JUDICIAL ETHICS !
Stress the Philippines’ solidarity with the
What is judicial ethics?
! Branch of moral science which treats of
the right and proper conduct to be
observed by judges in administering
justice; a legal and moral mechanism
that keeps and maintains the trust
and confidence of the people in the
judicial system.
Importance to lawyers
! The administration of justice is a joint
responsibility of the judge and the
lawyer. The judge expects a lawyer to
properly perform his role in the same
manner that the lawyer expects a judge
to do his part. Their relation be based on
mutual respect and on a deep
appreciation by one of the duties of the
other. Only in this manner can each of
them minimize occasions for
delinquency and help attain the ends of
justice.
AM NO 03-05-01, June 1, 2004
THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
It adopts the Universal declaration for ethical
conduct of judges embodied in the Bangalore
Draft as revised at the Round Table
Conference of Chief Justices held at the Hague
on Nov. 25026, 2002. The Philippine Supreme
Court was represented by then Chief Justice
Davide and Senior Associate Justice Puno.
Did the new code repeal the old code? NO.
Both of them are still good law. The SC still
cites the old code of judicial conduct.
For purposes of our lecture, only the new code.
Why? The new code substantially reproduces
the provision of the old code.
THE NEW CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE
PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
Update and correlate the Code of Judicial
Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics
adopted for the Philippines
universal clamor for a universal code of
judicial ethics.
7 CARDINAL VALUES IN THE JUDICIARY
ARE INCORPORATED IN 6 CANONS
(PIIICED) IIIPEC-D
1. Independence
2. Integrity
3. Impartiality
4. Propriety
5. Equality
6. Competence
7. Diligence
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.
Look at the second paragraph, when we talk
about judicial independence, we are talking
about 2 kinds: Individual and Institutional
independence.
Individual Independence – the judge himself
must be independent.
Institutional Independence – refers judiciary
as an institution must be independent.
INDIVIDUAL JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
! Focuses on each particular judge and
seeks to insure his or her ability to
decide cases with autonomy.
INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE
! Focuses on the independence of the
judiciary as a branch of government and
protects judges as a class.
SECTION 1. Judges shall exercise the
judicial function independently on the
bases of their assessment of facts and
conscientious understanding of the law,
free from any extraneous influence,
inducement, pressure, threat or
interference, direct or indirect, from any
quarter of for any reason.
Simply put judges must be independent.
Judges must decide based on facts and law
presented in the case.
2 POSSIBLE SOURCES OF INFLUENCE:
INTERNAL – biases, prejudices, preconceived
notions
EXTERNAL – political, social, familial
Ex. Judge dismissed criminal case on vague
grounds, upon his receipt of death threats.
RAMIREZ vs CORPUS MACANDOG
! A judge acted improperly when she
rendered rulings based on directives
from a government official.
! The judge, in her defense, said that it
being a revolutionary government, she
succumbed to the pressure of the
government official.
! SC denounced the judge’s act as a
patent betrayal of public trust and a
revelation of her weal moral character.
! Thus, judges should not allow
government officials, local or national, to
influence their decisions and actions in
judicial proceedings before them.
LIBARIOS vs DABALOS
! Judges should not be influence by
overwhelming public opinion. A judge
who issued a warrant of arrest and fixed
the bail of the accused without the
required hearing, on account of a rally
conducted by the supporters of the
complainant, was disciplined.
! There was unjustified haste in the
actions of the judge. A judge is expected
to endeavor to diligently ascertain the
facts and applicable law, unswayed by
partisan or personal interests.
! of judicial office shall not be used or lent to
SECTION 2. In performing judicial duties,
Judges shall be independent from judicial
colleagues in respect of decisions, which
the judge is obliged to make independently.
! Regardless of good relations,
camaraderie and companerismo among
judges, they shall not be influenced by
their fellow judges insofar as decisions
they have to make independently.
Question: Is section 2 applicable in collegiate
court, meaning in courts where it’s not a single
judge court, but the court decides by a division
or en banc, for instance the CA,
Sandiganbayan, CTA, SC.
A: yes, judicial independence should still be
exercised. When you see decisions, there are
dissenting opinions, separate opinions.
SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from
influencing in any manner the outcome of
litigation or dispute pending before another
court or administrative agency.
! The prohibition in Sec. 2 is extended by
the prohibition to wield influence upon
other courts, quasi-judicial and
administrative agencies.
