`
2. Of recognized probity and independence;
J UDICIAL E THICS
Judicial Ethics
A branch of moral science which treats of the right
and proper conduct to be observed by all judges and
magistrates in trying and deciding controversies
brought to them for adjudication which conduct must
be demonstrative of impartiality, integrity,
competence, independence, and freedom from
improprieties(PINEDA, Judicial Ethics [2009] p.1)
[hereinafter PINEDA, Judicial].
Court
A board or other tribunal, which decides a litigation
or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus, 64 O.G. 3189).
Court Staff
Includes the personal staff of the judge including law
clerks.
Judge
A public officer who, by virtue of his office, is clothed
with judicial authority to decide litigated questions
according to law.
Any person exercising judicial power, however
designated (People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129,
July 31, 1962).
De Jure Judge
One who is exercising the office of a judge as a
matter of right; an officer of a court who has been
duly and legally appointed (Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R.
No. 12647, November 26, 1917).
De Facto Judge
An officer who is not fully invested with all the
powers and duties conceded to judges, but
exercising the office of a judge under some color of
right (Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 12647,
November 26, 1917).
Qualifications of Justices and Judges
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Court of
Tax Appeals Justices
1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 40 years of age;
3. Must have been for 15 years or more a judge of a
lower court or engaged in the practice of law; and
4. Must be a person of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence (CONST. Art.
VIII, Sec. 7).
Ombudsman and his Deputies
1. At least 40 years old;
66 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
3. Member of the Philippine Bar;
4. Must have been for 10 years or more a judge or
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines;
and
5. Must not have been a candidate for any elective
office in the immediately preceding election.
Regional Trial Court Judges
1. Citizen of the Philippines (JBC-009- Rules of the
Judicial and Bar Council, in accordance with Art
VIII, Sec 7, par 2 of the Constitution)
2. At least 35 years of age; and
3. For at least 10 years has been engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines or has held a
public office in the Philippines requiring
admission to the practice of law as an
indispensable requisite (B.P. 129, Sec. 15).
Municipal Trial Court Judges
1. Citizen of the Philippines (JBC-009- Rules of the
Judicial and Bar Council, in accordance with Art
VIII, Sec 7, par 2 of the Constitution)
2. At least 30 years of age; and
3. For at least 5 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 (B.P. 129, Sec. 26).
Judicial Department
Attitude Towards Counsel
He must be courteous especially to the young and
inexperienced. He should not interrupt in their
arguments except to clarify his mind as to their
positions. He must not be tempted to an
unnecessary display of learning or premature
judgment. He may criticize and correct
unprofessional conduct of a lawyer but not in an
insulting manner.
Attitude Toward Litigants and Witnesses
He must be considerate, courteous and civil. He
must not utter intemperate language during the
hearing of a case.
Proper Judicial Conduct
Judges and justices must conduct themselves as to
be beyond reproach and suspicion and be free from
appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior
not only in discharge of official duties but also in
their everyday lives.
`
Cold Neutrality of an Impartial Judge
A judge should not only render just, correct and
impartial decision but should do so in a manner free
from suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality and
as to his integrity. These are indispensable
requisites of due process.
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, June 1, 2004)
This Code supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics
and the Code of Judicial Conduct to the extent that
the provisions or concepts therein are embodied in
this Code, provided that in case of deficiency or
absence of specific provisions in this Code, the
Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of
Judicial Conduct should be applicable in a
suppletory character.
The New Philippine Code of Judicial Conduct
was adopted from the universal declaration of
standards for ethical conduct embodied in the
Bangalore Draft as revised at the Round Table
Conference of Chief Justices at The Hague.
The Bangalore Draft is founded upon certain
principles set in stone:
1.A universal recognition that a competent,
independent and impartial judiciary is essential if
the courts are to fulfil their role in upholding
constitutionalism and the rule of law;
2.That public confidence in the judicial system and
in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary
is of utmost importance in a modern democratic
society; and
3.That it is essential that judges, individually and
collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a
public trust and strive to enhance and maintain
confidence in the judicial system.
Outline of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary
Canon I: Independence
Canon II: Integrity
Canon III: Impartiality
Canon IV: Propriety
Canon V: Equality
Canon VI: Competence and Diligence
Purpose: To update and correlate the Code of
Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics
adopted for the Philippines, and also to stress the
Philippines solidarity with the universal clamor for a
universal code of judicial ethics.
67 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
C ANON 1: I NDEPENDENCE
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.
The primary difference between the new Canon 1
and the Canon 1 of the 1989 Code is the treatment
of independence as a single Canon.
Independence
It means freedom from influence, guidance or
control of others. It refers to the freedom of courts
from extraneous influences or control (PINEDA,
Judicial, supra at 32).
Two Independent Aspects from the Point of View
of The Judge
1. Individual Judicial Independence
Focuses on each particular case and seeks to
insure his or her ability to decide cases with
autonomy within the constraints of the law.
2. Institutional Judicial Independence
Focuses on the independence of the judiciary as
a branch of government and protects judges as a
class (In the Matter of the Allegations Contained
in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet
Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19,
20, and 21, 2007).
What is required of judges is objectivity. An
independent judiciary does not mean that judges
can resolve specific disputes entirely as they please.
There are both implied and explicit limits in the way
judges perform their role. Implicit limits include
accepted legal values and the explicit limits are
substantive and procedural rules of law.
Section 1 - Judges shall exercise the judicial
function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with
a conscientious understanding of the law, free of
any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure,
threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any
quarter or for any reason.
An independent judiciary is one free from
inappropriate outside influence. Judges are required
to reject pressure from any source maintaining
independence in the pursuit of their duties.
`
A judge is expected to be fearless in the pursuit of
rendering justice, to be unafraid to displease any
person, interest or power and to be equipped with a
moral fiber strong enough to resist temptations
(Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandag, A.M. No. R-351-
RTJ, September 26, 1986).
Judges are required to rule fairly regardless of public
opinion. The pressure of a rally demanding the
issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused is
not a sufficient excuse for unjustified fixing of bail
without hearing (Libarios v. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-
89-286, July 11, 1991).
More than just a breach of the rudiments laid down
by the Code, judges who succumb to pressures and,
as a result, knowingly ignore proven facts or
misapply the law in rendering a decision commit
corruption and face both administrative and criminal
prosecution under RA No. 3019 Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act; and Article 204, Revised
Penal Code.
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.
Every judge must decide independently, even in
collegial court divisions. While there may be
discussions and exchange of ideas among judges,
at the end of such discussion, the judge must decide
on the basis of his own sole judgment.
Section 3 - Judges shall refrain from influencing
in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
The inclusion of this section affirms that a judges
restraint from exerting influence over other judicial or
quasi-judicial bodies is required for more than just
propriety.
Being the dispensers of justice, judges should not
act in a way that would arouse suspicion in order to
preserve the faith in the administration of justice
(OCA v. De Guzman, RTJ-93-1021, January 31,
1997).
Any attempt, whether successful or not, to influence
the decision-making process of another judge,
especially one who is of lower rank and over which
he exercises supervisory authority, is serious
misconduct.
A judge who tries to influence the outcome of a
litigation pending before another court not only
subverts the independence of the judiciary but also
undermines the peoples faith in its integrity and
impartiality (Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor, RTJ-90-474,
October 4, 1991).
Exception:
1. If the consultation is purely on an academic or
hypothetical basis, and the judge does not
surrender his/her independent decision-making,
there is no breach of Sections 2 and 3 of this
Canon.
2. A judge may revoke the orders of another judge
in litigation subsequently assigned to him
(PINEDA, Judicial, supra at 43).
A judge may properly intervene to expedite and
prevent unnecessary waste of time. He may
intervene to propound clarificatory questions and not
to ask searching questions after the witness had
given direct testimony (Id.).
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 of others, nor convey or permit
others to convey the impression that they are in
a special position to influence the judge.
A judges family includes his:
1. Spouse;
2. Son/daughter;
3. Son-in-law or daughter-in-law;
4. Any other relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the sixth (6) civil degree; and
5. Any person who is a companion or employee of
the judge and who lives in the judges household.
When a judge is related to one of the parties within
the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, his
disqualification is mandatory (Hurtado v. Judalena,
G.R No. L-40603, July 13, 1978).
Relatives Deemed Covered:
1. An adopted child is deemed included in the list
because he/she is considered legitimate child of
the adopting parent/s;
2. Recognized illegitimate children of the judge, if
there are any;
3. First and second cousins by blood, and first and
second cousin-in-law; and
4. Uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces;
grandnephews and grandnieces. In-laws are
included.
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 68
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
Reason: To ensure that judges are spared from
potential influence of family members by
disqualifying them even before any opportunity for
impartiality present itself.
Judges should ensure that their family members,
friends and associates refrain from creating the
impression that they are in a position to influence
the judge.
Judges should also make it clear to the members of
their family, friends and associates that they will
neither be influenced by anyone, nor would they
allow anyone to interfere in their judicial work.
The actuation of respondent Judge of eating and
drinking in public places with a lawyer who has
pending cases in his sala may well arouse the
suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to erode
the trust of the litigants in the impartiality of the
judge. This eventuality may undermine the peoples
faith in the administration of justice. A judge should
behave at all times as to inspire public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The
prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to
advance the private interests of others, nor convey
or permit others to convey the impression that they
are in a special position to influence the judge
(Padilla v. Zamora, MTJ-93-888, October 24, 1994).
He should not also allow anyone to ride on his
prestige for purposes of advancing private interest.
Neither should he create the impression that
someone or some people are so close to him or
enjoy his favor and are in special position to
persuade or convince him to act on way or the other
in the performance of his duties (Padilla v. Zamora,
MTJ-93-888, October 24, 1994).
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.
Reason: To protect the independence and
separation of the judiciary from the two other
branches of government (Bagatsing v. Herrera, G.R.
No. L-34952, July 25, 1975).
A judge did not act independently with the Local
Government Unit (LGU) when she downsized her
staff at the MTC and asked the city to re-employ the
laid-off workers without diminution of compensation
or disadvantage with regard to location of work
assignment. Said judge had acted improperly in not
69 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
informing the court of the need to streamline her
court and of its personnel needs, but she asked
instead the LGU to employ those who were
displaced due to her downsizing (Alfonso v. Alonzo-
Legasto, A.M. No. MTJ-94-995, September 5,
2002).
Judicial independence is the reason for leaving
exclusively to the court the authority to deal with the
internal personnel issues, even if the court
employees are funded by the local government
(Bagatsing v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-34952, July 25,
1975).
Appearance of Independence
Judges must not fraternize with such officials for that
will tend to create the negative impression that in the
near future there will be some mutual reciprocation
for the accommodations or favors extended to one
another. This quid pro quo may expand to the
rendition of decision to the prejudice of the ends of
justice (PINEDA, Judicial, supra at 52).
However, congenial relationships between a judge
and a provincial governor do not by itself tarnish the
image of an independent judiciary. A local
government unit which provides a vehicle for the use
of the judge does not impinge on judicial
independence, absent any indication of corruption or
anomalous undertakings (Re: Suspension of Clerk
of Court Jocobo, A.M. No.93-10-1296-RTC, August
12, 1998).
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.
It is desirable that the judge should, as far as
reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which
would normally tend to arouse the suspicion that
such relations warp or bias his judgment, and
prevent an impartial attitude of mind in the
administration of judicial duties.
Judges are not required to live a hermits life. They
may join civil, religious or professional organization
as long as their membership does not interfere with
their judicial tasks.
Judges should not fraternize with litigants and their
counsel; they should make a conscious effort to
avoid them in order to avoid the perception that their
independence has been compromised.
`
A judges act of sending his staff to talk with the
complainant and show copies of his draft decisions,
and his act of meeting with litigants outside the
office premises beyond office hours violate the
standard of judicial conduct required to be observed
by member of the Bench. The judges actions
constitute gross misconduct (Tan v. Rosete, A.M.
No. MTJ-04-1563, September 8, 2004).
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.
Judges must be heedful, circumspect and cautious
against sporadic or systematic attempts to
undermine the judiciary.
The Supreme court declared the unconstitutionality
of the law because it qualifies to membership in the
Philippine Bar, 1094 graduates who confessedly had
inadequate preparation for the practice of the
profession, as was exactly founded by the tribunals
in the results of the bar examinations. The
Constitution did not confer on Congress the
authority and responsibility over the admission,
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
attorney-at-law (In Re: Cunanan, March 18, 1954).
Section 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.
Judges are required to conduct themselves at all
times in a manner that is beyond reproach.
In whatever atmosphere or environs they may
happen to be, judges must remain conscious of their
character and reputation as judges and should avoid
anything which will indignify their public positions
and demean the institution to which they belong.
A judge should always be imbued with a high sense
of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his
obligation to promptly and properly administer
