Canon 1

Independence
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental
guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

Section 1

Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement,
pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any
reason.

Section 2

In performing judicial duties, Judges shall be independent from judicial

colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make
independently.

Section 3

Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation
or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.

Section 4

Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to
advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey
the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

Section 5
Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and
influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must
also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.

Section 6

Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general and in relation to

the particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to adjudicate.

Section 7

Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial
duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational
independence of the judiciary.

Section 8

Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to
reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is fundamental to the
maintenance of judicial independence.

CASES
1. A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ] - PRESIDING JUDGES
TOMAS EDUARDO B. MADDELA III AND MERINNISA O. LIGAYA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
IN CITIES, BRANCHES 5 AND 1, RESPECTIVELY, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES,
COMPLAINANTS, v. PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES, RESPONDENT.[A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 [formerly
A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC]] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, v.
PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 73,
OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES, RESPONDENT.
Source:https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=90127:65494&catid=1651&Itemid=566

2.A.M. No RTJ-19-2567 (Formerly A.M. No. 01-12-641-RTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT

ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, v. HON. DANILO P. GALVEZ (RET.), REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 24, ILOILO CITY, RESPONDENT.
Source:https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=90135:65509&catid=1651&Itemid=566

3. A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018 - RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION
DATED MAY 11, 2018 IN G.R. NO. 237428 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED
BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA V. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO)
 Source:https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=88507:64178&catid=1637:july-2018-
philippine-supreme-court-decisions&Itemid=566

4. A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388               June 10, 2014

[Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3554-RTJ] EMILIE SISON-BARIAS, Complainant,
vs. JUDGE MARINO E. RUBIA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCH 24,
BIÑAN, LAGUNA and EILEEN A. PECAÑA, DATA ENCODER II, RTC, OFFICE OF
THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, Respondents.

Source:https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/am_rtj-14-
2388_2014.html

5. A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139               August 9, 2010 MICHAEL B. BELEN, Complainant,

vs.JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, Regional Trial Court, Calamba City,
Branch 36, Respondent.

Source;https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/am_rtj-
08-2139_2010.html

6. A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362               February 22, 2011

(formerly A.M. No. 01-2-49-RTC) JUDGE NAPOLEON E. INOTURAN, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 133, Makati City, vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785

(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1945-MTJ)SANCHO E. GUINANAO, Complainant,
vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid,
San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, Respondent.

Source;https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_mtj-
01-1362_2011.html

7. A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA             October 15, 2008 RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING

JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 [Antonio
Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]

Source;https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/am_08-8-
11-ca_2008.html

8. A.M. No. RTJ-09-2189               January 18, 2011

(Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2837-RTJ) VICTORIANO SY, Complainant,
vs. Judge OSCAR E. DINOPOL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Koronadal
City, Respondent.

Source;https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/am_rtj-
09-2189_2011.html