4 Tobias vs Limsiaco

12/3/24, 11:03 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 640
CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
____________________
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734. January 19, 2011.*

[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1933-MTJ]
FLORENDA V. TOBIAS, complainant, vs. JUDGE

MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Presiding Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan,
Negros Occidental, respondent.
Administrative Law; Judges; The conduct of a judge should be

beyond reproach and reflective of the integrity of his office.—The
investigation revealed that respondent committed acts
unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to a prospective
litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the litigant, and
preparing the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert
Juanillo, which pleading was filed in his court and was acted upon
by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond reproach and
reflective of the integrity of his office.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tobias vs. Limsiaco, Jr.
Same; Same; Aforementioned acts of respondent constitute

gross misconduct.—The aforementioned acts of respondent
constitute gross misconduct. “Misconduct” means a transgression
of some established and definite rule of action, willful in
character, improper or wrong behavior. “Gross” has been defined
as “out of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/000001938d0aad305c2ea57c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/12
conduct as is not to be excused.” Respondent’s act of preparing the

Motion to Withdraw the Appearance of Atty. Juanillo as counsel
of complainant is inexcusable. In so doing, respondent exhibited
improper conduct that tarnished the integrity and impartiality of
his court, considering that the said motion was filed in his own
sala and was acted upon by him.
Same; Same; Gross misconduct constituting violations of the
Code of Judicial Conduct is a serious charge.—Gross misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a serious
charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Corruption.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
PERALTA, J.:
This administrative case stemmed from the complaint
filed by complainant Florenda V. Tobias against
respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., Presiding
Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental.
Complainant charged respondent with corruption for
allegedly offering “package deals” to litigants who plan to
file cases in his court.
In her verified Complaint1 dated June 6, 2007,
complainant alleged that respondent Judge Limsiaco, Jr.
offers “package deals” for cases filed in the court where he
presides. She stated that sometime in June 2006, she
requested her sister, Lorna V. Vollmer, to inquire from the
Fourth MCTC of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan,
Negros Occidental about the
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 8-9.
VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 3

requirements needed in filing an ejectment case. Court

Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero2 allegedly proposed to
Vollmer that for the sum of P30,000.00, respondent would
provide the lawyer, prepare the necessary pleadings, and
ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment case which
they contemplated to file against the spouses Raymundo
and Francisca Batalla. Fegidero allegedly required them to
pay the initial amount of P10,000.00 and the remaining

balance would be paid in the course of the proceedings. It
was made clear that they would not get any judicial relief
from their squatter problem unless they accepted the
package deal.
Further, complainant alleged that on June 23, 2006,
Lorna Vollmer, accompanied by Salvacion Fegidero,
delivered the amount of P10,000.00 to respondent at his
residence. Subsequently, an ejectment case was filed in
respondent’s court, entitled Reynold V. Tobias, represented
by his Attorney–in-fact Lorna V. Vollmer v. Spouses
Raymundo Batalla and Francisca Batalla, docketed as
Civil Case No. 06-007-V.3 Respondent allegedly assigned a
certain Atty. Robert G. Juanillo to represent the
complainant in the ejectment case. Complainant stated
that respondent, however, immediately demanded for an
additional payment of P10,000.00. She allegedly refused to
give the additional amount and earned the ire of
respondent. She asked her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to request
Atty. Robert Juanillo to voluntarily withdraw as counsel,4
which he did on April 16, 2007. Complainant also asked
Vollmer to withdraw the case.5 Respondent granted the
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on April 23, 2007 and the
Motion to Withdraw Case on May 3, 2007.6
_______________
2 Also referred to as “Fedigero” in the Report of Investigating Judge

Guanzon.
3 Rollo, p. 41.
4 Id., at p. 10.
5 Id., at p. 12.
6 Id., at pp. 11 & 14, respectively.

