A.M. No. SCC-14-20-J, July 24, 2019


The Shari'a Bar Examinations is administered every two (2) years to determine who may be allowed admission to practice and be appointed in any of the Shari'a Courts. In a Letter dated June 4, 2013, Mehol K. Sadain (Sec. Sadain), then Secretary/CEO of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF), requested the Court that the 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations be held on January 19 and 26, 2014 with Honorable Kaudri L. Jainul (Judge Jainul) of the Shari'a Circuit Court, Isabela City, Basilan, as Chairperson of the Board of Examiners. In a Resolution[1] dated July 2, 2013, the Court granted the request of Sec. Sadain.

Unlike the regular Bar Examinations, the subjects for the first Sunday of the Special Shari'a Bar Examinations are Persons, Family Relations and Property; and Jurisprudence and Customary Laws. For the second Sunday, the subjects are Procedure in Shari'a Courts; and Succession, Wills/Adjudication and Settlement of Estate. Because some of the examinees obtained their training and studied abroad, such as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, it is also a peculiar feature of the Shari'a Bar Examinations that an examinee can opt to take the exams in Arabic and not in the English language. For this purpose, a translator is always designated to translate the questions, which are in the English language into Arabic, a couple of days before the examinations. For the 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations, Honorable Samanodden L. Ampaso (Judge Ampaso) of the Shari'a Circuit Court, Tamparal, Lanao Del Sur, was the appointed translator.[2]

On the scheduled dates, the examinations were simultaneously held at the Court of Appeals (CA) Compound, Manila and the Training Room, Centennial Building, Supreme Court. On January 29, 2014, the NCMF requested the Court to schedule the decoding of the results on February 18 to 21, 2014 and that the oath-taking be held on March 11, 2014. The Court granted the request in a Resolution[3] dated February 11, 2014. After decoding the results, 125 out of the 313 examinees passed the examinations. The results were later uploaded in the SC website.Following the release, the Court received several unsigned letters.[4] alleging a number of anomalies and irregularities committed during the 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations, and prayed that the Court conduct an investigation on the matter. The allegations were:
1. That a certain Judge Ampaso was allowed to get inside the Court of Appeals Auditorium, despite the fact [that] he has allegedly two (2) sons and one (1) daughter. Allegedly also he was allowed to correct the notebooks.

2. That some Shari'a judges who have children among the examinees and those Shari'a Judges examiners were seen to have been seeing and contacting each other through phones during and after the examinations. Further, these examiners did not divulge that they have close relatives among the examinees. And that the result of the examination shows majority of those who passed were related to Shari'a[h] judges in Mindanao.

3. Allegedly, the Shari'a judges were the lecturers at the Shari'a Training [Seminars] held in the City of Marawi, Cotabato, Zamboanga and the [Provinces of Basilan and Tawi-Tawi and at the same time examiners. An example is Judge Jainul, the Chairman of the 13th Shari'a Bar [Examinations and also the examiner in Persons and Family [R]elations, who also taught the same subject in Tawi-Tawi and Sulu during the Shari'a trainings. Another example is the case of the son and daughter of Judge Calimpus. Three of them passed the exam. The daughter of Judge Marino Salapuddin, Claire Salapuddin[,] also passed the exam;

4. That the 300 test booklets were hastily checked within a period of three (3) weeks by the examiners allegedly with the help of some private individuals] as the National Commission on Muslim-Filipinos (NCMF) wanted to have an early result before the NCMF Chairman steps down from his office [in] March 2014;

5. That there was allegedly a leakage of the examinations, possibly in the questions on Persons and [Fiqh].

6. That Judge Marino Salapuddin, who told a group of examinees early in the morning of Sunday, January 19[,] at the gate of the Court of Appeals[,] of the possible bar questions and that these questions proved to be the same questions which were actually asked in the examinations; that he entered the room on the third [floor] where his daughter Claire Salapuddin was assigned and even acted as timekeeper.[5]
The matter was later brought to the attention of the Court En Banc during its regular session on March 11, 2014. As a result, the Court created the 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations Investigation Committee {Committee)[6] to ascertain the veracity of the allegations contained in the letters.