Ex. The judge wrote to the NLRC
Commissioners to tell them that his wife’s
allegations are untrue.
OCA vs JUDGE FLORO
! A judge entering his appearance in a
court case representing himself but
signing the pleading wherein he
indicated that he is the Presiding Judge
of RTC Branch 73 Malabon City, and
appending to the pleading a copy of his
oath with a picture of his oath-taking is
trying to influence or put pressure on a
fellow judge.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not allow family,
social, or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige
advance the private interests of others, nor
convey a permit other to convey impression
that they are in a special position to
influence the judge.
Definition of family under the new code
! Those related by blood or marriage
within the 6th civil degree, as well as
person who are companions or
employees of the judge who live in the
judge’s household.
This section is to discourage and avoid
influence-peddling by members of the judge’s
inner circle.
In some US States, e.g. Denver and Florida,
judges were advised to drop lawyer friends in
social networking websites.
SECTION 5. Judges shall not only be free
from inappropriate connections with, and
influence by, the executive and legislative
branches of government, but must also
appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable
observer.
no utang na loob, judges shall not feel
indebted.
! Considering that the appointments,
promotions and movements of judges
are subject to executive approval, and
that organization, budget and resources
of the judiciary are matters that require
legislative grace – judges should still
uphold their duty to render justice freely
without any obligation to reciprocate
whatever beneficence that might have
been bestowed on them by the two
other branches.
SECTION 6. Judges shall be independent in
relation to society in general and in relation
to the particular parties to a dispute, which
he or she has to adjudicate.
SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and
uphold safeguards for the discharge of
judicial duties in order to maintain and
enhance the institutional and operational
independence of the judiciary.
(self-explanatory daw ana judge)
SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and
promote high standards of conduct in order
to reinforce public confidence in the
judiciary, which is fundamental to the
maintenance of judicial independence.
! Court of judges, in or out of court,
should be beyond reproach as they are
the visible representations of law of the
judiciary.
CANON 2. INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper
discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.
Duty to Disclose to the Judicial and Bar Council
and Appointing Authority.
! Disclose all disciplinary, criminal and
civil cases
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not
only is their conduct above reproach, but
that it is perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer.
! Judges have been disciplined for lack of
good moral character, both in their
public and private capacities.
! Accepting bribes; going to cockpits;
casinos, racetracks to bet on horses;
fraternizing with litigants and their
lawyers; delay in rendering decisions;
ignorance of the law
Ignorance of the law
! Is a mark of incompetence; and where
the law involved is elementary,
ignorance thereof is considered an
indicium of lack of integrity
! The judge is either too incompetent and
undeserving of the title he holds, or he is
too vicious that the oversight was
deliberately done resulting to a travesty
of justice.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of
judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in
the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must
not merely be done but must also be seen
to be done.

! Judges must not only render just,
correct and impartial decisions, but must
do so in a manner free of any suspicion
as to their fairness, impartiality and
integrity.
Ex. Nag mug ot ang judge while maminaw sa
counsel from the defense but mag smile basta
ang mustorya na ang counsel of the plaintiff.
CASES: (lack of integrity)
! Judge forcibly kissed court employees.
! Habitually gambling and frequenting
casinos and cockpits.
! Punching a fellow Judge in the face after
a disagreement over the use of an office
table.
! Having sexual intercourse with a 15-
year-old minor.
SECTION 3. Judges should take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measure against
lawyers or court personnel for
unprofessional conduct of which the judge
may have become aware.
! Judges are administrators and
protectors of the administration of
justice. Their vigilance should go beyond
themselves, but also to their staff,
subordinates, and to the lawyers who
are officers of the court.
CANON 3. IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge
of the judicial office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which
the decision is made.
Extrajudicial Source Rule
! To sustain a claim of bias or prejudice,
the resulting opinion or decision of the
court must be based upon an
extrajudicial source: that is, some
influence other than the facts and law
presented in the courtroom.
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their
judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his
conduct or her conduct, both in and out of
court, maintains and enhances the
confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality
of the judge and of the judiciary.
! There is a high price in exchange of the
judge’s exalted judicial position.
! Judges should be like Caesar’s wife,
should be above suspicion
Examples: having lunch with a litigant; betting
on horse races; standing as sponsor in a
litigant’s son’s wedding; using the car of a
litigant as service vehicle; accepting gifts from
litigants, undue interference in the direct and
cross examination of witnesses.