In his Comment,7 respondent denounced the allegation

that he offers “package deals” to prospective litigants as
malicious, baseless and a lie. He denied that he demanded
from complainant the additional payment of P10,000.00.
He alleged that he does not know complainant and she is a
total stranger to him.
Respondent attached to his Comment the Affidavit8
dated September 29, 2007 of Atty. Robert G. Juanillo, who
stated therein that he received as counsel of the
complainant in the ejectment case the sum of P10,000.00

from complainant’s sister, Lorna Vollmer. From the
P10,000.00, he paid filing fees and miscellaneous fees in
the amount of P3,707.00, while the remaining balance of
P6,293.00 was paid to him for his services, consisting of the
preparation and filing of the complaint for ejectment,
including acceptance fee.
Respondent also attached to his Comment the Affidavit9
dated September 29, 2007 of Court Stenographer Salvacion
B. Fegidero, denying the allegation that she offered a
“package deal” to complainant’s sister, Lorna Vollmer. She
declared that the allegations of complainant were malicious
and unfair, and that complainant and her sister could have
been misled by some people who lost cases in the said
court.
Meanwhile, the ejectment case was assigned to Judge
Herminigildo S. Octaviano, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Bago City, Negros Occidental, in view of respondent’s
inhibition on July 30, 2007.10
On February 20, 2008, the Court issued a Resolution,11
which noted the Report of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) on the complaint against respondent.
Due to the conflicting allegations of the parties, the OCA
opined that a
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 36-37.

8 Id., at pp. 39-40.
9 Id., at p. 38.
10 Id., at pp. 49, 51.
11 Id., at p. 67.
VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 5

formal investigation was necessary to afford the parties

opportunity to substantiate their respective claims and to
determine the alleged participation of court employee
Salvacion Fegidero. Upon recommendation of the OCA, the
Court referred the complaint to Executive Judge Frances
V. Guanzon, Regional Trial Court, Bago City, Negros
Occidental for investigation, report and recommendation
within 60 days from receipt thereof.
On May 20, 2008, the parties were summoned for a
formal investigation before Investigating Judge Frances V.
Guanzon. Those who appeared before the Investigating

Judge were complainant Florenda V. Tobias, respondent
Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., Court Stenographer
Salvacion Fegidero and respondent’s witness, Atty. Robert
Juanillo. Complainant’s witness, Lorna Vollmer, did not
attend the investigation, because per information of
complainant, Vollmer was in Germany and she was
expected to be back in the country in December 2008.
In his Report dated June 2, 2008, Investigating Judge
Guanzon stated that complainant testified that it was her
sister, Lorna Vollmer, who informed her about the alleged
“package deal” through long distance telephone call.
Complainant testified that she met Salvacion Fegidero only
after the filing of the instant administrative complaint and
that she did not talk with her even once.12 Complainant
further claimed that she had no personal dealings with
respondent or with Salvacion Fegidero, and that she met
respondent only after the filing of the ejectment case.13
Moreover, complainant testified that respondent neither
personally received from her the initial payment of
P10,000.00 for the alleged package deal nor personally
asked from her for an additional payment of P10,000.00.14
It was her
_______________
12 TSN, May 20, 2008, pp. 27-28.

13 Id., at p. 29.
14 Id.

sister, Lorna Vollmer, who told her through telephone

about the demand for an additional P10,000.00, but she
(complainant) did not send the money.15
Complainant testified that she was the one who went to
the house of Atty. Robert Juanillo, bringing with her the
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel prepared by respondent for
Atty. Juanillo to sign.16
Respondent and Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero
categorically denied the accusation that they had a package
deal with Lorna Vollmer. Respondent testified that he met
and talked with Vollmer when she went to his court to
inquire about the filing of an ejectment case against the
spouses Raymundo and Francisca Batalla. Respondent
advised Vollmer that since there was no lawyer in

Valladolid, Negros Occidental, she had to choose the
nearest town lawyer as it would lessen expenses in
transportation and appearance fee, and respondent
mentioned the name of Atty. Robert Juanillo.17 Moreover,
respondent testified that Vollmer, together with her
husband and Salvacion Fegidero, went to his house once to
ask him for the direction to the house of Atty. Robert
Juanillo. Respondent denied that he received the amount of
P10,000.00 from Vollmer.18
Further, respondent testified that he met with
complainant after the ejectment case was filed, when she
went to his court and told him that she was withdrawing
the services of Atty. Robert Juanillo. Respondent admitted
that he prepared the motion for the withdrawal of
appearance of Atty. Juanillo, since respondent wanted to
help complainant as she said it was urgent, but respondent
did not charge her.19
_______________
15 Id.
16 Id., at pp. 32-33.
17 Id., at p. 5.
18 Id.
19 Id., at p. 38.
VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 7

