On the contrary, respondent judge's
    use of the courthouse as dwelling "brings the court into public contempt and disrepute addition in to
    exposing judicial records to danger of loss or damage." Besides, if the court gives weight to respondent
    judge's explanation, then all judges might as well reside within the premises of the Halls of Justice.

    Respondent judge must know that there is always a price to pay for tainted offerings, however
    innocuous or harmless they may appear. And the price is almost always loss of integrity or at the very
    least, compromised independence. Needless to say, that is a stiff price to pay, especially by a member of
    the judiciary, whose basic, irreducible qualification, is unimpeachable integrity.
    The Court found Judge Evelyn C. Cafiete, Municipal Circuit Trial Court-Brooke's Point-Espanola, Bataraza,
    Palawan, guilty of violating SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92.

    You might also like