Thereafter, in his Letter[7] dated March 17, 2014, Sec. Sadain denied the claims and likewise recommended that a discreet investigation be conducted by the Court. Moreover, Sec. Sadain assured the Court that the NCMF condemns examination frauds of any form and stands ready to assist in any investigation that may be conducted by the Court so that the integrity of the Shari'a Bar Examinations would be upheld. The Bar Confidant also submitted a Report dated March 21, 2014 on the Shari'a Bar Examination[8] which refuted the contentions and gave a brief overview of the role of the Office of the Bar Confidant in the conduct of the said Examinations, to wit:
Sometime in the first of week of January 2014, [Judge Jainul] came to see the undersigned [Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa (Atty. Layusa), Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant], regarding the Shari'a examinations. I explained to him that as in the 2012 Shari'a [Examinations[,] the Chairman then an RTC judge from Mindanao, prepared his questions in Mindanao and sent to the OBC thru LBC the final copy of the questions for safekeeping, translation and printing. I advised him to do the same as all his examiners were from Mindanao. I also told him that two (2) days before the scheduled date of the Shari'a examinations, he together with his translator will come to the OBC to translate the English questions to Arabic. As agreed upon Judge Jainul, together with a certain Judge Sammonden (sic) Ampaso, came to the OBC to translate the questions. The same arrangement with the second Sunday of the examinations.[9]

x x x x

As to the First Allegation:

It is admitted that Judge Ampaso was allowed to enter the premises of the Court of Appeals [A]uditorium. It has been the standard procedure that during the Shari 'a examinations the translator from English to Arabic or vice versa, be present during the examinations so that just In case there is a question on the Arabic translation a translator was readily available. However, the translator is not allowed to stay inside the examination room. He stays at the lobby of the auditorium, together with the other officials of the NCMF. The translator is chosen by the NCMF. Thus, Judge Ampaso's presence at the Court of Appeals Auditorium.

Only four examinees took the exams in Arabic and it was also Judge Ampaso who translated the Arabic answer to English.

As to the Second Allegation:

The possibility of the examinees contacting the examiners during the examinations is very remote since all examinees and personnel are required to surrender their cell phones to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals guards before entering the Court of Appeals premises. Besides, presence of the examiners is not needed during the examinations.

(List of Guards is attached as Annex "A")

As to the Third Allegation:

The NCMF sent the OBC a fax copy of who were the lecturers in the different training centers they conducted in the different areas of Mindanao. (Attached as Annex "B")

As to the Fourth Allegation:

The correction of the notebooks is always in Manila. The OBC scheduled the corrections of the notebooks from February 10 to 16, 2014. This was done as not to coincide with the preparation for the coming release of the bar examinations for lawyers. As practiced, the examiners are given seven days to correct the notebooks and are advised to [stay in] Manila for the corrections. The NCMF takes charge of their plane fares and hotel accommodations. I delivered the two hundred sixty[-]seven (267) notebooks on February 10, 2014, at Days Hotel, Robinsons Otis and retrieved the same on February 17, 2014. We decoded on February 19, 2014, as the Court in a Resolution dated February 11, 2014, GRANTED the request of Sec. Sadain as well as scheduled the oath-taking for [March] 11, 2014. (Resolution dated June 11, 2014, Attached as Annex "C")

And out of the 267 only 125 passed.

As to the Fifth Allegation:

We deny the presence of Judge Mario [Salapuddin] in the Court of Appeals.

Like in the regular bar examinations as well as in the Shari'a examinations [,] those without gate pass are not allowed to enter the examination area. The undersigned interviewed the SC employees who were assigned at [the] third floor room of the Court of Appeals Centennial Building if ever[,] in the two Sundays of the Shari'a examinations, there was somebody who entered the room and even acted as a [timekeeper]. They denied the presence of any person.

The letters alleged that the examiners did not divulge the names of their relatives who took the exams. We checked [the] names of those who made it and we found out that there were four Ampaso's who took the examinations and three of them were sons and [a] daughter of Judge Ampaso who got a grade of 90% in Succession, and Claire [Salapuddin].

For the Court's information[,] the OBC administers only the Shari'a examinations. It is the NCMF who chooses the Chairman. As to the selection of the examiners, we do not know who appointed them.

