CANON 1

INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge
shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

SEC. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts
and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement,
pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

A.M. No. R-351-RTJ September 26, 1986

ABRAHAM L. RAMIREZ, petitioner,

vs.
HON. ANTONIA CORPUZ-MACANDOG, respondent.

Facts: A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on June 29, 1985 by Deputy Sheriff Abraham L. Ramirez of the Regional
Trial Court of Caloocan City to secure his release from the Caloocan City jail. Ramirez was ordered arrested on June 27,
1985 by respondent judge for direct contempt of court consisting in his alleged disobedience to the writ of preliminary
injunction dated January 21, 1985 issued in Civil Case No. 8682 enjoining him from demolishing the improvements of the
intervenors in said case.

Ramirez had previously been directed by Judge Socorro Tirona-Liwag of Branch CXXIII of the same court in an order
dated January 11, 1985, to demolish the improvements of the defendants in Civil Cases Nos. C-7380, C-7361, C-7362, C-
7363, C-7364, C-7839, C-7841 and C-7842. Said defendants are the intervenors in Civil Case No. 8682 on whose motion
respondent judge issued the preliminary injunction.

The immediate execution of the order of arrest was effected thru a handwritten note of respondent judge addressed to
then superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Alfredo Lim. Upon orders of this Court, however, Deputy
Sheriff Ramirez was released from jail on July 2, 1985. Thereafter, the court resolved to treat the petition as an
administrative case 1 and to require respondent judge to comment thereon. 2

Respondent judge denied having acted arbitrarily or capriciously in causing the arrest of Ramirez. She justified the arrest
as a means of preserving substantial justice so that any decision rendered in Civil Case No. 8682 may not be rendered
moot and academic and as a curative measure to preserve the greater interest of social justice. The handwritten note, on
the other hand, was explained as a means to preserve the integrity of courts of justice in the enforcement of valid and
lawful orders. She added that the writ of preliminary injunction was issued by her in the exercise of her original jurisdiction,
while the Order of January 11, 1985 was issued by Judge Liwag in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which the latter
should not have done as she should have remanded the case to the court of origin for execution.

Issue: Whether the act of Macandog shows impropriety

Held: the handwritten note of respondent judge to Brig. Gen. Lim is, to say the least, highly irregular and improper. Her
over-zealousness in implementing the order of arrest creates the impression that she has taken an interest far and
beyond that ordinarily expected of judicial officers with respect to cases pending before them; which, in turn, puts her
impartiality in question.

Judges are required to observe due care in the performance of their official duties. 9 They are likewise charged with the
knowledge of internal rules and procedures, especially those which relate to the scope of their authority. They are
dutybound to observe and abide by these rules and procedures, designed, as they are, primarily to ensure the orderly
administration of justice.
Respondent Judge Macandog has shown herself to be mentally and morally unfit to remain in her office. Her removal
must perforce be effected.

Judge Antonia Corpuz-Macandog is hereby ordered dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
and pay, and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities.

SEC. 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from judicial colleagues in respect of decisions
which the judge is obliged to make independently.

A.M. No. 276-MJ June 27, 1975

HADJIRUL TAHIL, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. CARLITO A. EISMA, Municipal Judge of Parang, Sulu, respondent.

Facts: Judge Carlito A. Eisma, of Parang, Sulu, is charged by complainant Hadjirul Tahil with dishonesty in not reporting
regularly to his office, contrary to the recitals of his daily time record. In his "Investigation, Report and Recommendation"
dated February 29, 1973, Judge Felix V. Barbers of the Court of First Instance of Sulu, Branch III, 16th Judicial District,
who investigated the case, recommended the dismissal of the charge.

According to the findings of the Investigating Judge:

... respondent has been regularly reporting to his office except on certain days when he marked himself absent during
which he explained, his salary was correspondingly deducted therefrom.

The filing of this complaint, the respondent declared, is motivated by hatred, anger and revenge on the part of the
complainant. This is occasioned by the fact, when complainant brought the bail bond of his nephew Bakkal Ilahal charged
in Criminal Case No. 241-N before the Court of respondent, for approval of the latter. Because of the failure of the
bondsmen to appear before him, respondent did not approve of the bail bond. Again on another occasion, complainant
filed in the Court of respondent a motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. 372-N, wherein the same nephew of the
complainant, Bakkal Ilahal, is also charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms.

