Legal ethics report

CANON 1, SECTION 4
-SLIDE 1 (intro page)-
Good evening. I will now be discussing Section 4 of Canon 1 of the Judicial Conduct for Philippine
Judiciary.
-SLIDE 2 (section 4)-
Section 4 states that...
Judges shall not allow faily! social or other relationships to influence "udicial conduct or "udgent.
#he prestige of "udicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others! nor
convey or perit others to convey the ipression that they are in a special position to influence the
"udge.
So! what is the rationale behind Section 4$
-SLIDE 3 (purposes)-
%irstly! this provision is intended to ensure that "udges are spared fro potential influence of faily
ebers by dis&ualifying the even before any opportunity for ipropriety presents itself. #his
Section gives instruction to "udges not to allow their faily ebers! friends and associates to
influence the in their "udicial conduct or "udgent. 'lso iportantly! a "udge should ensure that his
faily ebers! friends and associates refrain fro creating the ipression that they are in a position
to influence the "udge. Judges should! therefore! at all ties reind theselves that they are not in the
"udiciary to give out favors but to dispense "ustice. #hey should also a(e it clear to the ebers of
their faily! friends and associates that they will neither be influenced by anyone! nor would they allow
anyone to interfere in their "udicial wor(. Secondly! this section ais to prevent the underining of
public confidence not "ust in hi or herself! but in the entire "udicial institution.
)owever! an individual certainly does not divest hiself of these relationships "ust because he has
"oined the "udiciary. *hile "udges ay continue to value these relationships! they ust be aware that
relatives! friends and associates ay try to influence the in the perforance of their "udicial duties.
Judges ust always guard against the probability that these people can be potential influence peddlers!
trying to sell to others whatever perceived influence or closeness to a "udge they ay clai to have.
'lso. it should also be noted that when a "udge is related to one of the parties within the si+th degree of
consanguinity or affinity! his dis&ualification is andatory. So let us discuss the scope of the ter
,faily- under the .ew Code of Judicial Conduct...
-SLIDE 4 (u!ge "a#i$%)-
/nder the .ew Code of Judicial Conduct! the ter ,faily- is e+tended beyond that of nuclear
ebers to include those related by blood or arriage up to the si+th civil degree! as well as those who
belong to the "udge0s eploy and are living in his household. #hese failial ties ay not influence a
"udge in his or her discharge of "udicial duties. #hese are1
1.2 Spouse
3.2 Son
4.2 daughter
4.2 son5in5law
6.2 daughter5in5law
7.2 any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the si+th civil deg
8.2 Person who is a copanion or eployee of "udge
9.2 #hose who live in the "udge:s household
In %ilipino culture! riendships are held in high regard and ost often are raised to the level of failial
relationships. #o a degree lesser only to that of the faily! %ilipinos develop close relationships with
their associates in business! fraternity brothers or sorority sisters! or fellow ebers of any civil!
religious or even political organi;ation. %ilipinos highly value sooth interpersonal
relations!coonly called pa(i(isaa. %or e+aple! when one a(es a re&uest to a friend or close
associate! the latter usually grants it even though he would have refused that sae re&uest if ade by
one who is neither a friend nor associate. )owever! despite all this! the aintenance of friendships and
the pursuit of pa(i(isaa does not "ustify using "udicial power to grant favors.

In application...
'n e+aple of an adinistrative case involving a violation of the said section is that of <elen vs. Judge
<elen. ='.>. .o. ?#J5@95314AB 'ug. A! 3@1@2
-SLIDE & ('acts, issue)-
#he facts of the case are as follows1
'acts( ?espondent "udge wrote letters to governent authorities and eployees to secure public
inforation regarding coplainant0s piggery and poultry businessB to infor addressees of the laws
allegedly being violated by coplainantB and to reind the addressees of their duties as governent
officials or eployees and warn the of the possible legal effects of neglect of public duties. In writing
these letters! respondent "udge0s use of his personal stationery with letterhead indicating that he was the
Presiding Judge of that respondent "udge was trying to use the prestige of his office to influence said
governent officials and eployees! and to achieve with propt and ease the purpose for which those
letters were written. ?#C of Calaba City! <ranch 47! and stating that the letter was ,fro ChisD
chabers!- clearly anifests In other words! respondent "udge used said letterhead to proote his
personal interest.
So the issue was...
Issue( *hether or not respondent "udge was guilty of violating Canon 1 Sec. 4 and Canon 4 Sec. 1 of
Judicial Conduct for Philippine Judiciary.
-SLIDE ) (*e$!)-
It was held that...
*e$!( the respondent Judge crossed the line of propriety when he used his letterhead to report a
coplaint involving an alleged violation of church rules and! possibly! of Philippine laws. Coing
fro a "udge with the letter addressed to a foreign reader! such report could indeed have conveyed the
ipression of official recognition or notice of the reported violation.
#he sae proble that the use of letterhead poses! occurs in the use of the title of ,Judge- or ,Justice-
in the correspondence of a eber of the Judiciary. *hile the use of the title is an official designation
as well as an honor that an incubent has earned! a line still has to be drawn based on the
circustances of the use of the appellation. *hile the title can be used for social and other
identification purposes! it cannot be used with the intent to use the prestige of his "udicial office to
gainfully advance his personal! faily or other pecuniary interests. .or can the prestige of a "udicial
office be used or lent to advance the private interests of others! or to convey or perit others to convey
the ipression that they are in a special position to influence the "udge. ?espondent "udge was
punished with a fine of P11!@@@! and a stern warning that a repetition of the sae or siilar act shall be
dealt with ore severely.
#his concludes y report on Section 4 of Canon 1.
#han( you for listening.