Applications to take the Shari'a examinations may either [be] filed in the Supreme Court or NCMF. If with the latterf,] the same are forwarded to the Supreme Court together with the payments. Honorarium of the Chairman, Examiners and the personnel during the examinations are from the NCMF. This is made thru a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the Secretary/CEO of the NCMF and the undersigned as authorized by the Court in a Resolution dated January 14, 2014.[10]
Several key persons were also invited by the Committee to aid the latter in its investigation and to shed light into the controversy. Those who were invited were: Judge Jainul, 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations Chairman; Prof. Macrina A. Morados, Bar Examiner for Persons, Family Relations, and Property; Judge Montano K. Kalimpo, Bar Examiner for Succession, Wills/Adjudication and Settlement of Estate; Sec. Mehol K. Sadain of the NCMF; and Judge Ampaso, the appointed translator.

After several meetings, the Committee concluded that the allegations contained in the separate letters were baseless, mere conjectures and surmises, and deserves scant consideration from the Court. The Committee, however, took notice that the three (3) children of Judge Ampaso, namely: Aquil M. Ampaso, Hebah M. Ampaso, and Zohair M. Ampaso, may have known the bar examination questions in the subject Succession, Wills/Adjudication, and Settlement of Estate, after their father translated the questions from English to Arabic days before the scheduled examinations.

In its Resolution[11] dated April 22, 2014 in Bar Matter No. 2716, the Court, through the recommendation of the Committee directed, among other things, that the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conduct further investigations on the alleged leakage in the 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations, to wit:

WHEREFORE, in view of the above and the exigency of the matter, the Court hereby resolves:

1. With the exception of the three (3) children of Judge [Samanodden] L. Ampaso, namely: Aquil M. Ampaso, Hebah M. Ampaso, and Zohair M. Ampaso, to ALLOW all the successful examinees of the recently concluded 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations to sign the Roll of Attorneys before the Bar Confidant on May 14, 2014, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Training Room, Ground Floor, Centennial Building, Supreme Court, Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila, provided no other prohibition exists to prevent it.

2. With respect to Judge Kaudri L. Jainul and Judge [Samanodden] L. Ampaso, the Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to conduct further investigation on the alleged leakage in the 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations to determine administrative liability, if there is any, to be docketed as a regular administrative matter.

3. With respect to Aquil M. Ampaso, Hebah M. Ampaso, and Zohair M. Ampaso, considering that they have taken their Oath as Counselors (sic), the Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to conduct further investigation on the alleged leakage in the 13th Shari'a Bar Examinations, to be docketed as a regular bar matter for possible sanction under the premises.

4. The Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to submit the proposed Guidelines/Rules for the Shari'a Bar Examinations within thirty (30) days from notice of this resolution.[12]

In a Memorandum[13] dated November 12, 2014, after a thorough investigation of the OCA Legal Office and upon approval of the Court Administrator, the OCA found that there exists a prima facie case against Judge Jainul and Judge Ampaso for Simple Misconduct and recommended that a formal complaint be filed against them. The recommendation reads:

In view of the foregoing, it its most respectfully recommended that:
1. this Memorandum be considered a formal complaint against Honorable Kaudri D. Jainul, Presiding Judge of the Shari'ah Circuit Court of Isabela City, Basilan and Honorable Samanodden Lipa Ampaso, Presiding Judge, Shah 'ah Circuit Court, Tamparal, Lanao Del Sur for Simple Misconduct;

2. pursuant to the resolution dated April 22, 2014 in Bar Matter No. 2716, this case be docketed as a regular administrative matter; [and]