It appears, however, that in the aforementioned Criminal Case No. 241-N for murder, respondent admitted having granted
bail to the accused upon the request of a congressman, despite his belief that the evidence of guilt against the accused
was strong.

Issue: WON Eisma is liable for his admission to granting bailupon request of a congressman.

Held: Respondent's admission that he granted bail because of the request of a congressman, despite his belief that the
evidence of guilt against the accused is strong, is indeed reprehensible. But it is not clear from the record whether or not a
summary hearing was conducted by respondent Judge in Criminal Case No. 241-N for the purpose of bail and, on the
basis of his appreciation of the evidence submitted, granted bail to the accused. Moreover, respondent was not
specifically charged and investigated in this regard, and in the absence of any specific finding that respondent gravely
abused his discretion in granting bail to the accused in said case, this Court has no basis to impose a fine upon
respondent.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the charge against respondent is DISMISSED. Considering his admission,
however, he is hereby admonished to demonstrate a greater degree of competence, intellectual courage and
independence in the discharge of his judicial duties, for only in that manner can he merit the judicial position that he
occupies and the support and confidence of the people.

SEC. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before
another court or administrative agency.

[A.M. RTJ-94-1266. August 21, 1996]

ARMANDO CONTRERAS, complainant, vs. JUDGE CESAR M. SOLIS, respondent.

Facts: The instant administrative case against respondent Judge Cesar M. Solis stemmed from his orders releasing the
accused on bail in a habeas corpus proceeding and his subsequent order directing the re-arrest of the said accused.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

On November 8, 1992, prior to the filing of a petition for habeas corpus before the sala of herein respondent Judge Solis,
and information was filed against Rufino Mamangon, a PNP member, for the murder of Gener Contreras. The case was
raffled to Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court of the Third Judicial Region stationed in Malolos, Bulacan, presided over
by Judge Demetrio Macapagal Sr. On May 31, 1994, Judge Macapagal dismissed the criminal case for lack of jurisdiction
and accordingly directed the branch clerk of court to forward the complete record of the case to the
Sandiganbayan. Mamangon was not, however, released from detention despite the dismissal of the criminal case,
prompting him on July 20, 1994, to file a petition for habeas corpus. The petition was raffled to the branch (No. 21)
presided over by herein respondent Judge Cesar M. Solis. Respondent, in an order dated July 27, 1994, dismissed the
petition for lack of merit. On August 4, 1994, acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by Mamangon, respondent issued
an order authorizing the release of Mamangon from the provincial jail upon the posting of a cash bond in the amount of
P25,000.00. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the provincial prosecutor which prompted respondent judge to
cancel the cash bond posted by Mamangon and to order his re-arrest. Thereupon, Armando Contreras, brother of the
victim Gener Contreras, filed the instant complaint.

Complainant alleged that on the morning of August 1, 1994, when he went to the office of respondent he was told by the
latter that Mamangon is willing to give P25,000.00 for his release. It appears, according to complainant, that if he would
give the same amount of money, respondent would no longer release Mamangon.

According to complainant, respondent also gravely abused his discretion and authority when he ordered the release of the
accused upon the posting of the cash bond; that it is not within the authority of respondent to release the accused
considering that his authority in a habeas corpus proceeding is to determine whether or not the detention of the accused
is legal or illegal. Moreover, it was contended, respondent has no authority to order the re-arrest of the accused in the
same proceeding.

Issue: Whether judge acts shows impropriety.

Held: A judges official conduct and his behavior in the performance of his duties should be free from appearance of
impropriety and must be beyond reproach. Any act which would give the appearance of impropriety is in itself
reprehensible, calling for disciplinary action. This is the price which must be paid by one who joins the Judiciary. Whatever
may have been respondent judges motive in meeting complainant, such action certainly could but be said as giving rise to
questions on his honesty. Respondent judge is thus guilty of committing acts of impropriety prejudicial to the integrity of
the judiciary.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent judge guilty of committing acts of impropriety prejudicial to the integrity of the
Judiciary, for which infraction he is hereby ordered to pay a fine of Two Thousand (P2,000.00), with the warning that a
repetition of a similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely.