Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Must Read Cases (Legal and Judicial Ethics)
Must Read Cases (Legal and Judicial Ethics)
Armi M. Flordeliza, et al. vs. Judge Julia A. Reyes, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1625, September 18,
2009
Those who don the judicial robe must observe judicial decorum which requires magistrate to be
at all times temperate in their language, refraining from inflammatory or excessive rhetoric or
from resorting to language of vilification. The respondents use of vulgar language has no place
in the court. The frequent nocturnal gimmicks also impair the respect due to her as a Judge.
Furthermore, borrowing money from her staff is not illegal per se but this is an unbecoming
conduct of a judge because she exerted moral ascendancy over her staff.
Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane vs. Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, June 30,
2008
An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. For a judge to
determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is
clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem. In the case, the judge questions the
capability and credibility of the complainant just because he was not a graduate from UP Law
School. The Court has reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish behavior
from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and
high officers of the court.
Pimentel vs. Salanga, G.R. No. L-27934, September 18, 1967
A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. But when suggestion is made
of record that he might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against a
litigant arising out of circumstances reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind, he
should conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the
people's faith in the courts of justice is not impaired.
Aleria, Jr. vs. Velez, G.R. No. 127400 November 16, 1998
The bias and prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an extra-judicial source and result
in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than the evidence presented.
Oktubre vs. Velasco, A.M. No. MTJ 02-1444, July 20, 2004
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. The Supreme Court held
that "his subsequent inhibition from the cases which he filed in his own court does not detract
from his culpability for he should have not taken cognizance of the cases in the first place the
evil that the rule on disqualification seeks to prevent is the denial of a party of his right to due
process.
DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR., A.M. No.
MTJ-95-1056. May 21, 2001
The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance
of impropriety on the part of a judge. The failure of respondent judge to inhibit himself in the