SECTION 3. Judges shall, so far as is
reasonable, so conduct themselves as to
minimize the occasions on which it will be
necessary for them to be disqualified from
hearing or deciding cases.
! Judges should regulate their business,
social activities to avoid possible
disqualification from hearing cases.
A.M NO. MTJ-02-1452
The judge acted as broker together with
the complainant in the sale of lots to the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Inc.
“By allowing himself to act as agent in
the sale of the subject property, respondent
judge has increased the possibility of his
disqualification to act as an impartial judge in
the event that a dispute involving the said
contract of sale arises.
Also, the possibility that the parties to
the sale might plead before his court is not
remote and his business dealings with them
might not only create suspicion as to his
fairness but also to his ability to render it in a
manner that is free from any suspicion as to its
fairness and impartiality and also as to the
judge’s integrity.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly,
while a proceeding is before, or could come
before, them make any comment that might
reasonably be expected to affect the
outcome of such proceeding or impair the
manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall
judges make any comment in public or
otherwise that might affect the fair trial of
any person or issue.
! Judges should avoid publicity for
personal vainglory.
! Trial by publicity: there must be
allegation and proof that the court has
been unduly influenced by the barrage
of publicity.
Ex: Judge who advises parties to plea-bargain
or to compromise.
SECTION 5. Judges shall disqualify
themselves from participating in any
proceedings in which they are unable to
decide the matter impartially or in which it
may appear to a reasonable observer that
they are unable to decide the matter
impartially. Such proceedings include, but
are not limited to, instances where:
a. The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceedings;
b. The judge previously served as a lawyer
or was a material witness in the matter
in controversy;
c. The judge, or a member of his or her
family, has an economic interest in the
outcome of the matter in controversy.
d. The judge served as executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or
lawyer in the case or matter in
controversy, or a former associate of the
judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was
a material witness therein;
e. The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
f. The judge is related by consanguinity or
affinity to a party litigant within the 6th
civil degree or to counsel within the
fourth civil degree; or
g. The judge knows that his or her spouse
or child has a financial interest, as heir,
legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise,
in the subject matter in controversy or in
a party to the proceeding, or any other
interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the
proceedings.
RULE 137, ROC
Disqualification of Judicial Officers
SECTION 1. Disqualification of Judges. – No
judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in
which he, or his wide or child, is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise, or in which he is related to either
part within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or to counsel within the fourth civil
degree, computed according to the rules of the
civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or
in which he has presided in any inferior court
when his ruling or decision is the subject of
review, without the written consent of all parties
in interest, signed by them and entered upon
records.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound
discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a
case, for just or valid reasons other than those
mentioned above.
1st paragraph Section 1, Rule 137:
Mandatory Disqualification
2nd par., Section 1, Rule 137: Voluntary
Inhibition
! Strictly a matter of conscience
! Standard to be followed by judge:
whether a losing party could entertain a
reasonable belief that the judge was
partial to the prevailing party it is not
whether the judge was actually partial or
not.
! Examples: utang na loob, counsel is
also the judge’s counsel in a separate
case, analogous instances
! Not grounds for voluntary inhibition:
counsel for a party has filed an
 administrative case against the judge,
mere friendship, counsel is a classmate
of the judge
! Voluntary inhibition cannot be compelled
by mandamus.
SECTION 6. A judge disqualified as stated
above (referring to section 5) may, instead
of withdrawing from the proceeding,
disclose on the records the basis of
disqualification. If, based on such
disclosure, the parties and lawyers
independently of the judge’s participation
all agree in writing that the reason for the
inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the
judge may then participate in the
proceeding. The agreement, signed by all
parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated
in the record of the proceedings.
Let’s simplify this. First, this presupposes that
there is a ground for mandatory
disqualification. Nonetheless, even if there is a
ground for mandatory disqualification, Section
6 allows the judge to continue presiding over
the case.
In other words, section 6 is an exception to the
mandatory rule of mandatory disqualification.
GR is section 5
XPN is section 6 because this is the remittal of
disqualification
What is remittal? It is already waived.
A ground for mandatory disqualification may
also be waived or remitted by the parties i.e.
section 6. But 3 requisites must be met.
Requisites for REMITTAL OF
DISQUALIFICATION:
! Parties and their lawyers agree
independently of the judge’s
participation
! Reason for inhibition is immaterial or
unsubstantial
! Agreement reduced to writing, signed by
all parties and lawyers, entered upon the
records of the case.
