Group 6 – Canon 3: Impartiality

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not
only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
The code of Judicial Conduct ordains that a judge should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence. Furthermore, a judge should so behave at all
times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In
every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable
law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.
First Case: A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388, June 10, 2014
Emilie Sison-Barias (complainant) vs. Judge Marino E. Rubia, Regional Trial Court Branch
24, Biñan, Laguna and Eileen A. Pecaña, Data Encoder II, RTC, Office of the Clerk of Court,
Biñan, Laguna (respondents)
Synopsis:
Emilie Sison-Barias has three cases concerning the estate of her late husband
pending before the sala of Rubia. She revealed that she had a dinner meeting with the
respondents in a restaurant in The Fort, Bonifacio Global City in Taguig on March 3, 2010
where they have discussed her pending cases. During the meeting, Rubia allegedly asked
her questions not related to her pending cases, including her supposed involvement with
another man, her being connected with a leading airline in the country and the hospital where
she brought her husband when he suffered cardiac arrest. This disclosure surprised
complainant, as she was under the impression that opposing counsel and respondent Judge
Rubia had no business discussing matters that were not relevant to their pending cases.
These details, according to complainant, were never discussed in the pleadings or in the
course of the trial. Thus, she inferred that respondent Judge Rubia had been talking to the
opposing counsel regarding these matters outside of the court proceedings. The impression
of complainant was that respondent Judge Rubia was actively taking a position in favor of
Atty. Zarate.
Barias filed the complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on Nov.
11, 2010 where she accused Rubia of conduct unbecoming of a judge, partiality, gross
ignorance of the law and incompetence, and Pecaña of gross misconduct.
Respondent Judge Rubia’s actions belittled the integrity required of judges in all their
dealings inside and outside the courts. For these actions, respondent Judge Rubia now lost
the requisite integrity, impartiality, and propriety fundamental to his office. He cannot be
allowed to remain a member of the judiciary.
A litigant in a case is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
Judges are not only required to be impartial, but also to appear to be so, for appearance is
an essential manifestation of reality. Hence, not only must a judge render a just decision, he
is also duty bound to render it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness
and its integrity. Respondent's conduct in the instant case inevitably invites doubts about
respondent's probity and integrity.
Second Case: A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366, February 4, 2015 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3740-
RTJ] Jill M. Tormis (complainant) vs. Judge Meinrado P. Paredes (respondent)

SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could come before
them, make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of
such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make
any comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

The subjudice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing
the administration of justice.21 The rationale for the rule was spelled out in Nestle
Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez,22 where it was stated that it is a traditional conviction of
civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of issues of fact and
law should be immune from every extraneous influence; thatfacts should be decided
upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be
uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.23 Notably, when Judge Paredes
discussed the marriage scams involving Judge Tormis in 2010, the investigation relative
to the said case had not yet been concluded. In fact, the decision on the case was
promulgated by the Court only on April 2, 2013. 24 In 2010, he still could not make
comments on the administrative case to prevent any undue influence in its resolution.
Commenting on the marriage scams, where Judge Tormis was one of the judges
involved, was in contravention of the subjudicerule. Justice Diy was, therefore, correct in
finding that Judge Paredes violated Section 4, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct.

THIRD CASE: A.M. No. RTJ-14-2383 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 05-2301-RTJ), Aug
17, 2015 Dr. Corazon d. Paderanga, Dulce P. Guibelondo, Patria P. Diaz, Carmencita
P. Orseno, and Dr. Amor P. Galon vs. Honorable Rustico D. Paderanga
SEC. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in
which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a
reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such
proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where (a) The judge has actual
bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceedings; (b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a
material witness in the matter in controversy; (c) The judge, or a member of his or her
family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy; (d) The
judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; (e) The judge’s
ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;; (f) The judge is related by
consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or to counsel
within the fourth civil degree; or (g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has
a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject
matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings;

Facts: Petitioners filed a formal complaint against respondent Judge allegedly due to his
failure to settle disputes and even invite litigation between his brothers and sisters.
Petitioners further alleged that respondent Judge deprived one of his sisters of the use
of a co-owned property they inherited from their parents. And threatened his sister that
he will have her imprison by the fiscal regarding her pending estafa case. Respondent
Judge further issues a warrant of arrest against his sister but inhibited after the issuance
of the warrant. Issue: Whether or not the alleged acts of the respondent Judge were
unbecoming of a judge and against the new code of judicial conduct. Ratio: other
imputations against the respondent were baseless, or were not subject to administrative
sanction except when he appropriated a property which he co-owned and when he
issued a warrant of arrest against his sister. Jude Paderanga clearly violated Canon 3,
Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

FOURTH CASE: A.M. No. RTJ-11-2290 November 18, 2014 [Formerly OCA IPI
No. 08-2954-RTJ] MARILOU T. RIVERA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JAIME C.
BLANCAFLOR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA,
Respondent.

SEC 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.

SEC. 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.

Facts: Rivera had been assisting litigants to obtain judicial bonds. Shiela De Mata, her
daughter who was also a bondsman, helped her secure a bail bond for Ricardo
Catuday. The bail amount was reduced from 200,000 to 120,000 as approved by
Prosecutor Rodrigo. Thereafter, De Mata brought it to RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna for the
approval of Judge Blancaflor. The latter, however, refused the same giving reasons
such as that he's not going to grant the motion to reduce the bail for it was a drug
related case since he despises such; taht he was inaccessible as not being usually in
the court in the afternoon. De Mata had also asked for the help of other personnel, such
as the judge's driver, but to no avail. Hence, she returned the unapproved motion to
Rivera.

Rivera then went back to the RTC. At that time, Judge Blancaflor was out on a seminar
and instead, Judge Ongkeko who is the Vice-Executive Judge of RTC, Sta. Cruz,
Laguna, approved the motion. However, Judge Blancaflor refused to issue the
provisional release still. Rivera then alleges that she experienced the same treatment
from Judge Blancaflor when she sought previously for an approval of another bail bond
for one Roel Namplata. She furthered that judge harbored ill against her because of her
involvement in a previous proceeding in his sala, where a motion for inhibition against
said judge was filed reciting in detail the latter's misdeeds, gross misconduct, manifest
partiality and indiscretion in fraternizing with clients and litigants in connection with the
case.

Issue: Whether Judge Blancaflor showed serious misconduct in disapproving the

motion to reduce bail, resutling to inordinate delay in Catuday's and Namplata's cases
for no plausible reason

Ratio: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that there is serious misconduct and a
violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Section
1, Canon 3 of the code mandates that "judges shall perform their judicial duties
without favor, bias or prejudice," while Section 2, Canon 3 provides that they "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."

This was manifested when Judge Blancaflor refused the motion even after Prosecutor
Rodrigo had not opposed it, and also refusing the provisional release even after Judge
Ongkeko approved the said motion. It is also to note that the same thing happened
when Rivera processed Namplata’s bail bond. It appears from the records that
Judge Blancaflor’s antipathy towards Rivera arose from her involvement in the a
previous case when she testified against the judge in a motion for his inhibition
from the case. The motion must have caused considerable anxiety and concern
for the judge so that he even exerted efforts to neutralize Rivera.

Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed Judge Blancaflor, finding him guilty of gross
misconduct, violation of RA 3019, or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and
immorality, constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. His retirement
and other monetary fees were also forfeited, inasmuch as his disqualified from
reinstatement of appointment to any public office, government-owned or controlled
corporations.
 In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements in Legal Ethics

Canon 3

IMPARTIALITY

Professor:
Judge Evelyn G. Nery

Submitted by:
Gomez, Shanelle Aubrey Gianina A.
Lanzaderas, Joan A.
Quijano, Dana Paz B.
Roa, Terence John B.
Saavedra, Irlland Joseph M.
Sarominez, Gladys Bitsy B.

Legal Ethics – Block 1A

March 11, 2017