Atty. Robert Juanillo testified that he received the

amount of P10,000.00 from Lorna Vollmer at the Municipal
Court of Valladolid, Negros Occidental. From the amount,
he paid filing fees amounting to P3,707.00 to the Clerk of
Court of the Municipal Circuit Court of Valladolid-
Pulupandan and San Enrique, which payment was
evidenced by five official receipts. Atty. Juanillo testified
that the balance of P6,293.00 was payment for his legal
services.
Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero denied that she
was involved in the alleged package deal complained of by
Florenda Tobias. She testified that she met Lorna Vollmer
for the first time when Vollmer went to the court in
Villadolid and asked if there was a lawyer in Valladolid,
because she was intending to file an ejectment suit. She
referred Vollmer to respondent Judge Limsiaco, since there
was no lawyer in the Municipality of Valladolid, Negros

Occidental. The courtroom of Valladolid, Negros Occidental
consists only of one room where everybody holds office,
including respondent. She saw respondent talk with
Vollmer for 15 minutes, but she did not hear what they
were talking about.20
Investigating Judge Guanzon found that the
complainant did not have personal knowledge of the
alleged “package deals” to litigants who file cases in the
court of respondent. The allegations in the Complaint were
all based on the information relayed to complainant though
telephone by her sister, Lorna Vollmer. During the
investigation, complainant admitted that respondent did
not personally receive from her the amount of P10,000.00
as payment for the alleged package deal, and respondent
did not ask from her an additional P10,000.00.
According to Investigating Judge Guanzon, the only
person who could have shed light on the alleged offer of
package deals to litigants was Lorna Vollmer,
complainant’s sister. Unfortunately, Vollmer was not
present during the investiga-
_______________
20 Id., at pp. 20-21.

tion. Per manifestation of complainant, Vollmer was then

in Germany and she was expected to return to the
Philippines in December 2008. Hence, the complaint of
corruption was unsubstantiated.
Nevertheless, Investigating Judge Guanzon stated that
although the alleged offer of package deals by respondent
to litigants was unsubstantiated, it was improper for
respondent to talk to prospective litigants in his court and
to recommend lawyers to handle cases. Likewise, Judge
Guanzon found respondent’s act of preparing the Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo to be
improper and unethical.
Investigating Judge Guanzon recommended the
dismissal of the administrative complaint against
respondent as regards the alleged offer of package deals to
litigants who plan to file cases in his court. However, Judge
Guanzon recommended that respondent be reprimanded
for talking to a prospective litigant in his court,

recommending the counsel to handle the case, and
preparing the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty.
Robert Juanillo, which pleading was filed in respondent’s
court and was acted upon by him.
In a Resolution dated August 4, 2008, the Court referred
the Report of Investigating Judge Guanzon to the OCA for
evaluation, report and recommendation within 30 days
from notice.
The OCA found respondent’s acts, consisting of (1)
advising Lorna Vollmer about the ejectment case she was
about to file before his court; (2) recommending Atty.
Robert Juanillo as counsel of the complainant in the
ejectment case; and (3) helping complainant to prepare the
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, to be violative of the rules
on integrity,21 impartial-
_______________
21 New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Canon 2,

Sec. 1.
VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 9

ity,22 and propriety23 contained in the New Code of Judicial

Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. The OCA
recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter and that respondent be found guilty
of gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code
of Judicial Conduct and be fined in the amount of
P20,000.00.
In a Resolution dated February 25, 2009, the Court
required the parties to manifest whether they were willing
to submit the case for decision, on the basis of the
pleadings/records already filed and submitted, within 10
days from notice.
On August 18, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution
resolving to inform the parties that they are deemed to
have submitted the case for resolution on the basis of the
pleadings/records already filed and submitted, considering
that they have not submitted their respective
manifestations required in the Resolution dated February
25, 2009, despite receipt thereof on April 1, 2010.
The Court agrees with the findings of Investigating
Judge Guanzon that complainant failed to prove by
substantial evidence her allegation that respondent offers

“package deals” to prospective litigants in his court.
However, the investigation revealed that respondent
committed acts unbecoming of a judge, in particular,
talking to a prospective litigant in his court, recommending
a lawyer to the litigant, and preparing the Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo, which
pleading was filed in his court and was acted upon by him.
The conduct of a judge should be beyond reproach and
reflective of the integrity of his office. Indeed, as stated by
the OCA, the said acts of respondent violate Section 1 of
Canon 2 (Integrity), Section 2 of
_______________