3. Judges Jainul and Ampaso be furnished copies of this Memorandum and that they be directed to submit their comments thereto within ten (10) days from notice.[14]
The OCA Legal Office further concluded that Judge Ampaso did not leak bar examination questions to his children. The OCA reasoned, thus:
A perusal of the examination booklets in Succession, Will/Adjudication and Settlement of Estate of the three (3) children of Judge Ampaso failed to convince this Office that Judge Ampaso leaked the questions in the said subject to his three (3) children. As observed by the Committee, the conclusions in the answers of the three (3) examinees were the same but these are not similarly worded. (TSN, April 3, 2014, pp. 34-35) Even when the problem required the examinees to compute the share of the heirs in the estate of the decedent, the computation of the three (3) examinees showed differences in their approach to the problems. If indeed the questions were leaked by Judge Ampaso to [his] three (3) children, then one would expect certain uniformity in their computations. However, the examination booklets show that some computed the shares of the heirs down to the last
peso[,] while some were contented with merely providing the portion (in terms of fractions) of the estate to which the heirs were entitled.[15]
In his Comment[16] dated March 18, 2015, Judge Jainul admitted that he initially considered Judge Ampaso to be the examiner in Islamic Jurisprudence, but when he learned that Judge Ampaso had served as an examiner in two previous bar examinations, he recommended Judge Samsuddin Mustapha to be the examiner instead. As for the translator, he stated that he only recommended
Judge Ampaso, but it was the NCMF that appointed him as translator.

Judge Jainul insisted that he was not aware of the fact that three (3) of Judge Ampaso's children would be taking the examinations because he was not furnished a copy of the list of examinees by the OBC and the NCMF, nor was this fact disclosed by Judge Ampaso to him. He also stressed that his station in Basilan Province was very far from the station of Judge Ampaso in Lanao del Sur, thus, he could not have learned that the children of Judge Ampaso participated in the Shari'a Training in Lanao and had filed petitions to take the Shari'a Bar Exams. Judge Jainul, likewise, banked on the findings of the Committee of the lack of procedure or guidelines by which he and the concerned offices could have been guided in administering the Shari'a Bar Exams.

During the investigation, Judge Jainul further testified that he was asked by the NCMF a month before the scheduled examinations to recommend interpreters or translators who will translate the exams from English to Arabic for those who would be taking the exams in Arabic. Judge Jainul recommended Judge Ampaso because he took Shari'a Islamic Law abroad.[17] Judge Jainul narrated that he called Judge Ampaso and informed him over the phone that he recommended him as the translator but he did not ask the latter whether he had relatives who would be taking the exams, nor did Judge Ampaso inform him that three (3) of his children would be taking the Shari'a Bar.[18]

For his part, Judge Ampaso in his Comment[19] dated March 6, 2015 detailed that on September 9, 2013, Judge Jainul asked him to be one of the examiners in the upcoming Shari'a Bar Exams, but he declined because his children would also be taking the said examinations. On January 9, 2014, Judge Jainul called him up again and requested him to come to Manila because he was designated as the translator. Again, he refused and reiterated that his children would be taking the exams, but Judge Jainul brushed the matter aside and assured him that there was nothing wrong with his designation as translator.

Judge Ampaso, likewise, reasoned that the investigation itself revealed that there was no leakage in the subject where his children obtained similar grades, their approach in answering the question were even different from one another. He stressed that he fully disclosed the fact that his children would be taking the examinations and he was not aware of any prohibition against his designation as translator. Unlike an examiner who prepares the questions, checks the notebooks and gives the final ratings, a translator merely reads the questions and translates them accordingly.

As to the allegation of exercising poor judgment, Judge Ampaso in his Comment said "I exerted the highest effort to do a better judgment, and indeed did a better one. Aside from [my] obedience to higher up's decision, I did not do any unlawful conduct, [nor was I] motivated with wrongful intentional purpose."[20]

In its Memorandum[21] dated November 6, 2015, the Court Administrator recommended that respondents be censured for their acts and for breach of duty and confidence, viz.:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that Judge Samanodden Lipa Ampaso, Shari'a Circuit Court, Tamparal, Lanao del Sur, and Judge Kaudri L. Jainul, Shari'a Circuit Court, Isabela City, Basilan, be CENSURED for their failure to timely disclose the relationship of respondent Judge Ampaso to three (3) of the examinees, and for breach of duty and confidence.[22]
The Court Administrator concluded that while there is no concrete proof that there was leakage of questions during the 2014 Shari'a Bar examinations, the evidence at hand readily points to the appearance of impropriety caused by Judge Ampaso's designation as the translator of the examination questions.[23] He added that although no harm was actually inflicted in the Shari'a Bar Examinations by such designation, it is the impression of impropriety that it created that casts a rather bleak picture of undue preference on the image of the Judiciary. He added that no matter how miniscule such appearance of impropriety is, the Court is duty-bound to forever maintain an untarnished image as the last bastion of democratic society where pure justice is expected and dispensed.[24]

The Court concurs with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, but does not agree with its recommendation that respondents should only be censured for their misjudgments.