justice. He must view himself as a priest, for the
administration of justice is akin to a religious
crusade (Dimatulac v. Villon, G.R. No. 127107,
October 12, 1998).
C ANON 2: I NTEGRITY
INTEGRITY IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO THE
PROPER DISCHARGE OF THE JUDICIAL
OFFICE, BUT ALSO TO THE PERSONAL
DEMEANOR OF JUDGES.
Integrity
It is a steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical
code. It is moral uprightness. It is honesty and
honorableness put into one (American Heritage
Dictionary, 4th Edition).
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins
judges to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct
but even the mere appearance of impropriety.
In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a
cardinal virtue; it is a necessity (Pascual v.
Bonifacio, A.M. No.RTJ-01-1625, March 10, 2003).
Judges must be models of uprightness, fairness and
honesty not only in all his official conduct but also in
his personal actuations (Rural Bank of Nuevo, Inc. v.
Cartagena, A.M. No. 707-MJ, July 21, 1978).
Under the 1989 Code, the values of INTEGRITY
and INDEPENDENCE were grouped together, but
the New Code of Judicial Conduct separated them
to emphasize the need to maintain a life of
PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY in
order to properly carry out their judicial functions.
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.
A judges personal behavior, both in the
performance of his duties and in his daily life, must
be free from any appearance of impropriety as to be
beyond reproach (Tan v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-
1563, September 8, 2004).
A judge was admonished for not wearing the judicial
robe in the performance of judicial functions. A judge
must take care not only to remain true to the high
ideals of competence and integrity his robe
represents, but also that he wears one in the first
place (Chan v. Majaducan, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1697,
October 15, 2003).
When the inefficiency springs from a failure to
consider so basic and elemental a rule, law or
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 70
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is
either too incompetent and undeserving of the
position and title he holds, or he is too vicious that
the oversight or omission was deliberately done in
bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority
(Macalintal v. Teh, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1375, October
16, 1997).
A judge must be free of even a whiff of impropriety,
not only with respect to the performance of his
judicial duties, but also his behavior outside the
courtroom and as individual. A justice of the Court of
Appeals did not live up to these expectations when,
through indiscretions, he had been mentioned in the
newspapers of having lawyered for the suspected
drug queen and interfered with her prosecution (In
re: Derogatory New Items Charging CA Justice
Demetria Adm. Case No. 00-09-CA, March 27,
2001).
Respondent judge was also at fault for his shortness
of temper and impatience, contrary to the duties and
restriction imposed upon him by reason of his office.
He could very well have cited complainant in
contempt of court instead of indulging in tantrums by
banging his gavel in a very forceful manner and
unceremoniously walking out of the courtroom
(Romero v. Valle, A.M. No. R-192-RTJ, January 9,
1987).
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.
The judge must not only appear to be a good judge
but also appear as a good person. This must be so
at all times (Junio v. Riviera. Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-91-
565, August 30, 1993).
A judge has the duty to not only render a just and
impartial decision, but also render it in such a
manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its
fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judges
integrity. Like Caesars wife, a judge must not only
be pure but also beyond suspicion. While judges
should possess proficiency in law in order that they
can completely 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 (Sibayan-
Joaquin v. Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601,
November 13, 2001).
A judge should not seek publicity for personal
vainglory. The circulating of calling cards containing
71 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
self-laudatory statements in open court constitutes
simple misconduct. Judges should not use the
courtroom in announcing their qualifications
especially before lawyers and litigants who might
interpret such publicity as a sign of insecurity (Office
of the Court Administrator v. Floro, A.M. No. 99-7-
273-RTC, July 12, 2007).
Instances of improprieties
1.In-chambers sessions without the presence
of the other party and his counsel;
2.Judge making the courtroom as a gambling place
violates the Rule;
3.Judge who practice law is guilty of impropriety;
4.For malicious kissing his female subordinates;
5.Habitual tardiness which amounts to serious
misconduct and inefficiency;
6.Slapping of court personnel
7.Non-payment of just debt (PINEDA, Judicial,
supra at 68).
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 should not be lenient in the administrative
supervision of employees. As an administrator, the
judge must ensure that all court personnel perform
efficiently and promptly in the administration of
justice (Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandag, A.M. No. R-
351-RTJ, September 26, 1986).
A judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on
the conduct of his employees. His constant scrutiny
of the behavior of his employees would deter any
abuse on the part of the latter in the exercise of their
duties. The slightest breach of duty by and the
slightest irregularity in the conduct of court officers
and employees detract from the dignity of the courts
and erode the faith of the people in the judiciary
(Buenaventura v. Benedicto, A.C. No. 137-5, March
27, 1971).
C ANON 3: I MPARTIALITY
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.
This canon is the updated version of Canon 3 of the
1989 Code. The present version maintained some of
`
the provisions of the earlier Canon specifically Rule
3.07, and the provisions on Disqualification and
Remittal of Disqualification. However, the
provisions pertaining to diligence, competence and
the like have been transferred to other provisions in
this New Code.
Impartiality
It is a state of mind of the judge where there is no
consciousness or sense of favor for, bias or
prejudice against any party in a case.
Allegations of partiality or bias must have factual
basis. Bare allegations or suspicions of partiality will
not be sufficient to cause the disqualification of the
judge (Dimo Realty & Dev., Inc. v. Dimaculangan,
G.R. No. 130991, March 11, 2004).
Two Concepts of Impartiality:
1.Impartiality with respect to the decision itself; and
2.Impartiality with regards to the process in arriving
at a decision.
Section 1 - Judges shall perform their judicial
duties without favor, bias or prejudice.
Allegations must be proved
Mere allegations of bias or prejudice are not
sufficient to find a violation of this section. Burden of
proof lies with the complainant; he must prove bias
sufficient to require inhibition with clear and
convincing evidence.
Judges cannot be held accountable for erroneous
decisions rendered in good faith; otherwise, the
judicial office will become untenable. After all, no
one can be infallible in his judgments.
As long as decisions made and opinions formed in
the course of judicial proceedings are based on the
evidence presented, the conduct observed by the
magistrate, and the application of the law, such
opinions even if later found to be erroneous will
not sustain a claim of personal bias or prejudice on
the part of the judge (Gochan v. Gochan, G.R. No.
1433089, February 27, 2003).
Section 2 - Judges shall ensure that his 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.
A judge should behave at all times in a way that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The appearance of bias
or prejudice can be as damaging to public
confidence and the administration of justice as
actual bias or prejudice. Judges shall perform their
judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice
(Montemayor v. Bermejo, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1535,
March 12, 2004).
Stating to his court staff and the Public Attorneys
Office (PAO) lawyer that he is pro-accused
particularly concerning detention prisoners, the
judge opened himself up to suspicion regarding his
impartiality (OCA v. Judge Floro, A.M. No. RTJ-99-
1460, March 31, 2006).
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.
Duty to Sit: It is imperative that judges ensure that
they would not unnecessarily be disqualified from a
case.
Judges may, in their exercise of sound discretion,
restrict themselves voluntarily from sitting in a case,
but such a decision should be based on good,
sound or ethical grounds, or for just and valid
reasons. It is not enough that a party casts some
tenuous allegations of partiality at the judge.
The test to determine propriety of the denial of
the motion to inhibit is whether the movant was
deprived of a fair and impartial trial (Te v. CA, G.R.
No. 126746, November 29, 2000).
Rule of Necessity
The rule of disqualification of judges must yield to
demands of necessity. A judge is not disqualified to
sit in a case if there is no other judge available to
hear and decide the case. When all judges would be
disqualified, disqualification will not be permitted to
destroy the only tribunal with power in the premises.
The doctrine operates on the principle that a basic
judge is better than no judge at all. Under such
circumstances, it is the duty of the disqualified judge
to hear and decide the controversy, however
disagreeable it may be (Parayno v. Meneses, G.R.
No. 112684, April 26, 1994).
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 72
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial
of any person or issue.
A judges language, both written and spoken, must
be guarded and measured, lest the best of
intentions be misconstrued (Fecundo v. Berjamen,
G.R. No. 88105, December 18, 1989).
Judges should avoid side remarks, hasty
conclusions, loose statements or gratuitous
utterances that suggest that they are prejudging a
case. Not only is there danger of being misquoted,
but also of compromising the rights of the litigants in
the case.
However, not all comments by judges are
impermissible; if a judge expresses open-
mindedness regarding a pending issue and the
judges comments do not clearly favor one side over
the other, disqualification is not required.
Judges and justices are not disqualified from
participating in a case simply because they have
written legal articles on the law involved in the case
(Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No.
133250, May 6, 2003).
Disqualification and Inhibition
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:
1. The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
Litigants are entitled to a judge who will decide
on the merits of the facts presented.
No judge should preside in a case which he is not
wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and
independent (Garcia v. De La Pena, A.M.No.
MTJ-92-637, February 9, 1994).
2. The judge previously served as a lawyer or
was a material witness in the matter in
controversy;
73 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
3. The judge or a member of his or her family
has an economic interest in the outcome of
the matter in controversy;
A municipal judge who filed complaints in his own
court for robbery and malicious mischief against
a party for the purpose of protecting the property
interests of the judges co-heirs, and then issued
warrants of arrest against the party, was found
guilty of serious misconduct and ordered
dismissed from the bench before he was able to
recuse himself (Oktubre v. Velasco A.M. No.
MTJ- 02-02-1444, July 20, 2004).
4.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;
5.The judge's ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
An Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals
refused to inhibit himself from reviewing the
decision in a case which he had partially heard
as a trial judge prior to his promotion, on the
ground that the decision was not written by him.
The Supreme Court upheld his refusal, but
nevertheless commented that he should have
been more prudent and circumspect and declined
to take on the case owing to his earlier
involvement in the case (Sandoval v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 106657, August 1, 1996).
6. The judge is related by consanguinity or
affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil
degree or to counsel within the fourth civil
degree; or
A preliminary injunction issued by a judge in favor
of his sister before inhibiting himself was found
reprehensible (Hurtado v Judalena, G.R No. L-
40603, July 13, 1978).
7. 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.
The above mentioned are instances of mandatory
inhibition.
`
Strict compliance with the rules on disqualification is
required. The petition to disqualify a judge must be
filed before rendition of the judgment, and cannot be
raised on appeal. Otherwise, the parties are deemed
to have waived any objection regarding the
impartiality of the judge.
Instances When Judge Need not Inhibit
1. The fact that an administrative case has been
filed by a party against the judge, absent a
factual basis of bias and prejudice (Aparicio v.
Andal, G.R. No. 86587, July 25, 1989);
2. The fact that the judge is a next-door neighbor of
the complainant (Choa v. Chiongson, A.M. No.
MTJ-95-063, February 9, 1996); and
3. Close personal friendship with a party, as long as
it does not influence the judges official conduct
as a judge (Macariola v. Asuncion, A.M. No. 133-
J, May 31, 1982).
Section 6 - A judge disqualified as stated above
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 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.
Otherwise known as remittal of disqualification.
Requirements to Continue Hearing the Case
Despite Existence of Reasons for
Disqualification: (DAW-R)
1. Bona fide Disclosure to the parties-in-
litigation; and
2. Express Acceptance by all the parties of the
cited reason as not material or substantial.
3. Agreement is in Writing, signed by the
parties and counsels
4. Agreement incorporated in the Records of
the proceedings.
Note: Absent any of these, the judge may not
continue to hear the case.
To effectively remit disqualification, a judge must
disclose on the record the basis of the
disqualification and ask the parties and lawyers to
consider, out of the presence of the judge, whether
to waive the disqualification. As long as the
disqualification is not based upon personal bias or
prejudice, the parties and lawyers may all agree that
the judge should not be disqualified. If all parties and
the judge agree that the judge should participate,
the judge may participate, and must incorporate the
agreement into the record of the proceeding.
Grounds For Disqualification And Inhibition Of
Judges Under The Rules Of Court:
1. Mandatory or Compulsory Disqualification
(PREP)
a. When he, or his wife, or child is Pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise;
b. When he is Related to either party within the
sixth (6th) degree of consanguinity or affinity or
to counsel within the fourth (4th) civil degree;
c. When he has been an Executor, guardian,
administrator, trustee or counsel; or
d. When he has Presided in an inferior court
where his ruling or decision is subject to
review (RULES OF COURT, Rule 137).
Note: If a judge is compulsorily disqualified under
any of the grounds under the first paragraph of
Sec. 1 of Rule 137 Rules of Court, he has no
choice but to withdraw from the case, unless all
the parties consent thereto.
His continuing of the case, without written
consent of all parties, has the following effects:
i. The judge is deprived of his authority to
continue to hear and decide the case. It does
not, however, divest the court of jurisdiction.
ii. A judge who continues to hear the case in
which he is disqualified under any of those
enumerated grounds may be held
administratively liable therefore (AGPALO,
Ethics, supra at 624).
2. Voluntary Inhibition
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound
discretion, disqualify himself, for just and valid
reasons other than those mentioned above
(RULES OF COURT, Rule 137, Sec. 1).
Reason: No judge should handle a case in which
he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be
susceptible to bias and partiality (Urbanes v. CA,
G.R. No. 112884, August 30, 1994).
Verily, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound
discretion, inhibit himself voluntarily from sitting in
a case, but it should be based on good, sound or
ethical standards, or for just and valid reason. It
is not enough that a party throws some tenuous
allegations of partiality at the judge. No less than
imperative is that it is the judges sacred duty to
administer justice without fear or favor (Bautista
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 74
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`