Sec. 2.
Sec. 1.
10

Canon 3 (Impartiality), and Section 1 of Canon 4

(Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary,24 thus:
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the
judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their
conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the
view of a reasonable observer.
xxxx
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial
office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the
process by which the decision is made.
xxxx
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in
and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the
public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge.
“SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must
accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome
by
_______________
24 Effectivity date June 1, 2004.
11
VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 11

the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In

particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is
consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.”
The aforementioned acts of respondent constitute gross

misconduct. “Misconduct” means a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, willful in character,
improper or wrong behavior.25 “Gross” has been defined as
“out of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful;
such conduct as is not to be excused.”26 Respondent’s act of
preparing the Motion to Withdraw the Appearance of Atty.
Juanillo as counsel of complainant is inexcusable. In so
doing, respondent exhibited improper conduct that
tarnished the integrity and impartiality of his court,
considering that the said motion was filed in his own sala
and was acted upon by him.
Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct is a serious charge under Section 8, Rule
140 of the Rules of Court.27 Under Section 11, Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, the sanctions against a respondent
guilty of a serious charge may be any of the following:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits

as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations; Provided, however,
That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued
leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more
than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
_______________
25 Nuñez v. Ibay, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1984, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 229,
241.
26 Go v. Costelo, Jr., A.M. No. P-08-2450, June 10, 2009, 589 SCRA 54.
27 Entitled Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and
Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan.
12

3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
In imposing the proper sanction against respondent, the

Court takes note that respondent had been found guilty of
grave misconduct in A.M. No. MTJ-03-150928 and was fined
P20,000.00, with a warning against repetition of the same
or similar act. Moreover, per verification from court
records, respondent compulsorily retired from the service
on May 17, 2009.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco,
Jr., former Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct for which
he is FINED in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00). The Office of the Court Administrator is
DIRECTED to deduct the fine of P25,000.00 from the
retirement benefits due to Judge Limsiaco, Jr.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Abad and Mendoza,

JJ., concur.
Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr. meted with P25,000 fine

for gross misconduct.
Note.—Respondent transgressed the standards of

integrity, competence, and diligence under the Code of
Judicial Conduct. (Ceniza-Layese vs. Asis, 569 SCRA 51
[2008])
——o0o——
_______________
28 Gamboa-Mijares v. Judge Limsiaco, Jr., 458 Phil. 282; 411 SCRA

412 (2003).
© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

4 Tobias vs Limsiaco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Tobias vs Limsiaco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Tobias vs Limsiaco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/3/24, 11:03 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 640

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734. January 19, 2011.*

FLORENDA V. TOBIAS, complainant, vs. JUDGE

Administrative Law; Judges; The conduct of a judge should be

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tobias vs. Limsiaco, Jr.

Same; Same; Aforementioned acts of respondent constitute

conduct as is not to be excused.” Respondent’s act of preparing the

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

1 Rollo, pp. 8-9.

VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 3

requirements needed in filing an ejectment case. Court

pay the initial amount of P10,000.00 and the remaining

2 Also referred to as “Fedigero” in the Report of Investigating Judge

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In his Comment,7 respondent denounced the allegation

complainant in the ejectment case the sum of P10,000.00

7 Id., at pp. 36-37.

VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 5

formal investigation was necessary to afford the parties

Guanzon. Those who appeared before the Investigating

12 TSN, May 20, 2008, pp. 27-28.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sister, Lorna Vollmer, who told her through telephone

advised Vollmer that since there was no lawyer in

VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 7

Atty. Robert Juanillo testified that he received the

was no lawyer in the Municipality of Valladolid, Negros

20 Id., at pp. 20-21.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion. Per manifestation of complainant, Vollmer was then

for talking to a prospective litigant in his court,

21 New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Canon 2,

VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 9

ity,22 and propriety23 contained in the New Code of Judicial

substantial evidence her allegation that respondent offers

22 New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Canon 3,

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canon 3 (Impartiality), and Section 1 of Canon 4

24 Effectivity date June 1, 2004.

VOL. 640, JANUARY 19, 2011 11

the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In

The aforementioned acts of respondent constitute gross

1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

In imposing the proper sanction against respondent, the

Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Abad and Mendoza,

Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr. meted with P25,000 fine

Note.—Respondent transgressed the standards of

28 Gamboa-Mijares v. Judge Limsiaco, Jr., 458 Phil. 282; 411 SCRA

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like