CANON 4. PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities
of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities.
Ex:
! Photos of judge and subordinate going
out of hotel
! Judge heard a motion while on vacation,
in his room, wearing a polo jacket.
! Judge privately met litigant in a resort
! Judge held office and conducted
hearings at his residence.
! Judge held hand of his interpreter
(distant relative), kissed by her lips, as
he missed it for she wiggled out.
SECTION 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 conduct themselves in a
way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office.
Ex. Use of intemperate language, getting drunk
in a party, judge who confronted former
boyfriend and the latter’s female companion in
a restaurant.
For this particular slide and for the succeeding
slide, we will go to the old code of judicial
conduct, because it is more detailed.
A judge should regulate his activities to
minimize the risk of conflict with judicial duties
(CANON 5, CJC)
Extrajudicial Activities:
! Vocational, civic and charitable
! Financial activities
! Fiduciary activities
! Practice of law and other profession
! Extra-judicial appointments
! Political activities

Vocational, civic and charitable
! Write, lecture, teach, speak on non-legal
subjects
! Engage in sports, arts and other
recreational activities
! Officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal
advisor of a non-profit, non-political,
educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, civic organization
! Must not conflict or degrade judicial
functions
Financial Activities
! Refrain from business dealings that will
affect partiality, or interfere with the
performance of judicial functions, or
increase involvement with lawyers or
persons likely to come before the court.
! Should not serve as officer, director,
manager, advisor or employee of any
business EXCPET AS DIRECTOR OF A
FAMILY BUSINESS
! Should not use judicial information for
business
! Should not acquire property rights in
litigation (Art. 1491, CC)
! Must make full financial disclosure (SAL
N)
Fiduciary Activities
! Judge may serve as executor,
administrator trustee, guardian or other
fiduciary ONLY FOR THE ESTATE,
TRUST OR PERSON of a member of
the immediate family and then only if
such service will not interfere with the
proper performance of judicial duties.
! Immediate family = spouse and relatives
within the second civil degree of
consanguinity (Rule 5.06, old CJC)
PRACTICE OF LAW OR OTHER
PROFESSION
! No private practice of law
! Other professions, unless prohibited by
the Constitution or law PROVIDED that
such will not conflict with judicial
functions
! MTC judge as notary public?
Notary Public Ex Officio
! Engage in the notarization of documents
connected with the exercise of their
official functions
! In far-flung municipalities, where there
are no lawyers or notaries public, MTC
judge can perform any act within the
competence of a regular Notary Public
as long as:
o All notarial fees shall be for the
Government and turned over to
the Municipal Treasurer; and
o Certification be made in the
notarized documents attesting to
the lack of any NP.
Non-Judicial Appointments
! Judges cannot accept appointment or
designation to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions
o In re Designation of Judge
Manzano: the SC did not allow
judge’s membership in the Ilocos
Norte Provincial Committee on
Justice, which was an
administrative body.
Political Activities
! Judge should not make political
speeches, contribute to party funds,
publicly endorse candidates for political
office or participate in other partisan
political activities.
SECTION 3. Judges shall, in their personal
relations with individual members of the
legal profession who practice regularly in
their court, avoid situations which might
reasonably give rise to the suspicion or
appearance of favoritism or partiality.
Ex. Judge who has coffee with Sangguinian
members who appear before his sala; asking
for aircon, tables or chairs.
(we’re back on the new code)
SECTION 4. Judges shall not participate in
the determination of a case in which any
member of their family represents a litigant
or is associated in any manner with the
case.
Family – 6th civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or person who is a companion or
employee of the judge and who lives in the
judge’s household.
SECTION 5. Judges shall not allow the use
of their residence, by a member of the legal
profession to receive clients of the latter or
of other members of legal profession.
SECTION 6. Judges, like any other citizen,
are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising
such rights, they shall always conduct
themselves in such manner as to preserve
the dignity of the judicial office and the
impartial and independence of the judiciary.
Ex. Order: respondent is a self-ordained public
tyrant, with a contaminated mind and assuming
the position of a crocodile.
SECTION 7. Judges shall inform themselves
about their personal fiduciary financial
interests and shall make reasonable efforts
to be informed about the financial interests
of members of their family.
! Full financial disclosure includes his/her
family
SECTOIN 8. Judges shall not use or lend
the prestige of the judicial office to advance
their private interests, or those of a member
of their family or of anyone else, nor shall
they convey or permit others to convey the
impression that anyone is in a special
position improperly to influence them in the
performance of judicial duties.
