Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY A. DISCIPLINE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
This 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.
Q: What are the disabilities/restrictions under the Civil Code?
A:
1. Article 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.
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. (1996 Bar Question)
2. Article 739 – Donations made to a judge, his wife, descendants and ascendants by
reason of his office are void.
Q: What are the Criminal Liabilities under the RPC and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act?
A:
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.
Note: 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 13, 1986)
2. Article 205 – Judgment rendered through negligence – committed by reason of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Note: Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they imply a manifest injustice,
which cannot be explained by reasonable interpretation (In Re: Climaco).
3. Article 206 – Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order; and
4. Maliciously delaying the administration of justice.
Note: The act must be committed maliciously with deliberate intent to prejudice a party
in a case.
D. SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON ERRING MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
Q: What are the sanctions if the judge is found guilty of a serious charge?
A: Any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but
not exceeding six (6) months
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
Q: What are the sanctions if the respondent is found guilty of a less serious charge?
A:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor
more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Note: 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 1 month
salary. (In Re: Judge Danilo Tenerife, A.M. No. 94-5-42-MTC, Mar. 1996)
Q: What are the sanctions if the respondent is found guilty of a light charge?
A: Any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure
3. Reprimand
4. Admonition with warning
E. REINSTATEMENT OF A JUDGE PREVIOUSLY DISCIPLINED
Q: When is reinstatement proper?
A: Reinstatement is proper when there is no indication that the judge is inspired by
corrupt motives or reprehensive purpose in the performance of his functions.
Q: What are the factors to be considered in reinstatement?
A:
1. Unsullied name and 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
4. Length of time separated from service