CASE LAW ON LEGAL ETHICS

Judicial clemency; nature

DOJ v. Mislang, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3907-RTJ), 919 Phil. 496, February 15, 2022 [Resolution - Per Curiam, En Banc].

  • Judicial clemency is neither a right nor a privilege that may be availed of at any time by erring lawyers or judges.[41] Clemency rests in the sound discretion of the Court after weighing the merits thereof against the preservation of the public confidence in the judicial system.[42]

  • Clemency is in the nature of pardon based on mercy. Pardon and mercy translate to the commutation of the penalty, either wholly or partially. Pardon and mercy are, therefore, uniquely personal to the wrongdoer. However, the act of granting clemency should not go against a public or moral good. Clemency can only be granted when its conditions are fully, unequivocally, and unconditionally accepted by the wrongdoer.
  • Judicial clemency is ““an act of mercy removing any disqualification,”” which may be granted only upon a strong proof that it is warranted. To be granted judicial clemency, a claimant must show evidence of reformation and potential.

  • However, clemency should not only be seen as an act of mercy. It is not only for the wrongdoer’s convenience. The interests of the person wronged, as well as society in general — especially its value in precedent — should always be taken into primordial consideration.[51]

  • The Court’s ““willingness to extend mercy”” is reserved for ““those who have rectified their errors and mended their ways.”“[70] Verily, ““the grant of clemency should not excuse or remove the fault of the offender’s past acts, nor should it amount to a condonation. Clemency is not blind acceptance or tolerance of a wrongful act.”“[71]
  1. [41] Concerned lawyers of Bulacan v. Villalon-Pornillos, 805 Phil. 688, 693(2017).
  2. [42] See Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency, 560 Phil. 1, 5 (2007).
  3. [51] See [Re: Allegations Made under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan (Re: Ong), A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021]; citations omitted.
  4. [70] See [Re: Allegations Made under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan (Re: Ong), A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021]
  5. [71] See [Re: Allegations Made under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan (Re: Ong), A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021]

Judicial clemency, guidelines

DOJ v. Mislang, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3907-RTJ), 919 Phil. 496, February 15, 2022 [Resolution - Per Curiam, En Banc].

  • The Court framed the operative guidelines for resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
    • (1) There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges[’] associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
    • (2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation. Unless for extraordinary reasons, there must be a five (5)-year minimum period before ““dismissal or disbarment [can] be the subject of any kind of clemency.”“[46]
    • (3) The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
    • (4) There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
    • (5) There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.[44]
  • The 5-year is just a reasonable estimation of the minimum period of reflection.[56] This does not mean that proof of remorse and rehabilitation is dispensed with by the Court. For a clemency plea to prosper, there must be a convincing showing of genuine repentance and remorse for one’s past infractions.
  1. [43] In re: Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC, 560 Phil. 1, September 19, 2007 [Resolution - Corona, J., En Banc].
  2. [44] In re: Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC, 560 Phil. 1, September 19, 2007 [Resolution - Corona, J., En Banc]. at 5-6.
  3. [46] Re: Allegations under Oath v. Ong, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, 894 Phil. 99, January 19, 2021 [Resolution - Per Curiam, En Banc].
  4. [56] Núñez v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 5054, 897 Phil. 529, March 02, 2021 [Resolution - Perlas-Bernabe, J., En Banc].
Also pronounced in:
  1. In re: Anonymous Letter v. Judge Pinto, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3656-RTJ), 937 Phil. 581, March 08, 2023 [Resolution - Per Curiam, En Banc].

Clemency; members of the: judiciary vs. bar

Núñez v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 5054, 897 Phil. 529, March 02, 2021 [Resolution - Perlas-Bernabe, J., En Banc].

  • Re: Ong was decided in the context of a clemency petition filed by a disrobed judge, and not a disbarred lawyer. In this regard, the Court qualifies that the public notice requirement may be too taxing of a requisite, at least insofar as disbarred lawyers are concerned.

  • Notice to the private offended party may be impractical due to the fact that past infractions may have been committed so many years ago; perhaps, due to the passage of time, it may be even impossible to trace the address of the said party and thus, render the notice requirement infeasible.

  • Reception of evidence by a fact-finding commission would render tedious the clemency procedure, at least insofar as it concerns greater the population of lawyers. A petition for reinstatement, which demonstrates prima facie merit upon preliminary evaluation of the Court, should instead, be referred to the OBC (or any other fact-finding body the Court so designates) in order to verify the details and the authenticity of the statements in and evidence attached to the clemency petition.

  1. [No citations]

Petition of judicial clemency; allegations necessary

DOJ v. Mislang, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3907-RTJ), 919 Phil. 496, February 15, 2022 [Resolution - Per Curiam, En Banc].

  • “Allegations of those who apply for clemency must first be evaluated by this Court to find whether prima facie circumstances exist to grant the relief. Should there appear to be so, a commission must be created to receive the evidence, with due notice to any offended party and the public. The commission will then determine if there is substantial evidence supporting the allegations.”[47] By logical inverse, should there be no prima facie case shown, the clemency plea ought to be dismissed.

  • When it comes to judicial clemency, a prima facie case may be said to exist when the petition sufficiently demonstrates, on its face, that the petitioner has sincerely expressed remorse for his past infraction/s, has convincingly reformed in his or her ways, and is forthwith deserving of the relief prayed for based on the surrounding circumstances.[49]

  • This Court cannot rely on allegations without corresponding proof, which could be testimonies and certifications attached to the plea. These supporting documents must not merely be pro forma, but should contain specific details on one’s actions after being dismissed.[50]

  1. [46] [[Re: Allegations Made under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan (Re: Ong)] A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021.]
  2. [47] [[Re: Allegations Made under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan (Re: Ong)] A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021.]
  3. [49] See Re: Ong, supra; and Nuñez v. Ricafort, A.C. Nos. 5054 and 6484, March 2, 2021.
  4. [50] [[Re: Allegations Made under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan (Re: Ong)] A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021.]
Also pronounced in:
  1. In re: Anonymous Letter v. Pinto, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3656-RTJ), 937 Phil. 581, March 08, 2023 [Resolution - Caguioa, J., En Banc].
  2. Núñez v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 5054, 897 Phil. 529, March 02, 2021 [Resolution - Perlas-Bernabe, J., En Banc].
  3. [Original] Re: Allegations under Oath v. Ong, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, 894 Phil. 99, January 19, 2021 [Resolution - Per Curiam, En Banc].

Judicial clemency; “remorse and reformation”

DOJ v. Mislang, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3907-RTJ), 919 Phil. 496, February 15, 2022 [Resolution - Per Curiam, En Banc].

  • Remorse and reformation must reflect how the claimant has redeemed their moral aptitude by clearly understanding the gravity and consequences of their conduct.”“[57] This Court must see to it that the long period of dismissal moved the erring officers to reform themselves, exhibit remorse and repentance, and develop a capacity to live up again to the standards demanded from court officers.”“[58]

Notarization of documents; nature

Gaw v. Chua, G.R. No. 206404, 919 Phil. 197, February 14, 2022 [Decision per J. Hernando, Second Division].

  • Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity of their due execution.

  • To contradict the facts stated in notarial documents, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.

  • “After executing the affidavit voluntarily wherein he made admissions and declarations against his own interest under the solemnity of an oath, he cannot be allowed to spurn them and undo what he has done. He cannot, evem (sic) with great repentance, retrieve the body he forsook and now wishes to live.”[77] (Citations omitted.)

  1. [76] Cited by the CA in its assailed Decision as 66 SCRA 504, rollo, pp. 20-21.
  2. [77] [Cited by the CA in its assailed Decision as 66 SCRA 504, rollo, pp. 20-21.]