v. Rebueno, G.R. No. L-46117, February 22, partial. (Ramiscal, Jr. v. Hernandez, G.R. Nos.
1978). 173057-74, September 20, 2010).

Subjective Test on the Voluntary Inhibition of The filing of an administrative case against a
a Judge judge does NOT disqualify him from hearing a
Refers to the discretion to the judge, with only his case.
conscience to guide him, in deciding for himself
questions as to whether or not he will desist from Disqualification v. Inhibition
sitting in a case based on just and valid reasons.
Disqualification Inhibition
In the event, he cannot discern for himself his
inability to meet the test of the cold neutrality The Rules do not
required of him, the appellate court will see to it The Rules enumerate expressly
that he disqualifies himself. the specific and enumerate the
exclusive grounds specific grounds for
The discretion given to trial judges is an under which any judge inhibition but merely
acknowledgment of the fact that they are in a or judicial officer is give a broad basis
better position to determine the issue of disqualified from acting thereof, i.e. good,
inhibition, as they are the ones who directly deal as such. sound or ethical
with the parties-litigants in their courtrooms. grounds.

The reviewing tribunal will not disturb such
exercise of discretion in the absence of any
manifest finding of arbitrariness and whimsicality.
Inhibition is not allowed at every instance that a
schoolmate or classmate appears before the
judge as counsel for one of the parties. In one
case, the Court ruled that organizational affiliation
per se is not a ground for inhibition (Kilosbayan
Foundation, et al. v. Janolo, Jr., etc., G.R. No.
180543, August 18, 2010).
A decision to disqualify himself is not conclusive
and his competency may be determined on
application for mandamus to compel him to act.
Judges decision to continue hearing a case in
which he is not legally prohibited from trying
notwithstanding challenge to his objectivity may
not constitute reversible error.
Bias and prejudice must be shown to have
stemmed from an extrajudicial source, and result
in an opinion on the merits on some basis other
than what the judge learned from his participation
in the case.
The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not
enough ground for inhibition, especially when the
charge is without basis. Extrinsic evidence must
further be presented to establish bias, bad faith,
malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable
error which may be inferred from the decision or
order itself. There must be a proof of act or
conduct of the judge clearly indicative of
arbitrariness or prejudice before he can be
branded with the stigma of being biased or
The rules leaves the
The rules give the
matter of inhibition
judicial officer NO
to the SOUND
DISCRETION to try or
DISCRETION of the
sit in a case.
judge
The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 does
not give the judge the unfettered discretion to decide
whether or not he will desist from hearing a
case. The inhibition must be for just and valid
causes. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is
not enough ground for a judge to inhibit, especially
when the same is without any basis (People v. Kho,
G.R. No. 139381, April 20, 2001).
Procedure for Disqualification
1. File with the official his written objection, stating
the grounds therefore.
2. The official shall thereupon proceed with the trial,
or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his
determination of the question of his
disqualification.
3. His decision shall be forthwith made in writing
and filed with the other papers in the case.
4. No appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by
reason of, his decision in favor of his own
competency, until after final judgment in the case
(RULES OF COURT, Rule 137, Sec.2).
Note: This applies to BOTH civil and criminal cases.
The party aggrieved, in his appeal to the appellate
court from the final judgment rendered in the main
case, may raise the question of the correctness of
the determination of the judge of his competency to
sit in the case.

