Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    6 Urbina-vs-Meceren

    Uploaded by

    Joahnna Paula Corpuz
    1) Complainant Atty. Urbina filed a criminal case against Judge Maceren for rendering an unjust judgment but it was dismissed. Urbina then alleged that Judge Maceren threatened to kill him through another lawyer to withdraw the charges. 2) Judge Maceren denied making any threats. The other lawyer corroborated that he did not threaten Urbina and only suggested appealing the decision. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed Urbina's suit, giving credence to Judge Maceren and the other lawyer's statements over Urbina's unsupported allegations. Mere errors in judgment are insufficient for administrative liability against judges.

    Copyright:

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

    6 Urbina-vs-Meceren

    Uploaded by

    Joahnna Paula Corpuz
    23 views2 pages
    1) Complainant Atty. Urbina filed a criminal case against Judge Maceren for rendering an unjust judgment but it was dismissed. Urbina then alleged that Judge Maceren threatened to kill him through another lawyer to withdraw the charges. 2) Judge Maceren denied making any threats. The other lawyer corroborated that he did not threaten Urbina and only suggested appealing the decision. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed Urbina's suit, giving credence to Judge Maceren and the other lawyer's statements over Urbina's unsupported allegations. Mere errors in judgment are insufficient for administrative liability against judges.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Complainant Atty. Urbina filed a criminal case against Judge Maceren for rendering an unjust judgment but it was dismissed. Urbina then alleged that Judge Maceren threatened to kill him through another lawyer to withdraw the charges. 2) Judge Maceren denied making any threats. The other lawyer corroborated that he did not threaten Urbina and only suggested appealing the decision. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed Urbina's suit, giving credence to Judge Maceren and the other lawyer's statements over Urbina's unsupported allegations. Mere errors in judgment are insufficient for administrative liability against judges.

    Copyright:

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

    6 Urbina-vs-Meceren

    Uploaded by

    Joahnna Paula Corpuz
    1) Complainant Atty. Urbina filed a criminal case against Judge Maceren for rendering an unjust judgment but it was dismissed. Urbina then alleged that Judge Maceren threatened to kill him through another lawyer to withdraw the charges. 2) Judge Maceren denied making any threats. The other lawyer corroborated that he did not threaten Urbina and only suggested appealing the decision. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed Urbina's suit, giving credence to Judge Maceren and the other lawyer's statements over Urbina's unsupported allegations. Mere errors in judgment are insufficient for administrative liability against judges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Urbina vs. Maceren (A.C. No. 288-J; June 19, 1974) He further submitted the corroborative affidavit of Atty. Esguerra,
    stating that he merely telephoned Urbina to suggest that the
    Facts: pending appeal rather than the criminal complaint for allegedly
    Herein complainants, Attys. Urbina and Gesmundo, filed a criminal knowingly rendering an unjust judgment was his proper recourse
    case against Maceren for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment against respondent's adverse decision, and unqualifiedly stating
    after losing a case decided by the latter. The criminal case was that he never made any threats nor went to Urbina's house and that
    dismissed as the fiscal deemed the action to be inappropriate "The statements I allegedly made as stated in the affidavit of
    considering that the judgment issued by Judge Maceren at that time Gaudencio Urbina did not come from my lips."
    was pending appeal. Allegedly however, prior to dismissal by the Issue:
    fiscal, Atty. Urbina received a phone call from another lawyer (Atty.
    Esguerra) who threatened him that if he did not withdraw the WON complainant Atty.
    criminal case he filed against the judge, he will be killed; that said
    threat was made by Judge Maceren through Atty. Esguerra Urbina’s suit should prosper.

    Respondent denied as pointless the alleged threat through Atty. Held: No


    Esguerra against complainant Urbina's life to compel him to SC gave credence to Judge Maceren’s statement as opposed to
    withdraw his charges in this administrative complaint since there
    would remain another complainant in the person of Atty. Atty. Urbina’s bare allegations which were not supported by
    Gesmundo. evidence.

    However, respondent did admit that in a chance meeting in the SC also condemned Atty Urbina’s use of disrespectful language. A
    courthouse with Atty. Esguerra, he requested the latter should meet lawyer owes fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients and that
    his former client (Urbina) to inform him that "respondent bears no the filing on behalf of disgruntled litigants of unfounded or frivolous
    ill will against him and if he feels aggrieved by the decision why not charges against inferior court judges and the use of offensive and
    limit his action to an ordinary appeal to the higher courts as he has intemperate language as a means of harassing judges whose
    already done." decisions have not been to their liking (irrespective of the law and
    jurisprudence on the matter) will subject said lawyer to appropriate
    disciplinary action as an officer of the Court. This only unduly
    burdens the courts.

    On the matter of Judge Maceren’s judgment, SC stated that judges


    will not be held administratively liable for mere errors of judgment
    in their rulings or decisions absent a showing of malice or gross
    ignorance on their part because to hold a judge administratively
    accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders,
    assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment
    and would make his position unbearable.

    You might also like