Ex. Judge filed a case for estafa in his own
sala, and then issued a warrant of arrest
against the accused; Judge posted
advertisements for restaurant personnel,
interviewing in court (improper use of court
facilities for promotion of business interests)
SECTION 9. Confidential information
acquired by judges in their judicial capacity
shall not be used or disclosed by for any
other purpose related to their judicial
duties.
Ex. Releasing or leaking draft decisions;
Releasing court order not thru the proper
dockets; allowing spouse to read case files.
SECTION 10. Subject to the proper
performance of judicial duties, judges may:
a. Write, lecture, teach and participate
in activities concerning the law the
legal system, the administration of
justice or related matters;
b. Appear at a public hearing before an
official body concerned with matters
relating to the law, the legal system
the administration of justice or
related matters;
c. Engage in other activities if such
activities do not detract from the
dignity of the judicial office or
otherwise interfere with the
performance of judicial duties.
SECTION 11. Judges shall not practice law
whilst the holder of judicial office.
SECTOIN 12. Judges may form or join
associations of judges or participate in
other organizations representing the
interests of judges.
SECTION 13. Judges and members of their
families shall neither ask for, nor accept,
any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to
anything done or to be done or omitted to
be done by him or her in connection with
the performance of judicial duties.
! CF: direct bribery, indirect bribery,
RA 3019, RA 6713
!
SECTION 14. Judges shall not knowingly
permit court staff or others subject to their
influence, direction or authority, to ask for,
or accept any gift, bequest, loan or favor in
relation to anything done or to be done or
omitted to be done in connection with their
duties or functions.
SECTION 15. Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges
may receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is
made provided that such gift, award or
benefit might not reasonably be perceived
as intended to influence the judge in the
performance of judicial duties or otherwise
give rise to an appearance of partiality.
Ex. A judge accepted the free use, for a year,
of a car, and availed for free of battery
recharging services of the shop of a litigant
who has a pending case before him.
CANON 5. EQUALITY
SECTION 1. Judges shall be aware of, and
understand, diversity in society and
differences arising from various sources,
including but not limited to race, color, sex,
religion, national origin, caste, disability,
age, marital status, sexual orientation,
social and economic status and other like
causes
! There is no prohibition against
differentiation. What is prohibited is
differentiation on improper or irrelevant
grounds.
o Differentiation on the basis of
Sex: Maternity Leave/Paternity
Leave
o Differentiation on the basis of
Religion: Flag raising and
lowering ceremonies
o Differentiation on the basis of
Marital Status: Solo Parent’s
Leave
o Differentiation on the basis of
Age: Juvenile Justice Welfare
Act; Senior Citizens’ Act
o Differentiation on the basis of
Disability: Magna Carta Act for
Disabled Persons
Can body size be a cause for termination of
employment?
YRASUEGI vs PAL: 217lb Flight Attendant
! Flight safety is crucial in the airline
business. Cabin attendants must
maintain agility at all times to inspire
passenger confidence.
! Passenger safety foes to the core of the
job of a cabin attendant. On board an
aircraft, the body weight and size of a
cabin attendant are important factors to
consider in case of emergency.
! Aircrafts have constricted cabin space,
narrow aisles and exit doors.
! The biggest problem with an overweight
cabin attendant is the possibility of
impeding passengers from evacuating
the aircraft, should the occasion call for
it… Being overweight necessarily
impedes mobility. Indeed, in an
emergency situation, seconds are what
cabin attendants are dealing with, not
minutes. Three lost seconds can
translate in three lost lives. Evacuation
might slow down just because a wide-
bodied cabin attendant is blocking the
narrow aisles.
SECTION 2. Judges shall not, in the
performance of judicial duties, by words or
conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards
any person or group on irrelevant grounds.
! Gender sensitivity
! ICCs and IPs
SECTION 3. Judges shall carry out judicial
duties with appropriate consideration for all
persons, such as the parties, witnesses,
lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues,
without differentiation on any irrelevant
ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties.
Judges should treat everyone fairly. They
should not fall into the mind frame that litigants
are made for the courts, rather than the courts
are made for litigants.
Judges should treat witnesses fairly and
properly, especially child witnesses.
Are Judges allowed to treat new lawyers
differently?

! A judge should be courteous to counsel,
especially those who are young and
inexperienced xxx. (CANON 10, Canons
of Judicial Ethics)
! A judge should be patient, attentive, and
courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, xxx. (Rule 3.04, CANON
3, Code of Judicial Conduct)
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly
permit court staff or others subject to his or
her influence, direction or control to
differentiate between persons concerned, in
a matter before the judge on any irrelevant
ground.
SECTION 5.Judges shall require lawyers in
proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or
prejudice based on irrelevant grounds,
except such as are legally relevant to an
issue in proceedings and may be the
subject of legitimate advocacy.
! Sexist and racist comments in a
pleading
! Making a mockery of woman’s good
looks and body parts
! Making jokes during a wedding
ceremony
CANON 6. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
SECTION 1. The judicial duties of a judge
take precedence over all other activities.
SECTION 2. Judges shall devote their
professional activity to judicial duties,
which include not only the performance of
judicial functions and responsibilities in
court and the making of decisions, but also
other tasks relevant to the judicial office or
the court's operations.
! Administrative functions eg. File and
record-keeping, supervision of court
personnel
! Ex. Judge was disciplined for lost case
records and missing case exhibits.
SECTION 3. Judges shall take reasonable
steps to maintain and enhance their
knowledge, skills and personal qualities
necessary for the proper performance of
judicial duties, taking advantage for this
purpose of the training and other facilities
which should be made available, under
judicial control, to judges.
! Judges should keep abreast of law and
jurisprudence.
In deciding cases, it is the judge’s duty to follow
the doctrines and rulings of the Supreme Court.
Any deviation from this rule may have
detrimental consequences beyond the
immediate controversy. (Canon 18, CJE)
Thus, if he feels that a law or doctrine
enunciated by the SC is against his way of
reasoning or his conscience, he may state his
personal opinion on the matter but should
decide the case in accordance with the law or
doctrine and not with his personal views.
Judges should not allow their personal beliefs
and convictions prevail over settled
jurisprudence.
2006 case (JFF)
! Rendering decisions pursuant to the
directions of dwarves named Luis,
Armand and Angel
! Having healing session in his courtroom
! Writing decisions while in a trance
! Changing color of his robes to recharge
his psychic powers
However, judge is not disciplined for mere
error. To be liable, such error must constitute
gross ignorance of the law, bad faith,
dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive.
(DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY)
SECTION 4. Judges shall keep themselves
informed about relevant developments of
international law, including international
conventions and other instruments
establishing human rights norms.
 ! Generally accepted principles of
international law are part of the law of
the land.
SECTION 5. Judges shall perform all
judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and
with reasonable promptness.
! This includes the utilization of pre-trial
and discovery procedures.
! Period to render decisions: SC-24
months; lower collegiate courts -12
months; other lower courts – 3 months
Excuses for delay not given credence:
! Clogged dockets (judges should ask for
extension of time)
! Delay in the transcription of
stenographic notes
! Inefficiency or mismanagement of court
personnel
CHARACTER OF DECISIONS
! Should express clearly and distinctly the
facts and the laws on which they are
based.
! Rationale: to show full understanding of
the case, avoid suspicion, promote
confidence in the judge’s intellectual
integrity and contribute useful precedent
to the growth of the law.
SECTION 6. Judges shall maintain order
and decorum in all proceedings before the
court and be patient, dignified and
courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses,
lawyers and others with whom the judge
deals in an official capacity. Judges shall
require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others
subject to their influence, direction or
control.
! Judges should not resort to violent or
tempestuous means to maintain order in
the court. (e.g. wielding firearm,
compelling witness to swallow chewing
gum, shouting…)
! In the administration of his court, a judge
should insist on proper conduct and
performance of functions by his clerks,
staff and subordinate.
SECTION 7. Judges shall not engage in
conduct incompatible with the diligent
discharge of judicial duties.
Ex.
! Holding hearings only on Mondays-
Wednesdays, then going home the rest
of the week (Home: Paranaque; Court:
Balanga Bataan
! Having Wednesday declared as
“midweek pause” (no hearings for this
day)
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF JUDGES
Sec. 2, Art XI, Constitution
! Culpable violation of the constitution
! Treason
! Bribery
! Graft and Corruption
! Other high crimes
! Betrayal of public trust
VIA IMPEACHMENT
Sec. 8, R140. Serious Charges include:
1. Bribery, direct or indirect
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A.
No. 3019)
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations
of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
or order as determined by a competent
court in an appropriate proceeding;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt;
7. Borrowing money or property from
lawyers and litigants in a case pending
before the court;
8. Immorality
9. Gross ignorance of the law or
procedure;
 10. Partisan political activities; and
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
Bribery
! Judge caught in an entrapment
receiving bribe money DISMISSED.
Dishonesty
! False testimony by a judge in a judicial
proceeding
! False statement in an application to
judiciary that he has no pending case
! Concealment in Bio-Data form require
by JBC of his previous dismissal as
Assistant City Fiscal
Gross Misconduct
! The misconduct must be serious, that is,
weighty, momentous, and not trifling.
For serious misconduct to exist, there
must be reliable evidence showing that
the judicial acts complained of were
corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law, or were in persistent
disregard of well-known legal rules. (In
Re Horilleno, 43 Phil. 212)
Conviction of A Crime Involving Moral
Turpitude
! Conviction shows that the judge is unfit
to discharge his judicial functions, or that
he is no longer of good moral character.
Examples of Serious/Grave Misconduct:
! Misappropriation of cash bail bond
! Decision not personally prepared by the
judge
! Immorality
! Voyeurism
! Having a jeep in custodia legis
repainted, which was evidence in a
robbery case in his sala and changed its
color and made use of it for his personal
benefit
Gross Inefficiency:
! Unfamiliarity with procedure
! Lost records and exhibits
Gross Ignorance of the Law/ Procedure
! Issuing a warrant of arrest in a civil case
! Misapplication of the ISLAW
! Granting bail in non-bailable offense
! Looking for proof of malice in a
prosecution for offense which is malum
prohibitum
! Fixing a ridiculously small amount of bail
in a murder case which enabled
accused to escape
Sec., 9, R140. Less Serious charges
include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or
order, or in transmitting the records of a
case;
2. Frequent and unjustified absences
without leave or habitual tardiness;
3. Unauthorized practice of law
4. Violation of SC rules, directives and
circulars;
5. Receiving additional or double
compensation unless specially
authorized by law;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of
service; and
7. Simple misconduct.
Sec. 10, R140: Light Charges
1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct
2. Gambling in public
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants
with pending case/cases in his court;
and
4. Undue delay in the submission of
monthly reports
Section 11. Sanctions
For Serious Charges
1. Dismissal from service, forfeiture of all
or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any
public office, including government-
owned or controlled corporations,
provided, however, that the forfeiture of
benefits shall not include accrued leave
credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for more than 3 but
not exceeding 6 months; or
3. Fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00.
For Less Serious Charges:
1. Suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for not less than 1 nor
more than 3 months; or
2. Fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
exceeding P20,000.00.
For Light Charges:
1. Fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not
exceeding P10,000.00;
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonition with warning.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCEEDINGS
Sec.12, R140. Proceedings shall be
confidential but a copy of the decision or
resolution by the Court shall be attached to
the record of the respondent in the Office of
the Court Administrator.
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
In the absence of gross ignorance of the law,
fraud, dishonesty and corruption, the acts of a
judge in his official capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to
liability- civil, criminal or administrative- for any
of his official acts, no matter how erroneous as
long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial
errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross
ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do
an injustice will be administratively sanctioned.
Settled is the rule that errors committed by a
judge in the exercise of his adjudicative
functions cannot be corrected through
administrative proceedings, but should instead
be assailed through judicial remedies.
QUANTUM OF PROOF / BURDEN OF
PROOF
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of
proof required to establish a respondent’s
malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable
doubt but substantial evidence, i.e., that
amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion is required. More importantly, in
administrative proceedings, the complainant
has the burden of proving by substantial
evidence to the contrary, the presumption that
the respondent has regularly performed his
duties will prevail. Indeed, if a respondent
judge or a court employee should be
disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence
against him should be competent and derived
from direct knowledge. Charges based on
mere suspicion and speculation cannot be
given credence.” (Planas vs. Judge Reyes,
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1905, February 23, 2005)
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the
Court may impose its authority upon erring
judges whose actuations, on their face, would
show gross incompetence, ignorance of the
law or misconduct. (Macalintal vs Judge Teh)
SC ADM. CIRCULAR NO. 1, JAN 28, 1988
All judges are reminded that the Supreme
Court has applied the "Res Ipsa Loquitur" rule
in the removal of judges even without any
formal investigation whenever a decision, on its
face, indicates gross incompetence or gross
ignorance of the law or gross misconduct. (See
People vs. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712; Cathay
Pacific Airways vs. Romillo, Jr., 142 SCRA
262; In re Laureta, 149 SCRA 570).
EFFECT OF DISBARMENT
On MTC, RTC, Sandiganbayan, CTA, CA
Justices – removed from the judiciary;
membership in the bar is an essential
qualification
On SC Justices – cannot be removed via
disbarment proceedings. A contrary rule would
allow an indirect violation of the Constitutional
provision that SC Justices are removable only
by impeachment.
AM NO 02-9-02, 1 OCT 2002
AUTOMATIC CONVERSION
Some administrative cases are based on
grounds which are likewise grounds for the
disciplinary action of members of the Bar for
violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of
Professional Responsibility; and the Canons of
Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of
breaches of conduct that have been
traditionally recognized as grounds for the
discipline of lawyers
In any of the foregoing instances, the
administrative case shall also be considered a
disciplinary action against the respondent
justice, judge or court official concerned as a
member of the Bar. The respondent may
forthwith be required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he should not
also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise
disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the
Bar. Judgment in both respects may be
incorporated in one decision or resolution.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES
! Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
! Judgment rendered through negligence
! Knowingly rendering an unjust
interlocutory order or decree
! Maliciously delay in the administration of
justice
DISABILITIES OF JUDGES
ART. 1491, NCC – properties and rights
pending litigation
ART. 739, NCC – donations to judge, spouse,
descendants, ascendants, by reason of his
office
EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL BY COMPLAINT
To condition administrative actions upon the
will of every complainant, who may, for one
reason or another, condone a detestable act, is
to strip the Supreme Court of its supervisory
power to discipline erring members of the
judiciary.
EFFECT OF DEATH OF COMPLAINANT
Jurisprudence holds that the death of the
complainant does not warrant the withdrawal of
the charges against the respondent nor does
this development render the complaint moot;
the complainant is treated only as a witness in
this type of proceedings. (Mercado vs.
Salcedo, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1781, Oct. 16,
2009)
EFFECT OF SEPARATION OR RETIREMENT
OF RESPONDENT JUDGE
The subsequent retirement of a judge or any
judicial officer from the service does not
preclude the finding of any administrative
liability to which he is answerable.
A case becomes moot and academic only
when there is no more actual controversy
between the parties or no useful purpose can
be served in passing upon the merits of the
case. The instant case is not moot and
academic, despite Justice Reyes’s retirement.
Even if the most severe of administrative
sanctions may no longer be imposed, there are
other penalties which may be imposed if one is
later found guilty of the administrative offenses
charged, including the disqualification to hold
any government office and the forfeiture of
benefits. (“IN RE: UNDATED LETTER OF MR.
LOUIS C. BIRAOGO, etc., En Banc, A.M. No.
09-2-19-SC, February 24, 2009
The Court retains jurisdiction either to
pronounce a respondent official innocent of the
charges or declare him/her guilty thereof. A
contrary rule would be fraught with injustice
and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous
implications. For, what remedy would the
people have against a civil servant who resorts
to wrongful and illegal conduct during his/her
last days in office? What would prevent a
corrupt and unscrupulous government
employee from committing abuses and other
condemnable acts knowing fully well that
he/she would soon be beyond the pale of the
law and immune from all administrative
penalties?
If only for reasons of public policy, this Court
must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over
members of the judiciary and other officials
under its supervision and control for acts
performed in office which are inimical to the
service and prejudicial to the interests of
litigants and the general public. If innocent, a
respondent official merits vindication of his/her
name and integrity as he leaves the
government which he/she served well and
faithfully; if guilty, he/she deserves to receive
the corresponding censure and a penalty
proper and imposable under the situation.

EFFECT OF DEATH OF RESPONDENT

JUDGE

Death of the respondent in an administrative

case, as a rule, does not preclude a finding of
administrative liability. The recognized
exceptions to this rule are: first, when the
respondent has not been heard and
continuation of the proceedings would deny
him of his right to due process; second, where
exceptional circumstances exist in the case
leading to equitable and humanitarian
considerations; and third, when the kind of
penalty imposed or imposable would render the
proceedings useless. (Mercado vs. Salcedo,
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1781, Oct. 16, 2009)

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
! Complained acts were committed prior
to admission to the judiciary
! Failing health
! Old age
! Lack of stenographer
! First offense
! Long and exemplary service
! Acknowledgment of fault
! Apology.