Extra-Judicial Activities of Judges & Justices in The Practice of Law

EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES
OF JUDGES & JUSTICES IN

THE PRACTICE OF LAW
ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts

WHAT IS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT?
It is the declaration of standards for ethical conduct of judges

...A Code of Judicial Conduct, no matter how wisely crafted, does not necessarily tra
nslate into ethical conduct on the part of magistrates and officers of the law. It is, how
ever, certain that without a Code of Conduct a judge will find it difficult to navigate et
hically through the mined waters of professional conduct and even in their everyday lif
e as a judge. Prudence is
certainly a necessary virtue, but the gray areas are many and questions they raised, d
ifficult.
~ Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera

Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy
Retired Justice
Supreme Court of the Philippines
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
IMPORTANCE OF THE CODE
To have a competent, independent and impartial judiciary

essential in order for the courts to fulfill their role in upholding
constitutionalism and the rule of law
Maintain Public Confidence in the judicial system and in the

moral authority and integrity of the judiciary;
Brief History
The First Code was proposed by the Philippine Bar Association in 1946, ad
opted only for the guidance of and observance by judges. It lacked pr
escribed sanctions for violations
The second code Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
, was promulgated on 5 September 1989, and took effect on October 20, 1989. Im
poses penalties for violations.
The third and current Code, New Code of Judicial Conduct was from the Round
Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 25-26 No
vember 2002
Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group
on Strengthening Judicial Integrity was deliberated upon and approved after
incorporating therein several amendments.
Brief History
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary took effect o
n the First Day of June 1, 2004 following its publication on
May 15, 2004
Supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
heretofore applied in the Philippines to the extent that the
provisions or concepts therein are embodied in this Code: Provided,
however, that in case of deficiency or absence of specific provisions in this
New Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct sh
all be applicable in a suppletory character.
CANON 4. PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the
activities of a judge.
CANON 4. PROPRIETY
WHAT IS PROPRIETY?
It means correct or appropriate behaviour,

conduct or demeanour.
CANON 4. PROPRIETY
SECTION 1. Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny.
SECTION 3. Personal relations with individual members of the legal profession
SECTION 4. Determination of a case in which any member of their family
SECTION 5. Receiving clients in his residence by a member of the legal profession
SECTION 6. freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly
SECTION 7. Personal fiduciary and financial interests
SECTION 8. prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests
SECTION 9. Disclosure of Confidential information acquired
SECTION 10. participation in legal academia and public discourse on legal matters
SECTION 11. Practice of Law while in judicial office
SECTION 12. Membership in associations
SECTION 13. Soliciting or accepting gifts
SECTION 14. Indirect soliciting or accepting gifts
SECTION 15. Receipt of token gift, award or benefit
APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE
1. RUFINO IGNACIO, complainant, vs. HON. MANUEL E. VALENZ

UELA, Presiding Judge (1982)
2. ANTONIO M. LORENZANA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MA. CECILIA I. AUSTRIA,

Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City, Respondent. (2014)
3. JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, Region

al Trial Court, Branch 28, Catbalogan City, Samar, Respondent. (2014)
Adm. Case No. 2252-CFI January 18, 1982
RUFINO IGNACIO, complainant, vs. HON. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, Presiding Judge,
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXIX, Pasay City, respondent.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Facts:
Respondent Manuel Valenzuela, judge of the Court of First Instance at Branch XXIX in Pasay City,
stands charged of serious misconduct by Rufino Ignacio, a litigant in respondent's sala. Capsulated,
the charge is that the respondent took an undue personal interest in a case by resolving favorably
a motion to quash a temporary restraining order despite the fact that he was on vacation.
It all started when Rufino Ignacio, among other persons, filed an action for damages in the Court of
First Instance of Rizal. The case also prayed for a restraining order to maintain the status quo
pending the hearing on the merits. The Executive Judge (not the respondent) issued a restraining
order and set the case for hearing. Two days later, the defendants in the case filed a motion to qua
sh the restraining order which was duly opposed by the plaintiffs. In the meantime, the case was
raffled to court presided by the respondent who was on vacation from May 1 to 31, 1979, as
shown in his certificate of service - New Judicial Form No. 86.
On May 8, 1979, the respondent heard the motion to quash the restraining order in his chambers
wearing only a polo jacket and on the next day he granted the motion. It should be noted that o
n both days the respondent was on leave as stated in his certificate of service.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Facts: (contd)
Rufino Ignacio and his co-plaintiffs questioned the legality of the respondent's act quashing the
restraining order in the Court of Appeals. According to CA, in affirming the respondents order:
There is no showing, however, that the respondent judge had a replacement who had taken over
the performance of his functions. Even assuming that the respondent judge officially continued to act
on the case despite his replacement, he cannot simply be considered to be totally without proper
authority when he issued the questioned order. Thus, in an analogous case decided by the Supreme
Court, it was held that, in even assuming the erroneous designation of a judge to act as Justice of the
Peace whereby he took cognizance of a case, it cannot be denied that he was and have acted, at
least, as a de facto judge, and his erroneous designation did not in any way affect the jurisdiction of
the court he presided.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
ISSUE: Whether the Judge committed impropriety in its order granting the motion to quash.
HELD: Yes. The Judge committed impropriety in its order granting the motion to quash.
RATIO: One thing, however, is legality-, another is propriety. A judge's performance is to be measured
not only by its conformity to the law but to propriety as well. He must avoid all appearance of
partiality or interest. Such quality of detachment and disinterestedness must be, nourished in fact and
in appearance.
In the case at bar, the holding of the hearing in Civil Case No. 7159-P in chambers, with the
conformity of the parties, is not unlawfully (See Garcia v. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 [1973]) And since
there were no other persons except the wife of one of the parties and the counsel and the court
personnel present, the informal attire of the respondent could be excused. Neither was his order issue
d the next day after the hearing illegal, having been issued in the exercise of jurisdiction, as the Court
of Appeals ruled in the action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Nonetheless, because he held
a hearing in Civil Case No. 7159-P while he was on vacation, while cancelling the scheduled hearings
of other cases, the respondent Judge opened himself to suspicion that he was personally interested
in the case before him.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
RATIO: (contd)
As the Supreme Court held in Tan v. Gallardo, 73 SCRA 306, 315 (1976) 'judges should not only be
impartial but should also appear impartial . . . [and] while judges should possess proficiency in law in
order that they can competently 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.
Recommendation (adopted by the Supreme Court)
The impropriety committed by respondent Judge is not as serious as that found to have been commit
ted in Fernandez v. Presbitero, 79 SCRA 60, where a fine equal to two months' pay was imposed.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
HELD: (contd)
As the Supreme Court held in Tan v. Gallardo, 73 SCRA 306, 315 (1976) 'judges should not only be
impartial but should also appear impartial . . . [and] while judges should possess proficiency in law
in order that they can competently 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.
Recommendation (adopted by the Supreme Court)
The impropriety committed by respondent Judge is not as serious as that found to have been commit
ted in Fernandez v. Presbitero, 79 SCRA 60, where a fine equal to two months' pay was imposed.
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2834-RTJ) April 2, 2014
ANTONIO M. LORENZANA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MA. CECILIA I. AUSTRIA, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 2, Batangas City, Respondent.
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
The records show that the administrative complaints arose from the special proceeding case "In the
Matter of the Petition to have Steel Corporation of the Philippines Placed under Corporate Rehabilitation
with Prayer for the Approval of the Proposed Rehabilitation Plan," docketed as SP. Proc. No. 06-7993,
where the respondent was the presiding judge. The complainant was the Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer of Steel Corporation of the Philippines (SCP), a company then under
rehabilitation proceedings.
The complainant likewise filed a supplemental complaint3 dated April 14, 2008 where he alleged that the
respondent committed an act of impropriety when she displayed her photographs in a social
networking website called "Friendster" and posted her personal details as an RTC Judge, allegedly
for the purpose of finding a compatible partner. She also posed with her upper body barely covered
by a shawl, allegedly suggesting that nothing was worn underneath except probably a brassiere.
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its 1st Indorsement4 dated March 18, 2008, referred the
complaints to the respondent for comment.
Respondents Comment:
In her comment8 on the supplemental complaint, the respondent submitted that the photos she posted
in the social networking website "Friendster" could hardly be considered vulgar or lewd. She added
that an "off-shouldered" attire is an acceptable social outfit under contemporary standards and is not
forbidden. She further stated that there is no prohibition against attractive ladies being judges; she is
proud of her photo for having been aesthetically made. Lastly, she submitted that the ruling of the
Court in the case of Impao v. Judge Makilala9 should not be applied to her case since the facts are
different.
BRION, J.:
FACTS: (Contd)
PETITIONERS REPLY:
On July 4, 2008, the complainant filed a reply, insisting that the respondents acts of posting
"seductive" pictures and maintaining a "Friendster" account constituted acts of impropriety, in
violation of Rules 2.01,11 2.0212 and 2.03,13 Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
On the respondents Friendster account, she believes that her act of maintaining a personal social
networking account (displaying photos of herself and disclosing personal details as a magistrate
in the account) even during these changing times when social networking websites seem to be the
trend constitutes an act of impropriety which cannot be legally justified by the publics
acceptance of this type of conduct. She explained that propriety and the appearance of propriety
are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge and that judges shall conduct
themselves in a manner consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
BRION, J.:
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent committed an act of impropriety when she displayed her photographs in a s
ocial networking website called "Friendster" and posted her personal details as an RTC Judge,
allegedly for the purpose of finding a compatible partner.
HELD:
YES. The respondent committed an act of impropriety when she displayed her photographs in a social
networking website called "Friendster" and posted her personal details as an RTC Judge, allegedly for
the purpose of finding a compatible partner.
RATIO:
On the Ground of Impropriety. We are not unaware of the increasing prevalence of social
networking sites in the Internet a new medium through which more and more Filipinos
communicate with each other.45 While judges are not prohibited from becoming members of and
from taking part in social networking activities, we remind them that they do not thereby shed
off their status as judges. They carry with them in cyberspace the same ethical responsibilities
and duties that every judge is expected to follow in his/her everyday activities. It is in this light
that we judge the respondent in the charge of impropriety when she posted her pictures in a manner
viewable by the public.
BRION, J.:
RATIO: (contd.)
Lest this rule be misunderstood, the New Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit a judge from
joining or maintaining an account in a social networking site such as Friendster. Section 6, Canon 4 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct recognizes that judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to
freedom of expression. This right "includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and
impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." 46 Joining a social networking
site is an exercise of ones freedom of expression. The respondent judges act of joining Friendster is,
therefore, per se not violative of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, however, also imposes a correlative
restriction on judges: in the exercise of their freedom of expression, they should always conduct them
selves in a manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the Judiciary.
BRION, J.:
RATIO: (Contd)
This rule reflects the general principle of propriety expected of judges in all of their activities,
whether it be in the course of their judicial office or in their personal lives. In particular, Sections 1
and 2 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit impropriety and even the appearance
of impropriety in all of their activities:
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
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.
BRION, J.:
HELD: (Contd)
Based on this provision, we hold that the respondent disregarded the propriety and appearance of
propriety required of her when she posted Friendster photos of herself wearing an
"off-shouldered" suggestive dress and made this available for public viewing.
To restate the rule: in communicating and socializing through social networks, judges must bear in
mind that what they communicate regardless of whether it is a personal matter or part of his or
her judicial duties creates and contributes to the peoples opinion not just of the judge but of
the entire Judiciary of which he or she is a part. This is especially true when the posts the judge
makes are viewable not only by his or her family and close friends, but by acquaintances and the
general public.
Thus, it may be acceptable for the respondent to show a picture of herself in the attire she wore
to her family and close friends, but when she made this picture available for public consumption,
she placed herself in a situation where she, and the status she holds as a judge, may be the
object of the publics criticism and ridicule. The nature of cyber communications, particularly its
speedy and wide-scale character, renders this rule necessary.
BRION, J.:
RATIO: (Contd)
We are not also unaware that the respondents act of posting her photos would seem harmless and
inoffensive had this act been done by an ordinary member of the public. As the visible personification
of law and justice, however, judges are held to higher standards of conduct and thus must
accordingly comport themselves.47
This exacting standard applies both to acts involving the judicial office and personal matters. The very
nature of their functions requires behavior under exacting standards of morality, decency and
propriety; both in the performance of their duties and their daily personal lives, they should be beyond
reproach.48 Judges necessarily accept this standard of conduct when they take their oath of office as
magistrates.
Judge Austria is likewise hereby ADMONISHED to refrain from further acts of IMPROPRIETY and to
refrain from CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A JUDGE, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2390 (Formerly OCA LP.I. No. 12-3923-RTJ) August 13, 2014
JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 28, Catbalogan City, Samar, Respondent.
The Case: Administrative complaint for bribery and corruption.
FACTS: Complainant is one of the plaintiffs and accused in Civil Case and Criminal Case, respectively,
then pending before Branch 28, presided by respondent. She claimed that relative to said cases,
respondent was paid 250,000.00 by their opponent, a certain Allan Tan, through Jaime Cui, Jr., as
evidenced by a receipt stating: "Received 250,000.00 (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos) from
Mr. Jaime Cui, Jr. as full payment in CC No. 6536 & 7681 to be given to Judge S.E. Usman" and signed
by Nilda C. Cinco, OIC-Branch Clerk of Court of the same court.
Complainant further accused respondent of knowingly issuing an unjust interlocutory order when he
cited her in contempt. She, however, pointed out that in A.M. No. RTJ-11-2266,2 the Court found
respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Complainant now prays that respondent be meted the
penalty of dismissal from service for bribery and corruption.
FACTS: (Contd)
Respondent argued that since complainant's allegations and issues had already been raised and
threshed out in A.M. No. RTJ-11-2266, following the principle of res judicata, the instant complaint
should not be given due course. Respondent countered that the allegations of bribery and corruption
are baseless and unfounded. He denied that he received any money from Jaime Cui, Jr. or from any
one relative to said subject cases. He claimed that complainant merely concocted and falsified the
acknowledgment receipt wherein she made it appear that Nilda C. Cinco received the money and
issued the receipt in behalf of respondent.
After investigation and evaluation, in her Report,7 the Investigating Justice recommended that the
instant complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. The Investigating Justice opined that the
complaint-affidavit and the "receipt" given by complainant do not constitute as substantial
evidence to prove that respondent judge committed bribery or corruption.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Usman is liable for impropriety acts.
HELD: NO. Judge Usman is not liable for impropriety acts.
RATIO:
The Rules of Court requires that if a judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any
graver offense, as in this case, the evidence against him should be competent and derived from
direct knowledge. The Judiciary to which respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its
members could be faulted, competent evidence should be presented, since the charge is penal in
character. Thus, the ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond
reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the charge on which 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.
Respondent judge cannot be blamed for asserting that complainant merely fabricated the allegation of
bribery and corruption due to the latter's failure to present evidence in support thereof. This is likewise
not the first time that complainant raised an unsubstantiated accusation of bribery against respondent.
However, as in this Court's previous rulings, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, respondent
enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties as well as the presumption of
innocence.
RATIO: (Contd)
This Court will not hesitate to protect Judges or court personnel against any groundless accusation
that trifles with judicial processes when an administrative charge against them has no basis whatsoever
in fact or in law.
This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon all employees of the
judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt
rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.
THANK YOU!!!
ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts

Extra-Judicial Activities of Judges & Justices in The Practice of Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extra-Judicial Activities of Judges & Justices in The Practice of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES

OF JUDGES & JUSTICES IN

ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts

It is the declaration of standards for ethical conduct of judges

~ Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera

To have a competent, independent and impartial judiciary

Maintain Public Confidence in the judicial system and in the

It means correct or appropriate behaviour,

1. RUFINO IGNACIO, complainant, vs. HON. MANUEL E. VALENZ

2. ANTONIO M. LORENZANA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MA. CECILIA I. AUSTRIA,

3. JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, Region

Recommendation (adopted by the Supreme Court)

Recommendation (adopted by the Supreme Court)

The Case: Administrative complaint for bribery and corruption.

ISSUE: Whether Judge Usman is liable for impropriety acts.

HELD: NO. Judge Usman is not liable for impropriety acts.

ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts

You might also like