CANON 1

SABITSANA V. VILLAMOR
Facts:
It was discovered that there were 87 cases undecided by respondent judge beyond the 90-day reglementary period.
The dismal state of the Courthouse of the respondent judge which was described as bereft of any dignity as a court of law
has been noted. Judge Villamor however shifts the blame on his clerk of court, Atty. Jocobo who he claims was inefficient in
the management of the court records.
Also, in the case of theft by Lipango, Villamor designated Judge Pitao as acting judge of the MCTC. Villamor warned
Pitao to acquit Lipango because the case was being backed up by someone powerful. He did this by sending a letter to Pitao
through Lipangos wife. However, Pitao still convicted Lipango because the evidence of guilt was strong. When Pitao was
away for some conference, he found out that Villamor revoked his designation and appointed another as judge of the MCTC.
And finally, when the case was elevated to the RTC where Villamor was assigned he acquitted Lipango.
Held:
Villamor violated Canon3 and Canon2
A judge sits not only to Judge litigated cases with the least possible delay but that his responsibilities include being
an effective manager of the Court and its personnel. Canon 3, Rule 3.08, of the Code of Judicial Conduct, provides: A judge
should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and
facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel. Also, under Rule 3.09 is that:
A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and
require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.
Cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities. The Canons mince no words in mandating that a Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another Court (Canon 2, Rule 2.04). Interference by members of the
bench in-pending suits with the end in view of influencing the course or the result of litigation does not only subvert
the independence of the judiciary but also undermines the people's faith in its integrity and impartiality