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 a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial
office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE ACUA, RTC, CALOOCAN

CITY, BRANCH 123
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891
July 28, 2005

Facts:

Letter from the Concerned citizens of the lower court was received by
the Office of the Court Administrator regarding the behavior of Judge Edmund
Acuna, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City. According to the letter, respondent
judge conducted trials, signed orders and even sentenced accused while on
official leave from August 15 to September 15, 2001. Respondent judge also
allegedly uses improper remarks in and out of open court. In his comment,
responded judge communicates that he applied for leave so that he may go
abroad to pay respects to his recently deceased brother. However, as he was
waiting for his relatives visas to be approved, he considered deferring his leave,
thus he still issued orders until August 21, 2001, allegedly in good faith. His
improper remarks were caused by the fact that his son had also recently passed
away. He claims that he was still in the second stage of his recovery exhibited by
his usage of swear words. The respondent Judge admitted that putris, putang-
ina, beauty and pogi were among his favorite expressions, but clarified that he
did not use them often, certainly not in open court. He pleads the court that he
did not render judgment out of monetary interest or other evil motive, but he did
so only because he had an earnest intention of serving justice, as his court was
overwhelmed by various cases.

Issue: Whether or not respondent judge should be suspended on account of his

behavior?

Held:

Respondent Judge Acua was found guilty of impropriety and was

reprimanded with stern warning. The Court agreed with the Investigating
Justices observation that the respondents use of such expletives is improper for
the extolled office of a magistrate of the law. By virtue of the very office he
holds, the public expects more of the respondent as he undeniably occupies an
exalted yet delicate niche in the administration of justice.

Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both

in conduct and in language. Indeed, a judge should so behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all
the activities of a judge. It is recognized, of course, that judges are also human
beings, with their own burdens and private affairs. However, having accepted the
esteemed position of judge, the respondent ought to have known that more is
expected of him than an ordinary citizen. As subjects of constant public scrutiny,
personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen
should be freely and willingly accepted by a judge. In particular, he or she must
exhibit conduct consistent with the dignity of the judicial office. Indeed, a judges
personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties, must be
beyond reproach, being the visible personification of law and of justice.
JILL M. TORMIS VS. JUDGE MEINRADO P. PAREDES
A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366
February 4, 2015

Facts:

Jill M. Tormis was a student of Judge Paredes in Political Law Review during
the first semester of school year 2010-2011. In his class discussions, Judge
Paredes named her mother, Judge Rosabella Tormis, as one of the judges
involved in the marriage scams in Cebu City and that she was abusive of her
position, corrupt, and ignorant of the law. Additionally, Judge Paredes was even
said to have included in his discussion Francis Mondragon Tormis (Francis), son of
Judge Tormis, stating that he was a "court-noted addict." To avoid humiliation in
school, Jill decided to drop the class under Judge Paredes and transfer to another
law school in Tacloban City. A complaint was filed by Jill praying that Judge
Paredes be administratively sanctioned for his actuations.

Judge Paredes denied the accusations of Jill. He stated that Judge Tormis
had several administrative cases, some of which he had investigated as the
executive judge; that as a result of the investigations, he recommended
sanctions against Judge Tormis; that Judge Tormis used Jill, her daughter, to get
back at him; that he discussed in his class the case of Lachica v. Tormis, but
never Judge Tormis involvement in the marriage scams nor her sanctions as a
result of the investigation conducted by the Court; that he never personally
attacked Judge Tormis dignity and credibility; that the marriage scams in Cebu
City constituted a negative experience for all the judges and should be discussed
so that other judges, court employees and aspiring lawyers would not emulate
such misdeeds. Lastly, Judge Paredes averred that the discussions relative to the
administrative cases of Judge Tormis could not be the subject of an
administrative complaint because it was not done in the performance of his
judicial duties.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Paredes is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge?

Held:

Yes, Judge Paredes is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge. His use of

intemperate language during class discussions was inappropriate. His
statements in class, tending to project Judge Tormis as corrupt and ignorant of
the laws and procedure, were obviously and clearly insensitive and inexcusable.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to
exemplify propriety at all times.

In the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, Judge Paredes should

uphold the good image of the Judiciary of which he is a part. He should have
avoided unnecessary and uncalled for remarks in his discussions and should
have been more circumspect in his language. Being a judge, he is expected to
act with greater circumspection and to speak with self-restraint. Verily, Judge
Paredes fell short of the standard mentioned in Canon 4, Section 6.

Judge Paredes, Presiding Judge of Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court of

Cebu City, was held administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge
and was admonished.
SECTION 7: Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary and
financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the
financial interests of members of their family.

This section of the New Code of Judicial Conduct should be read in conjunction
with Section 7 of the Republic Act 6731, which prohibits certain personal
fiduciary and financial conflicts.

EXERCPTS FROM R.A. No. 6713

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees

Section 7: Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of

public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing
laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public
official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and employees shall not,
directly or indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of their office.
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:

(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee,

consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless
expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by
the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with their official functions; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which
has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of
subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in
which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.

(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. - Public officials and

employees shall not use or divulge, confidential or classified information officially
known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public,
either:

(1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone;

or
(2) To prejudice the public interest.

(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not
solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment,
loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official
duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their office.
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress consents to:

(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift

of nominal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature
of a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical treatment; or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or
expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the Philippine (such as
allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more than nominal value
if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with the interests of the
Philippines, and permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to
which he belongs.

The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry

out the purpose of this subsection, including pertinent reporting and disclosure
requirements.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JUDGE USMAN

A.M. No. SCC-08-12
October 19, 2011

Facts:

In a letter-complaint, the complainant averred that Judge Uyag Usman of

the Sharia Cicuit Court of Pagadian City acquired a Kia Sorento SUV for
P1,526,000.00; paid in cash the instalment, and the remaining balance payable
in 48 months of P34,844 monthly amortization, which could not be justified as he
was recently appointed as Sharia Court judge; further he has seven children to
support, the sole bread winner of the family, and seldom reported for work. In
his Comment, Judge Usman admitted buying the vehicle, but averred that it was
his mother who provided for the installment payment of the SUV, a second-hand
vehicle; and also its months amortization. When her mother got sick, she was
not able to pay the monthly amortization, hence the bank foreclosed the
mortgage. It was not true that he is supporting the seven children, as only three
of them are being cared for by him; his mother supported the college education
of the two college-aged children, while two are married and gainfully employed.
It is also not true that he seldom reported for work, as shown by supporting
affidavits in his behalf by his co-workers.

The Office of the Court Administrator exonerated the respondent on the

allegations against him, but recommended that he be penalized for violation of
Sec. 8 of RA 7613, and Sec. 7 of RA 3019, for failing to file his SALN for the years
2004-2008. The OCA recommended a fine of P10,000.00.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Usman is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge?

Held:
The Court ordered Judge Usman to pay a fine of P5,000 with a stern
warning. He failed to file his SALN for the years 2004-2008. He gave no
explanation either why he failed to file his SALN for five (5) consecutive years.

While every office in the government service is a public trust, no position

exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an
individual than a seat in the Judiciary. Hence, judges are strictly mandated to
abide with the law, the Code of Judicial Conduct and with existing administrative
policies in order to maintain the faith of our people in the administration of
justice.