In the present controversy, the two respondents presented conflicting versions of the circumstances that led to the appointment of Judge Ampaso as translator. The Chairperson, Judge Jainul, vehemently denied that Judge Ampaso disclosed the fact that his three (3) children would be taking the exams. He also insists that he only learned of this when the Committee disclosed this information to him during the investigation.[25] For his part, Judge Ampaso, vividly recalls having informed Judge Jainul of this fact. First, when the latter initially invited him to be an examiner in Islamic Law and Jurisprudence,[26] and second, when Judge Jainul informed him that he was appointed as translator. Although he was first hesitant to accept the appointment as translator, he was, nonetheless, assured by Judge Jainul that such designation was not prohibited.[27]

Of the two conflicting versions, the OCA was justified in not giving credence and weight to the allegations of Judge Jainul that he had no knowledge that Judge Ampaso had relatives who would be taking the examinations. It is more logical to conclude that Judge Ampaso was not initially appointed as examiner by Judge Jainul because of this fact and not because he was a former examiner.[28] In addition, Judge Jainul never refuted Judge Ampaso's claim that he accepted his appointment as translator because he assured Judge Ampaso that there was nothing wrong with the appointment.[29]

Likewise, Judge Ampaso is not totally without fault. Conspicuously, Judge Ampaso had misgivings in accepting his appointments either as examiner or translator because some of his children would be taking the examinations. Evidently, Judge Ampaso had serious doubts on the propriety of his appointment. He, nonetheless, acceded when he was assured by Judge Jainul that such appointment was allowed and convinced himself that he was merely following the order of his superior.[30] As a learned magistrate, Judge Ampaso should have been more circumspect in accepting his appointment despite the statement of Judge Jainul because in his heart and by his initial refusals, he knows that such designation is highly irregular and questionable.

Their actuations and misjudgments have clearly cast serious doubts into the integrity of the Shari'a Bar Examinations. Whether Judge Ampaso relayed the questions to his children or not, the fact remains that Judge Ampaso had full access to the questions when he translated the questions from English to Arabic on Friday, January 17, 2014, two (2) days before the first week of the examinations on Sunday, January 19, 2014; and likewise on Friday, January 24, 2014, or two (2) days before the second week of examination on Sunday, January 26, 2014.[31] Notably, Judge Ampaso was billeted in Cherry Blossoms Hotel in Ermita, Manila, while his children were staying just a few kilometers away somewhere in Quiapo, Manila. The proximity of the hotel where he was billeted and the place where his children were staying makes communicating the questions to his children highly possible.[32] Even Judge Jainul agrees that it was probable for Judge Ampaso to have communicated the questions to his children between the time he translated the questions and the actual day of the examinations.[33] Judge Jainul testified thus:
So if he made the translation Friday, and the exams took place,


AJ PERALTA: Sunday, you will not be surprised that he had sufficient time to talk with his three children?

Yes, Justice.

You will not be surprised?

Yes, Justice.

So the possibility is high that whatever he remembered in the translation might have been communicated to his three children?

That's possible, Justice.[34]
Lower court judges play a pivotal role in the promotion of the people's faith in the Judiciary. They are front-liners who give human face to the judicial branch at the grassroots level in their interaction with litigants and those who do business with the courts.[35]

Corollarily, it should be emphasized that the Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality, a public official is also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of.the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. A judge's official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. Thus, being a subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. He should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private life should be above suspicion.[36]

Indeed, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to exemplify propriety at all times. Canon 4 instructs:


SEC. 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 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.
In this case, it is apparent that Judge Jainul and Judge Ampaso failed to exercise caution and prudence in their actions as expected of them as judges not only in the performance of their judicial duties, but in their professional and private activities as well. They should have conducted themselves in a manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office. Lamentably, their failure to observe the propriety befitting a magistrate casted serious doubt on the good standing and reputation of the Shari'a Bar Examinations. Thus, for violating Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, We find Judge Jainul and Judge Ampaso guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge.