75 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
Effect of Inhibition
After the Judge had inhibited himself from a case,
he loses jurisdiction over the said case. (PINEDA,
Judicial, supra at 132).
C ANON 4: P ROPRIETY
PROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
PROPRIETY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE
PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF A
JUDGE.
Propriety
This is in conformity to prevailing customs and
usages. In brief, it is appropriateness (PINEDA,
Judicial, supra at 139).
Section 1 - Judges shall avoid impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
Reason: The public holds judges to higher
standards of integrity and ethical conduct than
lawyers and other person not invested with public
trust.
A judge whose duty is to apply the law and dispense
justice should not only be impartial, independent
and honest but should be perceived to be impartial,
independent and honest as well (AGPALO, Ethics,
supra at 611).
The Judges act riding in defendants car deserves
the stern probation of the Court. By such act, he
openly exposed himself and the office he holds to
suspicion, thus impairing the trust and faith of the
people in the administration of justice. A judges
official conduct should be free from the appearance
of impropriety and his personal conduct and
behavior should be beyond reproach (Spouses
Cabreana v. Avelino, A.M. No. 1733, September 30,
1981).
Including self-laudatory details in his professional
calling card such as that he topped the bar
examinations with a grade of 87.55% and having
graduated with full second honors from the Ateneo
de Manila University, he breached the norms of
simplicity and modesty required of judges (OCA v.
Judge Floro, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, March 31,
2006).
In Ladignon v. Garong (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1712,
August 20, 2008) respondent judges act of using
the official letterhead of his court and signing the
same using the word judge in his letter-complaint
to the First United Methodist Church in Michigan,
USA, was held to be violative of Canon 2 of the
Code of Judicial Ethics and Rule 2.03 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. In view of the foregoing, the Court
found respondent judge guilty of violation of
Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary [for committing a similar act] (Belen v.
Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139, August 6, 2010).
Respondent also admitted to the practice of rearing
fighting cocks for leisure, which though not illegal,
must be limited given his position as judge. He must
impose upon himself personal restrictions that might
be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen
(Anonymous v. Achas, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1801,
February 27, 2013).
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 shall conduct
themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.
A judge is subject to scrutiny for both public and
private conduct. Such scrutiny is an unavoidable
consequence of occupying a judicial position.
Judges are thus held liable for acts that, if
committed by any other person would not
necessarily be deemed improper.
Act Consistent with the Dignity of the Judicial
Office
The New Code of Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary provides that, as a subject of constant
public scrutiny, judges must accept personal
restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by
the ordinary citizen. In particular, judges must
conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with
the dignity of the judicial office. Occupying as he
does an exalted position in the administration of
justice, a judge must pay a high price for the honor
bestowed upon him. Thus, the judge must comport
himself at all times in such a manner that his
conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most
searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him
as the epitome of integrity and justice. There was no
evidence that respondent judge engaged in
scandalous conduct that would warrant the
imposition of disciplinary action against him. His
admission of homosexuality does not make him
automatically immoral. However, respondent judge
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 76
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
is guilty of simple misconduct in causing the
registration of title in his sons name with the
intention of defrauding a possible judgment-obligee.
Simple misconduct is a transgression of some
established rule of action, an unlawful behavior, or
negligence committed by a public officer (Campos v.
Campos, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, February 8, 2012).
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.
Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed
intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in
the future may be asked from the judge which he
may find it hard to resist. If a judge is seen eating
and drinking in public places with a lawyer who has
cases pending in his or her sala, public suspicion
may be aroused, thus tending to erode the trust of
litigants in the impartiality of the judge (Padilla v.
Zantua, Jr., G.R. No. 110990, October 23, 1994).
A judge is commanded at all times to be mindful of
the high calling of a dispassionate and impartial
arbiter expected at all times to be a cerebral man
who deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of
purely personal preferences which he shares with
his fellow mortals (Office of the Court Administrator
v. Paderanga, A. M No. RTJ- 01-1660, August 25,
2005).
A judge should not be too thin-skinned in his
relationship with lawyers. He should not hold a
lawyer in contempt for an expression of concern
about the impartiality of the judge, even if the judge
may have been insulted (Felongco v. Dictado, A.M.
No. RTJ-86-50 June 28, 1993).
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.
(See discussion under Canon 3 Sec. 5).
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 the legal profession.
It was inappropriate for a judge to have entertained
a litigant in his house particularly when the case is
still pending before his sala (J. King and Sons v.
77 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Hontanosas, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1802, September 21,
2004).
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.
Judges, in the exercise of their civil liberties, should
be circumspect and ever mindful of their continuing
commitment to uphold the judiciary and its values
places upon them certain implied restraints to their
freedom.
A judge was admonished for the appearance of
engaging in partisan politics when he participated in
a political rally sponsored by one party, even though
he only explained the mechanics of block voting to
the audience (Macias v. Arula, A.M. No. 1895-CFI,
July 20, 1982).
Although a judge may attribute his intemperate
language to human frailty, his noble position in the
bench nevertheless demands from him courteous
speech in and out of the court. Judges are
demanded to be always temperate, patient and
courteous both in conduct and in language (Fidel v.
Caraos, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1224, December 12,
2002).
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 simply directs judges to keep
themselves, well-informed of their financial standing,
they can better make adjustments on their family
expense if things are not going well. The rule is to
situate the judges from the temptations of
corruption. By knowing the financial standing of the
family, judges will not be taken by surprise when
financial crisis emerges (PINEDA, Judicial, supra at
162).
This section of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
should be read in conjunction with Section 7 of RA
No. 6713, which prohibits certain personal fiduciary
and financial conflicts.
A judge shall refrain from financial and business
dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court's
`
impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of
judicial activities, or increase involvement with
lawyers or persons likely to come before the court.
When a judge, along with two other people, acted as
real estate agents for the sale of a parcel of land for
which he agreed to give a commission of P100,000
to each of his companions, and after the transaction
was completed only gave the complainants P25,000
each, the high Court held that the judge violated the
prior Code of Judicial Conduct (Catbagan v. Barte,
A.M. No. MTJ 02 1452, April 06, 2005).
A judge clearly violates the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees when
he fails to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and
Net Worth (SALN) without justifiable reasons. 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 (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Usman, A.M. No. SCC-08-12,
October 19, 2011).
Section 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.
Two Prohibitions Covered By This Section:
1. A judge may NOT use judicial office to advance
private interests.
Respondent judge took advantage of his position
as a Makati RTC judge, by filing in the Makati
court a collection case in which he and his wife
were the complainants. The Court ruled that
although a stipulation in the contract gave the
judge, as creditor, choice of venue, the judge had
nonetheless fallen short of what is expected of
him as a judicial officer. This act of the judge
would lead the public, and in particular the
judges adversary, to suspect that the judge
would use the choice of venue as a means to
exert influence in favor of himself (Javier v. De
Guzman, A.M. No. RTJ-89-380, December 19,
1990).
2. A judge may NOT give the impression that he or
she can be influenced to use the judicial office to
advance the private interests of others.
Ticket-Fixing
A misconduct in which judges impermissibly take
advantage of their position to avoid punishment
for traffic violations.
Section 9 - Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall NOT be
used or disclosed for any other purpose NOT
related to their judicial duties (Revised by SC
Resolution, June 6, 2006).
The prohibition will discourage, if not stop judges,
from making business speculations in some
business ventures, the secrets of which he learned
by reason of his position as a judge.
Criminal Liability for the Violation of this Rule
1.Revelation of secrets by an officer (REVISED
PENAL CODE, Art. 229);
2.Revelation of the secrets of a private individual
punishable (REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 230); or
3.Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on
account of his official position to unauthorized
persons or releasing such information in advance
of its authorized release due (RA 3019, Sec. 3[k]).
Violation of the rule may also lead to revelation of
secrets by an officer or to revelation of the secrets
of a private individual punishable by Articles 229
and 230 of the Revised Penal Code respectively.
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
This sections tolerance of judicially-related activities
is limited by Section 12, Article VIII of the
Constitution, which prohibits judges from being
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial
or administrative functions.
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 78
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
A judge sought the Courts permission to accept
membership in the Ilocos Norte Provincial
Committee on Justice, an administrative body. The
Court denied his request, ruling that allowing the
judges membership would be a violation of the
constitutional provision on the discharge by
members of the judiciary of administrative functions
in quasi-judicial or administrative agencies (In Re:
Designation of Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano, A.M. No.
88-7-1861-RTC, October 5, 1988).
Under Subsection (c), a judge may not engage in
private business without the written permission of
the Supreme Court.
Prohibition to the Practice of Law
Section 11 - Judges shall not practice law whilst
the holder of judicial office.
The prohibition is based on the inherent
incompatibility of the rights, duties, and functions of
an attorney and those of a judge.
The position of judge is a fulltime duty and
responsibility. There is no time for judges to pursue
another profession, occupation or calling which
equally requires attention, mindfulness and vigilance
(PINEDA, Judicial, supra at 168).
Section 35, Rule 138 of Rules of Court prohibits
judges, officials or employees of superior courts xxx
from engaging in private practice as members of the
bar and in giving professional advice to clients.
Private practice by a judge is more than isolated
court appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary action, a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding oneself to
the public as lawyer (Ziga v. Arejola, MTJ-00-1318,
November 23, 2004).
Reason: To avoid the evil of possible use of the
power and influence of his office to affect the
outcome of the litigation where he is retained as
counsel. Compelling reasons of public policy lie
behind this prohibition, and judges are expected to
conduct themselves in such a manner as to
preclude any suspicion that they are representing
the interests of party litigant (Dia-Anonuevo v.
Bercacio, A.M. No. 177-MTJ, November 27, 1975).
Since the law does not allow a judge to practice his
profession, he should not do so indirectly by being a
silent partner in a law firm or by securing legal
business for a friend or former associate in the
79 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
active practice of law and receiving a share in the
attorneys fees for his efforts (AGPALO, Ethics,
supra at 644)
A judge who merely acted as a witness to a
document and who explained to the party waiving
his right of redemption over the mortgaged
properties the consequences thereof does not
engage himself in the practice of law (De Castro v.
Capulong, A.M. No. 2739- CFI, November 2, 1982).
An attorney who accepts an appointment to the
Bench must accept that his right to practice law as a
member of the Philippine Bar is thereby suspended,
