Duty To The Public
Duty To The Public
the hearing which the respondent may intelligently appreciate and evaluate in the light
of the circumstances then obtaining.
The Court also held that respondent was not motivated by malice or corrupt motives to
deny the application for bail. Complainants failed to substantiate their other allegations
with competent proof besides their own bare allegations. Respondent did what he
thought was right under the law and established principles. Hence, respondent could
not be held liable for manifest partiality and serious misconduct. The Court cannot
presume partiality based on the circumstances alleged in the complaint.
In sum, the act of respondent in denying the complainants the right to present evidence
constitutes simple ignorance of the law; but in the absence of malice, corrupt motives or
improper considerations on the part of the respondent, the penalty of reprimand
recommended by the OCA is just and reasonable.
Adjudication:
Accordingly, the Court finds Judge Rolando G. How guilty of simple ignorance of the law
and REPRIMANDS him with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.