Conduct unbecoming of a judge is classified as a light charge under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and penalized under Section 11(C) thereof by any of the following: (1) A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00; (2) Censure; (3) Reprimand; and (4) Admonition with warning.[37]

Allegations of leakage in the bar examinations are frowned upon and taken seriously by the Court. In Re: 2003 Bar Examinations,[38] this Court meted the ultimate penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Danilo De Guzman for leaking the questions in Mercantile Law during the 2003 Bar Examination. Verily, the Court does not countenance any act or conduct which may impair the integrity of any bar examinations.

However, considering that at the time the instant controversy took place, there was no sufficient procedures or guidelines yet by which the NCMF officials, the examiners, the translator, and the Office of the Bar Confidant could have been properly guided in preparing and administering the Shari'a Bar Examinations, respondent Judges could neither be charged with a graver offense nor severely punished.

The only silver lining to this unfortunate incident, lest similar incident occur in the future, was that the Court was constrained to draft the Rules for the Special Shari'a Bar Examinations[39] which was prepared by the Committee and approved by the Court En Banc. The said Rules now govern all succeeding Shari'a Bar Examinations and have accorded the exams even greater credibility and assured our Muslim brothers and sisters that only the most qualified and competent individuals will be eligible to join the pool of Shari'a Counsellors, allowed to practice, and be appointed in any of the Shari'a Courts.

WHEREFORE, respondents Judge Kaudri L. Jainul, Shari'a Circuit Court, Isabela City, Basilan and Judge Samanodden L. Ampaso, Shari'a Circuit Court, Tamparal, Lanao Del Sur are found GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. They are ORDERED to PAY a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) each, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.


[1]Records, p. 90.

[2]Rollo, p. 2.

[3]Records, p. 37.

[4]Letter dated February 20, 2014 of a certain Ahmad dela Cruz (unsigned) and received on February 24, 2014, id. at 2-3; Anonymous letter dated February 22, 2014 and received on February 24, 2014; Letter dated February 23, 2014 with signatures only and received on February 26, 2014, id. at 4-6; and Letter dated March 7, 2014 and received on March 9, 2014 by a certain Shamra Mangotara by e-mail through pio@cs judiciary.gov.ph, id. at 7-9.

[5]Records, pp. 28-29.

[6]The Committee was composed of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta as Chairperson, with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Justice Jose C. Mendoza, and Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, Bar Confidant, as members.

[7]Records, pp. 11-12.

[8]Id. at 26-32.

[9]Id. at 27.

[10]Id. at 30-32.

[11]Rollo, pp. 8-10.

[12]Id. at 9.

[13]Id. at 2-7.

[14]Id. at 7.

[15]Id.at 4-5.

[16]Id. at 16-17.

[17]TSN, April 3, 2014, p. 55.

[18]Id. at 57-58.

[19]Rollo, pp. 13-14.

[20]Id at 14.

[21]Id. at 24-29.

[22]Id. at 29.

[23]Id. at 27.


[25]TSN, April 3, 2014, p.62

[26]TSN, April 10, 2014, pp. 12-13.

[27]Id. at 14-17.

[28]Rollo, p. 28. 20

[29]TSN, April 10, 2014, pp. 14-15.

[30]Id. at 15; rollo, p. 14.

[31]TSN, April 10, 2014, pp. 7-10.

[32]Id. at 10-11.

[33]TSN, April 3, 2014, pp. 59-61.

[34]Id. at 60.

[35]Judge Tabora v. (Ret.) Judge Carbonell, 635 Phil. 188, 200 (2010).

[36]Tormis v. Judge Paredes, 753 Phil. 41, 56 (2015).

[37]Re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Re: Discipline Of Justices And Judges, A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, September 11, 2001, Manila.

[38]466 Phil 548 (2004).

[39]Bar Matter No. 2716, Adopting the Rules for the Special Shari'a Bar Examinations, July 14, 2015.

Popular Posts