and it shall continue to be so suspended for the
entire period of his incumbency as a judge. The term
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases
in court or to participation in court proceedings, but
extends to the preparation of pleadings or papers in
anticipation of a litigation, the giving of legal advice
to clients or persons needing the same, the
preparation of legal instruments and contracts by
which legal rights are secured, and the preparation
of papers incident to actions and special
proceedings (Decena v. Malanyaon, A.M. No. RTJ-
10-2217, April 8, 2013).
Municipal Judge as Notary Public
While municipal judges can administer oaths or
execute certificates on matters related to their
official functions, they cannot notarize private
documents. Judges assigned to municipalities and
circuits may act as notaries provided all notarial fees
charged be to the governments account and a
certification attesting to the lack of lawyers or notary
in the municipality or circuit be made (SC Circular 1-
90).
Retaining Judges Name in a Firm Name
Apart from being prohibited from engaging in the
private practice of law, a judge should not permit a
law firm, of which he was formerly an active
member, to continue to carry his name in the firm
name because that might create the impression that
the firm possesses an improper influence with the
judge (A.B.A. Op. 143, May 9, 1935).
Section 12 - Judges may form or join
associations of judges or participate in other
organizations representing the interests of
judges.
This rule recognizes the difference between
membership in associations of judges and
membership in associations of other legal
professionals. While attendance at lavish events
`
hosted by lawyers might create an appearance of
impropriety, participation in judges-only
organizations does not.
Prohibition against Accepting Gifts, Bequests, or
Loan
General Rule:
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.
Gifts
Refers to a thing or a right to dispose of gratuitously,
or any act or liberality, in favor or another who
accepts it, and shall include a simulated sale or
ostensibly onerous disposition thereof.
Loan
Covers both simple loan and commodatum as well
as guarantees, financing arrangements or
accommodation intended to ensure its approval.
Favor
It can refer to benefit or advantage received from a
person not related to the judge that is not included in
the concept of a gift or loan.
It is serious misconduct for a judge to receive money
from a litigant in the form of loans which he never
intended to pay back. Even if the judge intends to
pay, it is an act of impropriety to take a loan from
party-litigant (PINEDA, Judicial, supra at 178).
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, to be done or omitted to be done in
connection with their duties or functions.
These two sections should be read in relation to
Section 7(d) of RA No. 6713 which prohibits public
officials from soliciting or accepting gifts from any
person in the course of their official duties.
Exception:
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 be reasonably perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of official
duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of
partiality.
Bribery: Direct or Indirect
Acceptance of gifts given by reason of the office of
the judge is indirect bribery (REVISED PENAL
CODE, Art. 211) and when he agrees to perform an
act constituting a crime in connection with the
performance of his official duties in consideration of
any offer, promise, gift or present received by such
officer, he is guilty of direct bribery (Art. 210).
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Under RA 3019, the judge is liable criminally for
directly or indirectly receiving gifts, presents or other
pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for
another under conditions provided in Section 2 (b)
and (c) of the law.
Exception: Unsolicited gifts or presents of small
value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of
gratitude or friendship according to local custom or
usage (RA 3019, Sec. 14).
Void Donations under the Civil Code
Donations given to a judge or to his wife,
descendants or ascendants by reason of his office
are void (CIVIL CODE, Art. 739). Ownership does
not pass to the donee. Money or property donated is
recoverable by the donor, his heirs or creditors.
Loans Prohibited under the Constitution
No loan, guarantee or other form of financial
accommodation for any business purpose may be
granted directly or indirectly by any government-
owned or controlled bank or financial institution to
xxx members of the Supreme Court xxx during their
tenure (CONST. Art. XI, Sec. 16).
A judge violates this rule when he accepts the free
use, for a year, of a car, and his availment for free of
battery recharging services of the shop of a litigant
who has a pending case before him (Capuno v.
Jaramillo, A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, July 20, 1994).
Taking or Receiving Loans from Litigants
It is a serious misconduct for a judge to receive
money from a litigant in the form of loans which he
never intended to pay back. Even if the judge
intends to pay, it is an act of impropriety to take a
loan from a party-litigant. The judge could not be
wholly free from bias in deciding a case where his
lender is a party. A judge should always strive to be
free from suspicion and all forms of improprieties.
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 80
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
C ANON 5: E QUALITY
ENSURING EQUALITY OF TREATMENT TO ALL
BEFORE THE COURTS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
DUE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE.
This is a new Canon not found in the two previous
Philippine Codes of Judicial Conduct.
As the guardians of justice, courts must adhere to
the principle of equality. People expect the courts to
be unaffected by differences in social status, degree
of education, and even physical abilities.
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.
They should be mindful of the various international
instruments and treaties ratified by the Philippines,
which affirm the equality of all human beings and
establish a norm of non-discrimination without
distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
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.
A judge shall show no signs of bias or prejudice
toward any person on irrelevant grounds while in the
performance of his duties. He must constantly
exercise restraint that he must not talk or act where
his judgment may be predicted. No one should be
able to read his face as to what side he will tilt the
balance of justice (PINEDA, Judicial, supra at 189).
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
As arbiters of the law, judges should be
conscientious, studious, courteous, patient and
punctual in the discharge of their judicial duties,
recognizing that time of litigants, witnesses and
counsel is of value.
81 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Judges should act with decorum toward jurors,
parties, court staff and spectators alike.
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.
Judges should organize their courts to ensure the
prompt and convenient dispatch of business and
should not tolerate misconduct by clerks, sheriffs
and other assistants who are sometimes prone to
expect favors or special treatment due to their
professional relationship with the judge (CANONS
OF JUDICIAL ETHICS, Canon 8; 1989 Code,
Canon 3, Rule 3.09).
All personnel involved in the dispensation of justice
should conduct themselves with a high degree of
responsibility (Mataga v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-
1488, October 13, 2004).
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.
Judges should conduct proceedings in court with
dignity and in a manner that reflects the importance
and seriousness of proceedings. They should
maintain order and proper decorum in the court
(1989 CODE, Canon 3, Rule 3.03).
Judges have the duty to prevent lawyers from
abusing witnesses with unfair treatment.
C ANON 6: C OMPETENCE
AND D ILIGENCE
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE ARE PRE-
REQUISITES TO THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF
JUDICIAL OFFICE.
The Constitution prescribes that a member of the
judiciary must be a person of proven competence
(CONST. Art. VII, Sec. 7(3)).
`
Diligence
Is the quality of person characterized by his earnest
willingness and capability to promptly do or undo
what is required by the nature of the obligation or
duty in accordance with existing rules.
Judges must be conscientious, studious and
thorough, observing utmost diligence in the
performance of their judicial functions. They have to
exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural rules. Moreover, they must
require court personnel to observe at all times high
standards of public service and fidelity (Fabella v.
Lee, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1518, January 15, 2004).
While a judge may not be held liable for gross
ignorance of the law for every erroneous order that
he renders, it is also axiomatic that when the legal
principle involved is sufficiently basic, lack of
conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of
the law. Indeed, even though a judge may not
always be subjected to disciplinary action for every
erroneous order or decision he renders, that relative
immunity is not a license to be negligent or abusive
and arbitrary in performing his adjudicatory
prerogatives. It does not mean that a judge need
not observe propriety, discreetness and due care in
the performance of his official functions. This is
because if judges wantonly misuse the powers
vested on them by the law, there will not only be
confusion in the administration of justice but also
oppressive disregard of the basic requirements of
due process (Dipatuan v. Mangotara, A.M. No. RTJ-
09-2190, April 23, 2010).
Section 1 - The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
The primary duty of judges is to hear and decide
cases brought to them for trial and adjudication
Judges cannot malinger or refrain from their duty to
decide complicated or controversial cases. Unless,
there are clear and valid grounds for their
disqualification or inhibition, they must not recuse
from such cases (PINEDA, Judicial, supra at 212).
A judge must perform his judicial duties in a case
where he is not disqualified and, may not divest
himself of such case if he is not so disqualified.
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 courts
operations.
Management skill is an important skill for the
magistrate (Re: Suspension of Clerk of Court
Jocobo, A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC, August 12,
1998).
Failure to keep records or handle funds involves a
violation of this section.
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 the training and other facilities
which should be made available, under judicial
control, to judges.
Maintenance of Professional Competence
Service in the judiciary means a continuous study
and research on the law from beginning to end.
Judges are regarded as persons learned in the law.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one has special
application to judges (1989 CODE, Canon 3, Rule
3.01).
The court has not been remised in reminding judges
to exert diligent efforts in keeping abreast with
developments in jurisprudence. Needless to state,
the process of learning the law and the legal system
is a never-ending endeavor, hence, judges should
always be vigilant in their quest for knowledge so
they could discharge their duties and responsibilities
with zeal and fervor (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Mendoza, A.M No. 00-1281-MTJ,
September 14, 2000).
Judges are not, however, expected to be infallible;
not every error or irregularity committed by judges in
the performance of official duties is subject to
administrative sanction. In the absence of bad faith,
fraud, dishonesty, or deliberate intent to do injustice,
incorrect rulings do not constitute misconduct and
may not give rise to a charge of gross ignorance of
the law (Cruz v. Iturralde, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1775,
April 30, 2003).
Though good faith and absence of malice or
corruption are sufficient defenses, such does not
apply where the issues are so simple and the
applicable legal principles evident and basic as to be
beyond possible margin of error (Corpus v.
Ochotoresa, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1861, July 30, 2004).
Respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the
law for issuing a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 82
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
in favor of petitioner in SP Case No. M-6373, since a
TPO cannot be issued in favor of a man against his
wife under R.A. No. 9262, the AntiViolence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Indeed, as a
family court judge, Judge Arcaya-Chua is expected
to know the correct implementation of R.A. No. 9262
(Francisco P. Ocampo v. Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-
Chua, A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ, April 23,
2010).
Section 4 - Judges shall keep themselves
informed about relevant developments of
international law, including international
conventions and other instruments establishing
human rights norms.
Norms of international law become the concern of
judges because they form part of legal standards by
which their competence and diligence required by
this Code are to be measured.
Section 5 - Judges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness
The essence of judicial functions is that justice shall
be impartially administered without unnecessary
delay.
Reason of the Rule on Mandatory Compliance
with Prescribed Periods
The honor and integrity of the judiciary is measured
not only by the fairness and correctness of the
decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with
which disputes are resolved. Thus, judges must
perform their official duties with utmost diligence if
public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved.
There is no excuse for mediocrity in the
performance of judicial functions. The position of
judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of
the law and the Constitution in the discharge of
official duties (Edao v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-06-
2007, December 6, 2010).
A judge may be subject to an administrative fine for
inefficiency, neglect, and unreasonable delay in
elevating the records of a civil case to the Court of
Appeals.
A delay of three (3) years in the transmission of
court records to the appellate court, where a period
of 30 days is required, is inexcusable (Pataleon v.
Gudez, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525, January 25, 2000).
83 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts
must be done are indispensable to prevent needless
delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of
cases. Thus, the 90-day period is mandatory.
Judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch.
Any delay, no matter how short, in the disposition of
cases undermines the peoples faith and confidence
in the judiciary. It also deprives the parties of their
right to the speedy disposition of their cases.
Failure to decide a case within the reglementary
period is not excusable and constitutes gross
inefficiency warranting the imposition of
administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge.
(Re: Cases submitted for decision before Hon.
Teresito A. Andoy, A.M. No. 09-9-163-MTC, May 6,
2010).
If for some valid reason a judge cannot decide a
case within the period, he must request the
Supreme Court for an extension of time to resolve it
(Report on the Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the
MTC, Br. 40, Quezon City, A.M. No. 98-2-22-MeTC,
331 SCRA 627, May 11, 2000).
Judges must resolve matters pending before them
promptly and expeditiously within the constitutionally
mandated three-month period. If they cannot comply
with the same, they should ask for an extension
from the Supreme Court upon meritorious grounds.
The rule is that the reglementary period for deciding
cases should be observed by all judges, unless they
have been granted additional time. Judges must
dispose of the courts business promptly. Delay in
the disposition of cases erodes the faith and
confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its
standards, and brings it to disrepute. Hence, judges
are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their
failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and
warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions
on them. Although there are no promulgated rules
on the conduct of judicial audit, the absence of such
rules should not serve as license to recommend the
imposition of penalties to retired judges who, during
their incumbency, were never given a chance to
explain the circumstances behind the results of the
judicial audit. Judicial audit reports and the
memoranda which follow them should state not only
recommended penalties and plans of action for the
violations of audited courts, but also give
commendations when they are due. To avoid similar
scenarios, manual judicial audits may be conducted
at least six months before a judges compulsory
retirement (Office of the Court Administrator v.
Mantua, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2291, February 8, 2012).
`
However, under the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, 1st level courts are only allowed 30 days
following receipt of last affidavit and petition paper,
or expiration of the period to file, within which to
render judgment. She didnt render judgment for 20
months and counting (Garado v. Gutierrez-Torres,
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1778, June 5, 2013).
But while the rules require a judge of the cases as
speedily as possible, he must not sacrifice for
expediencys sake the fundamental requirements of
due process and not forget that he must
conscientiously endeavor each time to seek the
truth, to know and aptly apply the law, and dispose
of the controversy objectively and impartially, all to
the end that justice is done to every party (Youth v.
De Guzman, A.M No. RTJ -96-1365, February 18,
1999).
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
The requirement that judges must decide cases
within specified period is intended to prevent delay
in the administration of justice. Delay in the
disposition of cases impairs the faith and confidence
of the people specially the low-income group, in the
judiciary and lowers its standards and brings it into
disrepute (PINEDA, Judicial, supra at 245).
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.
A magistrate must exhibit that hallmark judicial
temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint
which are indispensable qualities of every judge
(Rodriguez v. Bonifacio, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1510,
November 6, 2000).
Respondent judge was guilty of committing acts
unbecoming of a judge and abuse of authority when
he shouted invectives and threw a chair at the
complainant, resulting in wrist and other injuries to
the complainant. Thus, he was suspended from
office (Briones v. Ante, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-02-1411,
April 11, 2002).
A judge should conduct proceedings in court with
fitting dignity and decorum and in such a manner as
to reflect the importance and seriousness of the
inquiry to ascertain the truth (AGPALO, Ethics,
supra at 616).
A judge should be courteous to counsel, especially
to those who are young and inexperience and also
to all those others appearing or concerned in the
administration of justice in the court (CANONS OF
JUDICIAL ETHICS, Canon 10)
Respondent judge was found guilty of serious
misconduct and inefficiency by reason of habitual
tardiness. He was fined and suspended for judicial
indolence (Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-
00-1245, January 19, 2000).
Still, the Court is not convinced that Judge Barillo
should be held liable for gross misconduct and gross
ignorance of the law absent any evidence showing
outright bad faith. It may truly be said that the
various faux pas committed by Judge Barillo are
examples of poor judgment and negligence.
However, equally important to note is the fact that
there is no allegation, much less a genuine showing,
that Judge Barillo was impelled by bad faith,
dishonesty, hatred or some other corrupt motive in
committing the acts for which he was charged.
Neither were allegations of corruption nor
imputations of pecuniary benefit ever asserted
against him (Barillo, v. Lantion, et al./Aragones v.
Barillo, G.R. No. 159117/A.M. No. MTJ-10-1752,
March 10, 2010).
Section 7 - Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.
A judge manifested inefficiency in the disposition of
election protest by issuing orders indefinitely
postponing the hearing of election protest.
Regulation of the Extrajudicial Activities
A judge should regulate his extra-judicial activities
so as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial
duties.
Vocational/Civic/Charitable Activities
A judge may engage in the following activities
provided that they do not interfere with the
performance of judicial duties or detract from the
dignity of the court:
1. Write, lecture, teach and speak on non-legal
subjects;
2. Engage in the arts, sports and other special
recreational activities;
3. Participate in civic and charitable activities; and
4. Serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal
advisor of a non-profit or non-political,
educational, religious, charitable, and fraternal or
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 84
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
civic organization (RULES Of COURT, Code of
Judicial Ethics, Rule 5.01).
Financial Activities
A judge shall refrain from financial and business
dealings:
1. That tend to reflect adversely on the courts
impartiality;
2. That interfere with the proper performance of
judicial activities; or
3. That increase involvement with lawyers or
persons likely to come before the court (RULES
Of COURT, Code of Judicial Ethics, Rule 5.02)
A judge should so manage investments and other
financial interests as to minimize the number of
cases giving grounds for disqualification.
Subject to the provisions of the preceding rule, a
judge may hold and manage investments but should
not serve as an officer, director, manager, advisor, or
employee of any business except as director of a
family business of the judge (RULES OF COURT,
Code of Judicial Ethics, Rule 5.03).
Fiduciary Activities
Prohibition to Serve as Executor, Administrator,
etc.
General Rule: The judge shall not serve as (a)
executor, (b) administrator, (c) trustee, (d) guardian,
(e) fiduciary.
Exception: When the estate, trust, ward or person
for whom he will act as executor, administrator,
trustee, guardian or fiduciary is a member of the
immediate family which is limited to the spouse
and relatives within the second degree of
consanguinity provided that the judges services
as fiduciary shall not interfere with the performance
of his judicial functions (RULES OF COURT, Code
of Judicial Ethics, Rule 5.06).
As a family fiduciary, a judge shall not:
1. Serve in proceedings that might come before the
court of said judge; or
2. Act as such contrary to Rules 5.02 to 5.05.
Note: The relationship mentioned is by
consanguinity and not by affinity.
Prohibition to Be Appointed In Quasi-Judicial
And Administrative Agencies
85 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
A judge shall not accept appointment or designation
to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions (Rule 5.09)
The prohibition is based on Section 12, Art. VIII of
the Constitution, which provides: The members of
the Supreme Court and of other courts established
by law shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions.
Reason: The appointment to such positions will
likely interfere with the performance of the judicial
functions of a judge.
Prohibition to Engage in Political Activities
A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on
political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political
partisanship, a judge shall not make political
speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly
endorse candidates for political office or participate
in other partisan political activities (Rule 5.10).
L IABILITIES OF A J UDGE
General Rule: A judge is not liable administratively,
civilly, or criminally when he acts within his legal
powers and jurisdiction, even though such acts are
erroneous.
Reason: To free the judge from apprehension of
personal consequences to himself and to preserve
the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Exception: Where an error is gross or patent,
deliberate and malicious, or is incurred with evident
bad faith; or when there is fraud, dishonesty or
corruption. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or
corruption, acts of judge in his judicial capacity is not
subject to disciplinary action even though such acts
are erroneous, so long as he acts in good faith. In
such a case, the remedy of aggrieved party is not to
file an administrative complaint against the judge but
to elevate the error to a higher court for review and
correction.
When the law or procedure is so elementary, such
as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to know,
or to act as if one does not know the same,
constitutes gross ignorance of the law, even without
the complainant having to prove malice or bad faith
(Pancho v. Aguirre, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-09-2196,
April 7, 2010).
`
A. Civil Liability
1. Article 27
Refusal or neglect without just cause by a public
servant to perform his official duty.
2. Article 32
Directly or indirectly obstructing, defeating,
violating or in any manner impeding or impairing
civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
3. Damages in General
The responsibility for damages is not, however,
demandable of judges except when his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal
Code or other penal statute (AGPALO, Ethics,
supra at 659).
General Rule: A public officer, like a judge, is not
liable for damages which a person may suffer
arising from the just performance of his official
duties and within the scope of his assigned tasks
(Orocio v. Commission on Audit, G.R no. 75959,
August 31, 1992).
Exception: He may be held liable only where it is
shown that he acted willfully and maliciously and
with the express purpose of inflicting injury upon
the plaintiff (Zulueta v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 8252,
January 31, 1958).
Restrictions
1. Art. 1491(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting
attorneys, clerks of court of superior and inferior
courts and other officers and employees
connected with the administration of justice
cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial action, either in person or through the
mediation of another the property and rights in
litigation or levied upon an execution before the
court within whose jurisdiction or territory they
exercise their respective functions.
Note: This prohibition includes the act of
acquiring by assignment and shall apply to
lawyers, with respect to the property and rights
which may be the object of any litigation in which
they may take part by virtue of their profession.
2. Art. 739 - Donations made to a judge, his wife,
descendants and ascendants by reason of his
office are void.
Under the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act
B. Criminal Liability
1. Misfeasance
a. Article 204
Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment.
b. Manifestly Unjust Judgment
One which is so patently against the law,
public order, public policy and good morals
that a person of ordinary discernment can
easily sense its invalidity and injustice.
In order that a judge may be held liable for
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it
must be shown beyond doubt that the
judgment is unjust as it is contrary to law or is
not supported by evidence and the same was
made with conscious and deliberate intent to
do an injustice (In Re: Climaco, A.C. No. 134-
J, January 21, 1974).
If the decision rendered by the judge is still on
appeal, the judge cannot be disqualified on
the ground of knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment (Abad v. Bleza A.M. No. R-227-RTJ,
October 1986).
2. Art. 205
Judgment Rendered through Negligence
Committed by reason of inexcusable negligence
or ignorance. It must be shown that although the
judge has acted without malice, he failed to
observe in the performance of his duty, that
diligence, prudence and care which the law is
entitled to exact in the rendering of any public
service (AGPALO, Ethics, supra at 665).
3. Art. 206
Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Interlocutory
Order
Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they
imply a manifest injustice, which cannot be
explained by reasonable interpretation (In Re:
Climaco, A.C. No. 134-J, January 21, 1974).
4. Maliciously Delaying the Administration of
Justice
The act must be committed maliciously with
deliberate intent to prejudice a party in a case.
C. Administrative Liability
Administrative Charges are classified as serious,
less serious, or light (A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, October
1, 2001).
Serious Charges
Those which require sanctions from a fine of not
exceeding P40,000 to dismissal from service
(AGPALO, Ethics, supra at 688).
Serious Charges include:
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 86
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
 `
1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Law (RA No. 3019);
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the
Code of Judicial Conduct;
General Rule: Marrying for the second time while
the first marriage is still subsisting constitutes
gross misconduct.
Exception: A Muslim judge who married the
second time, while his first marriage exists, is not
guilty of immorality because by Muslim standard
getting a second wife is not immoral (Sulo Islamic
Association Of Masjid Lambayong v. Malik , A.M.
No. MTJ-92-691, September 10, 1993).
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;
To warrant a finding of ignorance of the law, as
ground for disciplinary action, the error must be
so gross and patent as to produce an inference of
ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly
rendered an unjust decision. The error must be
so grave and so fundamental to a point as to
warrant a condemnation of the judge as patently
ignorant or negligent (Bengzon v. Adaoag, A.M.
No. MTJ-95-1045, November 28, 1995).
10. Partisan political activities; and
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
Less Serious Charges
Those which warrant the imposition of sanctions
from service of not more than 3 months (AGPALO,
Ethics, supra at 709).
Less Serious Charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or
in transmitting the records of a case;
2. Frequently and unjustified absences without
leave or habitual tardiness;
3. Unauthorized practice of law;
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and
circulars;
5. Receiving additional or double compensation
unless specifically authorized by law;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service;
and
7. Simple misconduct (AGPALO, Ethics, supra at
687).
87 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Note: The commission of two or more administrative
offenses alleged in the same administrative
complaint may aggravate the offense and render the
same serious, which will warrant dismissal of the
judge from the service (AGPALO, Ethics, supra at
708 citing Reyes v. Faderan, A.M. No. 581, June 14,
1990).
Light Charges
Those which entail sanctions from admonition with
waning to a fine of not exceeding P10,000.00.
However, repeated violations of light offenses may
render a judge liable for less serious or even serious
charges (AGPALO, Ethics, supra at 718).
Light Charges include:
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
(AGPALO, Ethics, supra at 688).
In order for an administrative offense to prosper, the
subject order or actuation of the judge in the
performance of his official duties must not only be
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, more
importantly, must be attended by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty or corruption (Nio v. Pizarro, A.M. No.
CA-08-45-J, February 22, 2010).
Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies,
as well as the entry of judgment in the
corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-
requisites for the taking of other measures against
the judge concerned, whether civil, administrative, or
criminal in nature. It is only after the available
judicial remedies against the rulings or acts
performed in the exercise of their judicial power
have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals
have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry
into their criminal, civil or administrative liability may
be said to have opened or closed (Flores v.
Abesamis, A.M. No. SC-96-1, July 10, 1997).
Justices and Judges may NOT be investigated
under the grievance procedure in Rule 139-B, Sec.
1 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Complaints against justices and judges are filed with
the Supreme Court, which has exclusive
administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof pursuant to Section 6, Art. VIII,
Constitution. The Court en banc has the power to
discipline all judges of lower courts including justices
of the Court of Appeals (CONST. Art. VIII, Sec. 6).
`
While it is the duty of the Court to investigate and
determine the truth behind every matter in
complaints against judges and other court
personnel, it is also their duty to see to it that they
are protected and exonerated from baseless
administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from
its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its
magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them
from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather
than promote the orderly administration of justice
(Ocenar v. Mabutin, A.M. No. MTJ 05-1582,
February 28, 2005).
Note: In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction
over an administrative case, the complaint must be
filed during the incumbency of the respondent. Once
jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost by reason of
respondents cessation from office (Re: Missing
Exhibits and Court Properties, A.M. No. 10-2-41-
RTC, February 27, 2013).
D ISCIPLINE OF M EMBERS
OF THE B ENCH
GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES
1. Serious Misconduct
Implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere
error of judgment. 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.
The Judge was found guilty of gross misconduct,
abandonment of office and was dismissed due to
his frequent leave of absence totaling to 3 years
which were not approved and his explanations
were inexcusable. He has caused great
disservice to many litigants and has denied them
speedy justice (In Re: Leaves of Absence without
Approval of Judge Eric Calderon, A.M. No. 98-8-
105 MTC, January 26, 1999).
Plagiarism presupposes intent and a deliberate,
conscious effort to steal anothers work and pass
it off as ones own. On occasions judges and
justices have mistakenly cited the wrong sources,
failed to use quotation marks, inadvertently
omitted necessary information from footnotes or
endnotes. But these do not, in every case,
amount to misconduct. Only errors that are
tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice are
subject of disciplinary action (In the matter of the
charge of plagiarism, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC,
October 12, 2010).
SC Associate Justice Del Castillo was accused of
plagiarism in connection with the decision he
wrote for the Court in the case entitled Vinuya v.
Romulo (G.R. No. 162230). The Court dismissed
the charges against Justice Del Castillo.
Plagiarism, a term not defined by statute, has a
popular or common definition. To plagiarize, says
Webster, is to steal and pass off as ones own the
ideas or words of another. Stealing implies
malicious taking. The presentation of another
persons ideas as ones own must be deliberate
or premeditateda taking with ill intent. While the
academic publishing model is based on the
originality of the writers thesis, the judicial
system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis,
which encourages courts to cite historical legal
data, precedents, and related studies in their
decisions. The judge is not expected to produce
original scholarship in every respect. Citing
published articles or work of a number of legal
writers, the Court ruled that a judge writing to
resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is
exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if
ideas, words or phrases from a law review
article, novel thoughts published in a legal
periodical or language from a partys brief are
used without giving attribution. As a result,
judges adjudicating cases are NOT subject to a
claim of legal plagiarism (In matter of the charges
of plagiarism, etc. against Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-
SC. February 8, 2011).
2. Inefficiency
Implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance and
carelessness. A judge would be inexcusably
negligent if he failed to observe in the
performance of his duties that diligence,
prudence and circumspection which the law
requires in the rendition of any public service.
The failure of a judge to decide even a single
case within the 90-day period was considered
gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of
fine equivalent to his one month salary (In Re:
Judge Danilo Tenerife, A.M. No. 94-5-42- MTC,
March 20, 1996).
Respondent judge failed to conduct a pre-trial
conference contrary to elementary rules of
procedure which he should have known all too
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 88
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
`
well considering his long years of service in the
bench. Such ignorance of a basic rule in court
procedure, as failing to conduct pre-trial, sadly
amounts to gross ignorance and warrants a
corresponding penalty. As to the allegations of
poor judgment and gross ignorance of basic legal
principles in granting the motions for execution
pending appeal for flimsy and unsupported
reasons, the particular reasons relied upon by
respondent judge for issuing the writ of execution
pending appeal are so unreliably weak and
feeble that it highlights the lack of knowledge of
respondent judge with regard to the proper
appreciation of arguments. Dire financial
conditions of the plaintiffs supported by mere
self-serving statements as good reason for the
issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal
does not stand on solid footing. It does not even
stand on its own (National Power Corporation, v.
Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060. July 27, 2011).
Respondent judge is liable for gross inefficiency
for failing to adopt a system of record
management in her court. Furthermore,
respondent judge resolved a motion for
reconsideration which was filed way beyond the
required period. There was also a delay in
sending the records of the appealed case to the
CA. Respondent judge violated the Code of
Judicial Conduct which provides that A judge
shall dispose of the courts business promptly
and decide cases within the required
periods (Bareng v. Daguna, A.M. No. RTJ-10-
2246, June 1, 2011).
Effect of Resignation/Retirement of a Judge
When There Is A Pending Administrative Case
Against Him
The retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from
the service does not preclude the finding of any
administrative liability to which he should still be
answerable. The withdrawal or recantation of the
complaint by the administrative charges does not
necessarily result in the dismissal of the case (Atty.
Molina v. Paz, A.M. No. RTJ 01- 1638, December
8, 2003).
The acceptance by the President of the resignation
does not necessarily render the case moot or
deprive the SC of the authority to investigate the
charges. The court retains its jurisdiction either to
pronounce the respondent official innocent of the
charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule
will be fraught with injustice and pregnant with
89 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
dreadful and dangerous implications (Pesole v.
Rodriguez, A.M. No. 755-MJ, January 31, 1978).
Institution of Disciplinary Charges
As a matter of practice, the Supreme Court has
assigned complaints against Municipal or
Metropolitan Trial Judges to an Executive Judge of a
Regional Trial Court and complaints against judges
of Regional Trial Courts to a Justice of the Court of
Appeals, while a complaint against a member of the
Court of Appeals would probably be assigned to a
member of the Supreme Court for investigation,
report and recommendation. Retired SC Justices
are now tasked for this purpose.
Judges and justices, being lawyers, may also be
disbarred, if found guilty of certain crimes and /or of
other causes for disbarment under the Rules of
Court.
Note: Justices of the Supreme Court however
may not be disbarred unless and until they shall
have been first impeached in accordance with the
Constitution.
Manner of Filing Disciplinary Charges:
1. Motu proprio by the Supreme Court;
2. Verified complaint with affidavits of persons
having personal knowledge of the facts alleged or
substantiating documents; or
3. Anonymous complaint with public record of
indubitable integrity.
How to Institute Disciplinary Charges (RULES
OF COURT, Rule 140):
1. Complaint, in writing and duly sworn to is filed
with the Supreme Court (Sec. 1). If found
meritorious, a copy thereof shall be served on the
respondent and he shall be required to comment
within 10 days of service (Sec.2).
2. Upon filing of respondents comment or
expiration of the period upon filing comment, the
SC either refers the matter to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report,
and recommendation, or assigns a Justice of the
Court of Appeals (if respondent is an RTC judge)
or a judge of the RTC (if respondent is a judge of
an inferior court) to investigate and hear the
charges (Sec. 3).
3. After hearings, the investigating justice or judge
submits a report of finding of fact, conclusions of
law and recommendations to the Supreme Court
(Sec.5).
4. The Supreme Court takes action as the facts and
the law may warrant (Sec.6).
`

