CANON 3: IMPARTIALITY

AQUINO || DEIPARINE || DIAZ || GARCIA || PILAR || PRACUELLES || TIO

PALE – 3D
AY 2017 – 2018
 INTRODUCTION

• What is impartiality?
• unbiased, disinterested. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition)
• Being impartial means that a judge applies the law to
everyone in the same way, not favoring one side or the other.
(www.justiceatstake.org)
 INTRODUCTION

• Impartiality of a judge is necessary and essential to the proper

discharge of his/her office.
• Applies not only to the decision of a controversy itself, but also to
the process by which a decision of a controversy is made.
 COLD NEUTRALITY OF AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE

• BALIEZA vs. JUDGE ASTORGA, A.M. No. 202-MJ, April 30, 1976
• Violation of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court
SECTION 1.
JUDGES SHALL PERFORM THEIR
JUDICIAL DUTIES WITHOUT FAVOR,
BIAS OR PREJUDICE.
• It is well known that “judges should not only be impartial, but
also appear impartial.”
• Due process would be meaningless if the decision was
rendered by a biased judge.
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 must be like Caesar’s wife – above suspicion
and beyond reproach (Barias v. Rubia)
• A Judge is a Visible Representation of Law and Justice
 Instances when a Judge’s conduct
appears partial:
• When a judge suggests to a party what evidence to present to prove its
case (Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings)
• When a judge broadcasts to his court staff and the PAO lawyer that he is
“PRO-accused” (OCA v. Floro)
• When a judge cites a person in contempt which smacks of retaliation
(Sison v. Caoibes)
• When a judge rides in the defendant’s car (Cabreana v. Avelino)
• When a judge facilitates settlement, but it was not done in open court
(Barias v. Rubia)
• When a judge uses abusive and insulting words towards complainants
(Jorda v. Bitas)
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
• Duty to Sit
• It is imperative that judges ensure that they would not
unnecessarily be disqualified from a case.
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 PUBLIC OR
OTHERWISE THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE FAIR TRIAL OF
ANY PERSON OR ISSUE.
• “Think before you speak”
• A judge’s language, must be guarded and measure
• Avoid hasty marks, impulsive comments, loose statements,
gratuitous utterances
• Risk of being misquoted, but also danger in compromising the right
of the litigants
• FECUNDO vs. BERJAMEN, G.R. No. 88105, December 18, 1989
SECTION5.
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

• (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
• The rule on compulsory disqualification and voluntary inhibition of judges is
provided in Section 1 Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. While the second paragraph
does not expressly enumerate the specific ground for inhibition and leaves it to the
sound judicial discretion of the judge, such should be based on just or valid reasons.

• Section 1. Disqualification of judges. — No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any

case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has been presided in any
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting
in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
• The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of
conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge. It is a
subjective test, the result of which, the reviewing tribunal will
not disturb in the absence of any manifest finding of
arbitrariness and whimsicality.
• The decision on whether or not judges should inhibit
themselves must be based on their rational and logical
assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the cases
brought before them
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 THE LAWYERS,
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE JUDGE’S PARTICIPATION, ALL AGREE
IN WRITING THAT THE REASON FOR INHIBITION IS IMMATERIAL
OR UNSUBSTANTIAL, THE JUDGE MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE
PROCEEDING. THE AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY ALL OARTIES AND
LAWYERS, SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN THE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDING.
• The judge does not expressly states his withdrawal from the case
but merely states reason or reasons for being unqualified.
• Reasons mentioned under Sec. 5.
• The parties to the case decides whether or not the reason is
meritorious.
 OBSERVANCE OF SUB JUDICE RULE

• SUB JUDICE – “under judgment”

• Regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the
court and matters are considered to be sub judice once legal proceedings
become active