CODE OF

JUDICIAL
CONDUCT
(Preliminaries, Setions 1 & 2)

By:
GROUP 1
ABIAN, Kevin Joire
APASAN, Rae Abby
BOBADILLA, Katrina Isabella
MATEO, Megan Mary
PASINOS, Ira
REYES, John Harold
TAN, Maria Katrina
1A

Submitted To:

Fiscal Noemi Macababad

Judicial Ethics Preliminaries

Judicial Ethics
Branch of moral science which treats of the right and proper conduct
and behavior to be observed by all judges and magistrates in trying and
deciding controversies brought before them. Such behavior must be
demonstrative of independence, integrity, impartiality, equality, propriety,
competence and diligence.

Importance of Judicial Ethics

The Supreme Court has consistently stressed the importance of
maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral
authority and integrity of the judiciary. Judicial Ethics prevents anarchy and
tyranny for it is both legal and moral mechanism that keeps and maintains
the trust and confidence of the people in the judicial system and ultimately
keeps the peace and order in the community.

The relations of judge and lawyer should be founded on mutual respect and
on a deep appreciation by one of the duties of the other (Romero vs. Valle,
147 SCRA 197)

Qualifications of Justices and Judges

1. Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals shall
have the same qualifications as those provided in the constitution, for
Justices of the Supreme Court.
2. RTC Judges shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, at least 35
years of age and for at least ten years, has been engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines or has held public office in the
Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an
indispensable requisite.
3. MTC Judges shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, at least 30
years of age and for at least five years, has been engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines or has held public office in the

Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an

indispensable requisite.

The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary consists of it
consists of six canons to wit: Independence, integrity, impartiality, propriety,
equality, and competence and diligence.

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

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

The judge shall not be swayed by the pressure of public opinion.

A judge who gives in to pressures loses his independence.

A judge renders himself unworthy whenever he gives in to pressures from

whatever sector because he cannot stand for the justice and the law. He is
expected to be fearless in his pursuit to render justice. He shall be unafraid
to displease any person, interest or power and shall equipped with a strong
moral character. He shall provide an independent assessment of the facts
and how the law applies to those facts.
Under Rule 1.03 of Code of Judicial Conduct, the judge should be vigilant
against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and resist
pressure from whatever source.
A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial decision
but should do so in a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his
fairness, impartiality and integrity.
Illustrative Case:
Roan I. Libarios vs Judge Rosarito D. Dabalos

199 SCRA 48, July 11, 1991

Facts:
An administrative complaint was filed by Roan I Librios for and on
behalf of his client, Corvera, Jr. against respondent Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos,
for grave ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, gross misconduct
and partiality, relative to the issuance of a warrant of arrest of the
respondent judge against the accused Tranquilino Calo Jr. and Belarmino
Alloco for the crime of murder and fixing their bail without conducting any
prior hearing after Corvera, jr and his counsel together with their
sympathizers staged a rally demanding the immediate arrest of the accused
and when they personally went to see the respondent judge in his chamber
to reiterate their demand.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos violated the New Code of
Judicial Conduct.
Held:
Yes. In every case, a judge should endeavour diligently to ascertain the
facts and the applicable law unswayed by personal interests, public opinion
or fear of criticism. The Respondent judge should not have allowed himself to
be swayed into issuing an order fixing bail for the temporary release of the
accused charged with murder, without a hearing, which is contrary to
established principles of law. A judge owes it to the public and the
administration of justice to know the law he is supposed to apply to a given
controversy.

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.

Lawyers are expected to lawfully influence judges by their pleadings

and arguments but for judges themselves, they must not interfere or
intervene in the works of their fellow judges. However, this rule will not apply
in collegiate courts where there is group deliberations in which the Chairman
and members have to state their individual positions on the issues which
may sway others.
In Court of Appeals where justices work in Divisions, there must be
uniformity in their decisions. Otherwise, two justices from other Divisions will
be designated to form a Division of five justives. In which, majority rule will

be followed. An individual justice in a Division may be liable alone for a

miscounduct in relation to a collegiate act.
In the performance of their duties, judges must be freed and liberated
from the influences of their own colleagues in respect of the decisions they
are rendering.
Illustrative Case:
Hadjirul Tahil vs. Atty. Carlito A. Esima , Municipal Judge of Parang,
Sulu
A.M. No. 276-MJ, June 27, 1975
Facts:
The respondent is charged by complainant with dishonesty in not
reporting regularly to his office, contrary to the recitals of his daily time
record. On the other hand, the respondent declared that the complaint on
the alleged falsification of his daily time and record was filed out of hatred,
anger, and revenge. This is occasioned by the fact, when complainant
brought the bail bond of his nephew before the Court of respondent, for
approval of the latter but 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
the charge of illegal possession of firearms. On this score, complainant has
all the reasons to be angry at respondent taking into consideration their
previous friendship, and now respondent has failed to accommodate him as
hereinabove described. It appears, however, that in the aforementioned
criminal case 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: Whether or not the judge is liable for his admission to granting bail
upon request of a congressman.
Held:
Yes. The discretion of the Court to grant bail must be based on the
Courts determination as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.
This discretion may be exercised only after the evidence has been submitted
at the summary hearing conducted pursuant to Sec. 7 of Rule 114 of the
Rules. Respondents admission that he granted bail to an accused upon the

request of a Congressman, despite his belief that the evidence of guilt

against said is strong, is indeed reprehensible.

Section 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the

outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court of
administrative agency.

A judge shall not influence the outcome of a litigation pending in another

court or administrative agency.
Judge shall not interfere in the works of judges of co-equal jurisdiction. Much
less, can an inferior court interfere with the mandate of the Supreme Court.
It cannot examine it except for purposes of execution.
A becoming modesty of inferior courts demands realization of the position
that they occupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial
system of the nation.
However, a judge may revoke the orders of another judge in a litigation
subsequently assigned to him.
A Judge shall not demean other judges. A judge should not boast
that he is personally writing, editing, finalizing his decision for
promulgation, implying that others do not do so personally.
Judges should respect orders, resolutions and decisions of higher courts.
Undue interference by judges during presentation of evidence must
be avoided
A judge may properly intervene to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste
of time. He may intervene propound, clarificatory questions but should limit
himself only to clarificatory questions and not ask searching questions after
the witness had given direct testimony.
Clarificatory Questions allowed for a full and clear understanding of
the facts.
What constitutes undue interference by a judge in the presentation
of evidence.:
Based on the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, there will be undue
interference if the judge will extensively propound questions to the
witnesses, which will have the effect of or will tend to build or bolster the
case for one of the parties. Such intervention will betray the personal interest
and partiality of the judge.
There is undue interference when court assumes the dual role of
magistrate and advocate.

The pounding of questions to witnesses to build a case for a party is undue

interference. The requirement in due process that a litigant is entitled to no
less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge is denied when there is
such undue interference.
Reason for the Rule against Undue Influence.
A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial. If he
propounds the witnesses for some purposes other than clarification of some
obscure points, or to promote justice or to prevent waste of time he will
come out biased against or partial in favour of a party. Actualization of
judges must always be beyond suspicion.
Judge should not interrupt counsel in their arguments; Exception:
A judge should avoid interruptions of counsel in their arguments except to
clarify his mind as to their positions, and he should not be tempted to an
unnecessary display of learning or a premature judgment.

Test to determine the propriety or impropriety of the judges

questions to witnesses during trial.
Jurisprudence teaches that allegations of bias on the part of the trial court
should receive with caution, especially when the queries by the judge did not
prejudice the accused. The propriety of a judges queries is determined not
necessarily by their quantity but by their quality and, in any event, by the
test of whether the defendant was prejudiced by such questioning.
Judge should not compel accused to personally cross-examine
witnesses against him.
It is improper for a judge to compel an accused whose lawyer is absent and
who admits he is not skilled to handle his own trial to cross-examine the
prosecution witnesses.

Illustrative Case:
Marces Sr. Vs. Arcangel
Facts:
An Executive Judge was requested by a party involved in a barangay case to
attend a barangay conciliation proceedings where he introduced himself as
the Executive Judge of the area, which act is an obvious demonstration of
support for said party.

Issue:
Whether or not the judge committed improper conducted.
Held:
The actuations of the judge are improper and censurable. A judge should
refrain from interfering in any manner in the outcome of a litigation before
any court or another administrative agency.

Section 4. Judges shall not allow family, social or other

relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The
prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interests or others. Nor convey or permit other to convey
the impression that they are in a special position to influence the
judge.

A judge must insulate himself from extraneous influences in the

performance of his duties.
A Judge like any other human being, lives in a continuous interpersonal
relationships in the family, in the Church in the community and other
groupings. Whatever is the binding thread of the relationship, he should not
allow it to influence his judicial conduct and performance of duties. He should
insulate himself from these influences so that he disposes cases solely on
the basis of the evidence and the law.
Judge shall not use his chambers as family residence.
A judge shall not use his chambers as his familys residence even with the
Governors permission.
Judge shall not lend the prestige of his office to others.
Judge shall not permit any person to convey the impression that the
latter has special influence over him.
A judge shall be reserved enough not to boast to others that so and so is a
special person to him and followed by utterances such as malakas sa akin
iyan. ano ko yan and the like.
Illustrative case:
Mercado vs. Security Bank
Facts:

Petitioner Jose Teofilo Mercado writes Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide assailing
the latter of his partiality by alleging htath he pressured the Justice Angelina
Sandoval-Gutierrez, the ponente handling the petitioners case, to favor his
adversary Security Bank Corporation. He alleged that this information was
transmitted to him by his counsel, Atty. Jose P. Villanueva, who he claims is a
close friend of the ponente. Petitioner further alleged that an irregulatiry or
bribery attended the denial of his petition for review by insinuating that the
traels of Atty. Villanueva and the ponente abroad were financed by
respondent bank.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Jose P. Villanueva is guilty of contempt of court by
committing a breach of Professional Responsibility due to reasons claimed by
petitioner.
Held:
Yes, Atty. Jose P. Villanueva is guilty of indirect contempt of court. Rule 15.06
of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that A lawyer shall not
state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or
legislative body. Further, Rule 15.07 provides that : a lawyer must impress
upon his client compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Atty.
Villanueva took the forbidden course. In informing Mercado that he was a
very good, close, and long time friend: of the ponente, Atty. Villanueva
impressed upon the former that he can obtain a favourable disposition of his
case. However, when his petition was dismissed twice, Mercados
expectation crumbled. This prompted him to hurl unfounded, malicious, and
disrespectful accusations against Chief Justice Davide and the petitioner.

Sec. 5 Judges shall not only be free from appropriate connections

with and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a
reasonable observer.
Reason: To protect the independence and separation of the judiciary form
the two other branches of the government. (Bagatsing vs Herrera, GR L34952)
Freedom from institutional influences

- The judges must be vigilant in guarding their independences against

corroding influences emanating from the other branch of the government

- They must not fraternize with officials which will tend to create the negative
impression that in the near future there will be some mutual reciprocations
for the accommodations or favors extended to one another. (Pineda, Judicial
Ethics)
Judges must be Fearless and Unafraid to Displease Any Person
-

Even accepting from the nonce, that there was this supposed pressure
from a source twice removed from national official earlier, her confessed
act of succumbing to this pressure on the telephone is a patent betrayal
of the public trust reposed on respondent as an arbiter of the law and a
revelation of her weak moral character. (Ramirez vs Corpus-Macandog,
144 SCRA 462)
Existing balance of power shall not Influence Judges

In the Philippine governmental set-up there is a balancing of power. Thus,

the President who is from the Executive appoints and promotes justices,
judges and the other officials in the Judicial Department; Congress is the
one in charge of the organization of courts and approves their salaries and
benefits.

In judicial ethics, there is no debt of gratitude to pay at the expense of

truth and justice and at the peril of the judges' independence. The guide
of the judges is always and only the law lighted by their conscience.

To elude appearances of impropriety, judges should avoid making

improper connections and resist offers of financial or other kind of
assistance from public officials.

Judges should avoid making improper connections and resist offers of

financial and other kind of assistance from public officials, governors and
mayors, and similar others who would be inclined to exert efforts to
befriend them for corrupt motives and anticipated possible reciprocation
in the future. (Pineda, Judicial Ethics)

Illustrative Case:

Facts:

Alfonso vs Alonzo-Legasto
A.M. No. MTJ 94-995. September 5, 2002.|||

Complainants Alonso, et al were employees of the City Government of

Quezon City which were appointed by various city mayors at different times

under separate appointment papers and received salaries and other benefits
from the city government. On August 16, 1993, respondent Judge wrote to
Mayor Mathay returning all but one of all the 41 members to Quezon City
Government allegedly to utilize maximum potentials and resources of
National and City paid employees and the letter returning based on the
alleged plan to reorganize the OCC-METC; which dated back at the time of
Guillermo Loja. The transfer was, however, formally initiated sometime in
June or July through an assessment undertaken by then Vice Mayor Charito
Planas and on August 17, 1993, Mayor Mathay issued Office Order No. 47
reassigning the forty-three City Government Employees including herein
petitioners to different offices of the Quezon City Government.
Issue: WON Judge Alonzo-Legasto violated Section 5 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct
Held:
Yes. Judge Alonzo Legasto violated the Code of Judicial Conduct which
states that Judges shall not only be free from appropriate connections with
and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but
must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.
In this case, Judge Alonzo-Legasto violated the rules and regulations
governing the detail, reassignment or transfer of court employees as she
exceeded her authority under sec. IV of Administrative Order No. 6 which is
limited to the temporary assignments of three months extendible only once
for the same period. Furthermore, it was Judge Legastos duty to apprise the
Office of Court Administrator of the personnel requirements and the alleged
need to streamline the staffing pattern before informing the local
government of its employees and instead refer the matter personally to the
Office of the Vice Mayor Charito Planas for evaluation and assessment.
Judge Legasto cannot hind behind the authorization issued by Mayor
Mathay for the transfer of the 41 court employees to give an impression of
legality to her action. While it is proper to consult the responsible employees
without transgressing the authority of the Office of the administrator, she
undoubtedly had the correlative duty to promote the proper discharge of the
courts mandate to improve the judicial services and facilitate the
dispensation of justice by keeping the court duly informed of the plan to
reduce the courts personnel. Needless to stress, it is absolutely essential to
the proper administration of justice that courts have full control over the
official actions of those through whom the administration of the affairs of the

court proceeds. As keenly observed by Chief Justice Fernando in Bagatsing

vs. Herrera, "[f]or judicial independence to be a reality, the least
interference by or influence from other governmental departments is of the
essence." |
Sec. 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.
Individual or personal independence
-

Judges must maintain their individual independence or their public

reputation that they are not approachable when it comes to cases they
are adjudging.

They must exhibit reasonable aloofness from the members of the

community, particularly persons with pending or impending controversies
in their courts.

Does not necessarily mean that the judges should live in retirement or
seclusion or comparably like hermits. They may still commingle with the
society provided that they do not compromise their independence.

They may also join civil, religious and professional organizations as long
as their membership does not interfere with their judicial tasks.

SEC. 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.

Judicial safeguards
o Judges must always be wary and cautious that outside forces
shall not be permitted to derail or undermine the independence
of the judiciary
o Judges are expected to stand up and defend the integrity of the
courts whenever attacked are hurled without justification
o Judges must be heedful, circumspect and cautious against
sporadic or systematic attempts to undermine the judiciary
o A weak judiciary will give rise to week country

SEC. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial

conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary,
which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

High standards of judicial conduct:

o It is mandated of a judge because he is the embodiment of
competence, integrity and interdependence
o Case :Antonio Rosete et al Vs, SEC et a
Where after the investigation ordered by the supreme
court , Justice of Court of Appeals was dismissed, one
suspended and others admonished and reprimanded. The
scandalous incident involving alleged attempt bribery,
unusual interest with chairmanship of division of the CA
It causes shame and humiliation not only to the CA but also
to the entire judicial system

Characteristic of a Good Judge:

o Case: Borromeo vs Mariano
who have a mastery of the principles of the law, who
discharge their duties in accordance with the law, who are
permitted to perform the duties of the office undeterred by
outside influence and who are independent and self
respecting human units in judicial system equal and
coordinate to the other departments of government.

A judge is the visible representation of the law: nature of a judges

position demands equanimity, prudence, fortitude and courage.

Justices and Judges shall not blindly obey the orders eve the highest
offices of the land.

CANON II. Integrity

INTEGRITY IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF
THE JUDICIAL OFFICE, BUT ALSO TO THE PERSONAL DEMEANOR OF
JUDGES.
Integrity
A steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. A moral
uprightness; honesty and honorableness combined (American Heritage
Dictionary, 4th Edition)
A person having an integrity in himself, is more than a person
competent enough for the job.
Pursuant to Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judges are
mandated to avoid not only impropriety in their acts but even the mere
appearance of impropriety by all means.
Integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, for it is a necessity in the
Judiciary, since Judges must be Exemplars in the community, models of
uprightness, fairness and honesty not only in their official functions, but also
in his personal actuations.
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.
Conduct of Judges Must Be Above Reproach
A judge, in the performance of his Judicial duties should be free from
appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach, so as his behavior
in his personal life.
Illustrative Case:
Lucila Tan vs. Judge Maxwell Rosete
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563
September 8, 2004
FACTS:
Complainant filed the isntatn complaint against Respondent Judge for
violation of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court nad Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019). Complainant claims that the respondent

through his staff, required her to pay the amount of Php 150,000 for him to
render judgment in her favor in the two criminal cases she filed. Respondent
judge, on the other hand, asserts that it was complainant who attempted to
bribe him by offering to pay for the down payment of the car he was
planning to but, and she even sought the intervention of San Juan Mayor
Jinggoy Estrada to persuade him to rule for the complainant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts committed by the Respondent violate the
standards of judicial conduct?
HELD: Respondent Judge is suspended for 4 months.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Court ruled that respondents act of sending one of his staff to
communicate with the complainant and show copies of the draft decisions,
and his act of meeting with his litigants outside his office beyond office hours
are in contravention of the standard of Judicial Conduct. That the version of
the complainant is far more credible since she cannot acquire a copy of the
draft of the decision if it was not given by the courts personnel.
Judges shall adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct. They must
be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence. Must not
only be pure, but also above suspicion, for the strengthening of public
confidence to their office, of the latter not only being founded in highest
standard of legal knowledge and diligence, but also of high moral integrity by
all means.
ATTY. ARTURO A. ROMERO vs.HON. JUDGE GABRIEL O. VALLE, JR.
A.M. No. R-192-RTJ
January 9, 1987
FACTS:
Complainant is one of the two counsels for plaintiff in Civil Case No.
6821 entitled "Iglesia Filipina Independiente versus Rafael Albano, et. al.," for
"Quieting of Title with Preliminary Injunction," pending before the Regional
Trial Court of Ilocos Norte-Laoag City, branch XII, presided by Respondent
Judge.
During the trial of said case on November 19, 1984, complainant
requested that an inventory book of plaintiff be marked as Exhibit F.

Respondent Judge interrupted the complainant with a remark that the said
inventory book should be marked Exh. G since there is already an Exh. F of
the plaintiff which was marked during the last hearing of the case when
complainant was absent. The fact that there was already an Exh. F for the
plaintiff was confirmed by the manifestation of Atty. Rafael Ruiz, counsel for
the defendant after verifying his notes as requested by respondent judge.
Nevertheless, the complainant in a loud voice insisted that his proposed
marking of the Exhibit is the correct one as the Exhibit F referred to by
respondent judge and Atty. Ruiz was not initialed by the Clerk of Court. This
remark of complainant irritated the respondent judge who retorted that
complainant is not prepared for trial and admonished the latter to be
prepared with his trial brief before coming to court so that he will not bangle
(sic) the marking of his exhibit. As the complainant continued insisting in a
loud voice that his proposed marking of the inventory book as Exhibit F is
correct, despite the fact that respondent judge had admonished him
[complainant] not to bring his "passion" to the court and if complainant does
not respect the Judge, he should respect the court, the respondent banged
his gavel left the rostrum and went to his chamber.
According to the complainant and his witness, [Atty. Andres Tunac, cocounsel of complainant in the case], the respondent, before leaving the
rostrum made this remark to complainant "You step out. We finish the
matter." Respondent denied having made the challenge to complainant and
alleged that what he said or declared before leaving the rostrum was "five
minutes recess." This call for a recess by respondent is confirmed and/or
corroborated by Atty. Rafael Ruiz, defendant's counsel in the case on trial and
respondent's witness in this investigation. From his chamber, respondent
judge went to the stairs passing the corridor holding his coat with his left
hand while on his right hand he was holding a hand gun [revolver] which was
inside its holster. As respondent walked on the corridor towards the stairs, he
looked at the courtroom where the lawyers were. Upon reaching the stairs,
respondent was informed by his clerk that there are still cases in the
calendar ready for trial. Respondent returned to his chamber and placed his
gun inside his table. Later, respondent came out to resume his court session.
At the resumption of the trial, the complainant stood up and asked the
respondent to inhibit himself from hearing the case. The respondent required
the complainant to put his request in writing and dictated an order resetting
the case to another date. The case [Civil Case No. 6821], is now transferred
to another judge who presides over Branch XIII.

Respondent claims that he is authorized to carry his licensed pistol

outside of his residence as evidenced by the Certification issued by the
Provincial Commander of Ilocos Norte [Exh. 7] and that he had been carrying
the said gun from his house to office and back ever since he received a letter
threat dated March 22, 1984 [Exh. 1 ] from the NPA.
According to Atty. Leandro Rafales [complainant's own witness] and
who appears with [sic] the most impartial among the witnesses, the
respondent stood up, bang [sic] his gavel and left the rostrum because the
complainant did not stop making remarks and insisted in a loud voice in
marking the inventory book as Exhibit F despite the fact that it has been
established that there was already an Exhibit F of the plaintiff and that
before banging the gavel respondent judge told the complainant not to bring
his passion to court and if complainant does not respect the Judge, he should
respect the court. Atty. Rafales also testified that respondent judge did not
remove his coat when he left the rostrum and while respondent was holding
his gun which was inside its holster with his right hand when he came out of
his chamber on his way towards the stairs, the gun was not pointed at
anyone, although the respondent turned his face towards the people inside
the courtroom as he walked towards the stairs.
As regards the charge that respondent challenged the complainant to
step out and we settle the matter the evidence is inconclusive. While the
complainant and his co-counsel, Atty. Tunac testified that the respondent
Judge uttered those statements, the latter and Atty. Rafael Ruiz [defendant's
counsel and witness for respondent] denied that such statement was made
by respondent. Both respondent and Atty. Ruiz allege that what respondent
said or declared before leaving the rostrum was "five minute recess." On the
other hand, Atty. Rafales testified that what he heard from respondent-judge
was "step out" only. The transcript of the proceedings that took place before
respondent judge on that fateful day had not been presented as evidenced
[sic] by the parties at this investigation. In view of this conflicting testimony
of the witnesses, the undersigned cannot conclude that respondent judge
challenged the complainant as alleged in the complaint
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Judge acted in contravention with the
duties and restriction imposed upon him by reason of his office.
HELD: Yes, respondent judge was dismissed from office
RATIO DECIDENDI:

Even if both parties are in pari delicto, the respondent judge on his part
exhibited shortness of temper and impatience, contrary to the duties and
restrictions imposed upon him by reason of his office. Respondent judge
appears to have a valid explanation for gun, but such explanation cannot be
taken as carrying a satisfactory. For his having chosen to carry the same in
plain view of the complainant and other lawyers inside the courtroom when
he came out of his chambers on his way to the stairs. Taken in the light of
what had just transpired, the actuation of respondent judge was not an
innocent gesture, but one calculated to instill fear in or intimidate
complainant. We cannot let this pass unnoticed. Respondent judge's behavior
constitutes grave misconduct. It is a serious violation of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics which require that a "judge's official conduct should be free
from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only
upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his
every day life, should be beyond reproach."

Section 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the

peoples faith in the integrity of the Judiciary. Justice must not
merely be done, but must also be seen to be done.

Behavior of Judges should be free from appearance of Impropriety

-

A judges official conduct and behavior in the performance of

judicial duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety
and must be beyond reproach, even in his personal behavior and in
his everyday life.

Examples of Impropriety:
1. In-chambers sessions without the presence of the other party
and his counsel
2. Judge making the courtroom as a gambling place
3. Judge who practice law
4. Habitual tardiness
5. Slapping of court personnel
6. Non-payment of just debt

A judge must pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon him, for his
private as well as hos official conduct must at all times be free from the
appearance of impropriety

A judge should avoid even the slightest infraction of the law

-

It has been stressed by the Court time and again that members of
the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but also
must at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to be
beyond reproach and suspicion.

The judge is the visible representation of the law and more

importantly of justice. From him, the people draw their will and
awareness to obey the law. They see in him an intermediary of
justice between 2 conflicting interests

For the judge to maintain that regard, he should be studiously

careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law

Moral integrity is an indispensable virtue for all judges

A judge should not only possess proficiency in law but should
likewise possess moral integrity, for the people look up to him as
virtuous and upright man
A judge must be like Caesars wife
-

The 4 INS that judges must personify

-

Because appearance is as important as reality in the performance of

judicial functions, like Caesars wife, a judge must not only be pure
but beyond suspicion. He has duty not only to render a just and
impartial decision, but also render it in as to its fairness and
impartiality, as well as to the judges integrity.

Integrity
Independence
Industry
Intelligence

Success of democracy depends on the faith of the people in the

judiciary as the impartial dispenser of justice

- That faith will grow or dwindle accordingly as the judges are honest
or corrupt

Stability of courts rests upon the approval of the people

-

The endeavor to purify the bench as much as the court is able, that
the misdeeds of a relatively few may not taint the name of all (OCA
vs Judge Hermoso 150 SCRA 278)

It is peculiarly essential that the public shall have absolute

confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the administration of
the courts. That is why it is important that the system for
establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high point of
efficiency and sustained. The future of the Republic to a great
extent depends upon the maintenance of justice pure and unsullied.
(Preamble, Canons of Professional Ethics)

Behavior should inspire confidence in the judges impartiality

-

While judges should possess proficiency in law in order that they

can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important
that they should act and behave in such a manner that the parties
before them should have confidence in their impartiality

Examples:
1. The hitching of a ride by the judge in the car of a party-litigant
in going to and from the place of the ocular inspection. By
riding in the car of the party-litigant, he exposed himself to
suspicion, thus impairing the trust and confidence of the
people in the administration of justice. A judge should be
temperate, patient and impartial, having always in mind that
every litigant is entitled to nothing short of the cold
neutrality of an independent, wholly-free, disinterested and
impartial tribunal

Good behavior dictates that a judge must at all times be temperate in

his language
-

Choice of words should be kept within the judicial decorum which is

required from a magistrate of law at all times

A judge must avoid resorting to intemperate language and must

refrain from language of vilification because it detracts from the
respect due to a member of the judiciary

Examples:
1. Referring to a petitioner as reckless and stupid, selfanointed tyrant, and assume the posture of a crocodile

A judge must not lose his cool and avoid using intemperate language.

The wise man is esteemed for his discernment, yet pleasing speech
increases his persuasiveness (Proverbs 16:21) Reminder to both
judges and lawyers

Judges must be properly attired when hearing cases in their Salas

Section 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary

measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become aware.

Judges may discipline lawyers and court personnel for unprofessional

conduct
-

This is corollary to the rule that a judge shall maintain order and
proper decorum in court. He has the power to take or initiate
appropriate actions against lawyers or court personnel under his
supervision for unprofessional conduct brought to or coming to his
attention.

Judge may summarily punish any person including lawyers and

court personnel for direct contempt for misbehavior committed in
the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or
interrupt the proceedings before the same. He may also punish any
person for indirect contempt after appropriate charge and hearing
who is guilty of the acts enumerated under Section 3, Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court.
Every court has inherent power to preserve and enforce orders in its
immediate presence, to compel obedience to its judgements, orders
and processes and to control in furtherance of justice, the conduct
of its ministerial offices. (Section 5, Rule 135 RRC)
All of these are intended to have a clean court, decisions, orders
and resolutions, and effective enforcement thereof. Anything that
advocates the contrary demeans the court and will not justify its
being.

Judge may not summarily suspend indefinitely a lawyer for indirect

contempt
-

A judge may suspend after due proceedings, a lawyer who appears

before him from committing any of the acts enumerated in Section
27 Rule 138, RRC. But the judge cannot suspend the lawyer from
the practice of law as a punishment for contempt

An indefinite suspension is tantamount to disbarment without due

process of law not sanctioned by the Section 27 Rule 138 and 139B, RRC.

Power to dismiss court employees is solely vested in the Supreme

Court and not to a judge

Justice must be done and be seen to have been done

-

It is not enough that a judge rendered a fair and credible decision.

That rendition must be made known to the community to send the
message that those who have been aggrieved can find relief in
courts

Example:
1. When a criminal is convicted and conviction is made known to
all, it sends a reminder to the people that crime does not pay

Judgments must be promulgated on time

-

A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision,

particularly those pending for more than 90 days, considering the
Certificate of Service that he is mandated to render every month

He is expected to keep his own record of cases submitted for

decision so that he could act on them promptly and without delay

Proper and efficient court management is as much his responsibility

and he is directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official
functions

A judge cannot take refuge behind inefficiency or mismanagement

by court personnel. Court personnel are not guardians of a judges
responsibilities.

It is not enough that judges pen their decisions. It is also important

to promulgate and make them known to all concerned at the
earliest possible time, within the mandated period.