5. Proceedings shall be PRIVATE and

CONFIDENTIAL but a copy of the decision or
resolution of the Court shall be attached to the
record of the judge in the Office of the Court
Administrator (Sec. 12).

Quantum of Evidence Required

The ground for the removal of a judicial officer
should be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Such is the rule where the charge on which the
removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful
neglect, corruption, or incompetence. The general
rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in
criminal trials apply (De Guzman v. Dy, A.M. No.
RTJ-03-1755, July 3, 2003).

For liability to attach, the assailed order, decision or

actuation of the judge in the performance of official
duties must not only found to be erroneous but,
most importantly, it must be established that he was
moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some
other like motive. Similarly, a judge will be held
administratively liable for rendering an unjust
judgment one which is contrary to law or
jurisprudence or is not supported by evidence
when he acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or some
other similar motive. In other words, in order to hold
a judge liable for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, it must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt that the judgment was made with a conscious
and deliberate intent to do an injustice (De Guzman
v. Dy, A.M. No. RTJ-1755, July 3, 2003).

Impeachment Proceedings Against Justices Of

The Supreme Court

Impeachment proceedings against justices of the

Supreme Court is sui generis in nature and
governed by the rules created by the impeachment
court. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on
impeachment (CONST. Art. XI, Sec. 3(8)). Only SC
justices are subject to impeachment.

Reinstatement of Judge Previously Disciplined

No indication that he is inspired by corrupt motives
or reprehensive purpose in the performance of his
functions.

Factors to be Considered:
1.Unsullied name & service of record prior to
dismissal;
2.Commitment to avoid situation that spur suspicion
of arbitrary conditions;
3.Complainant mellowed down in pushing from his
removal; and
4.Length of time separated from service.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 90

2014 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS